In this case, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) confirmed that a belief in English Nationalism which included anti-Islamic views, conflicts with the fundamental rights of others and was not a protected belief under the Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”).
The Claimant held “English Nationalist” views, described as being centred around the cultural unity of English people, being all people who choose to “adopt English identity and with it, allegiance to England”.
The Claimant personally extended this belief to the view that Islam is incompatible with this belief, and consequently believed in the banning of Islam or the forcible removal of Muslims from the United Kingdom. The Claimant claimed his dismissal (on the grounds of his belief) was unlawful discrimination The Employment Tribunal found that the Claimant’s beliefs were not protected under the EqA due to their extreme anti-Islamic nature. The Claimant subsequently appealed to the EAT.
On appeal, the Claimant asserted that his beliefs were protected, given it has been established that “views that may shock or offend” can be protected under the EqA. However, the EAT found that the Claimant’s beliefs went beyond this and amounted instead to “a generalised form of harassment targeting one particular religion”, and therefore were not characterizable as merely views that shock or offend. The Claimant sought to rely on Forstater v CGD Europe (covered in a previous Frontline, here), which clarified that only extreme beliefs akin to totalitarianism, or Nazism would fall outside of protection under the EqA. The EAT noted that the Claimant’s views that all Muslims should be deported shared features with Nazism.
The EAT therefore upheld the Employment Tribunal’s decision that the Claimant’s anti-Islamic views were not protected by the EqA. This case adds to the growing body of case law determining the boundaries of the protected characteristic of religion or belief.