English nationalist’s ‘anti-Islamic views’ not protected by equalities law, employment judge rules

An English nationalist has lost his appeal in a discrimination case, after a court found his views are not capable of protection under equalities laws. 

Steven Thomas had his role providing consultancy services to the Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust terminated in 2018.

The trust’s stated reason was that it had come to light that Thomas had an unspent conviction which he had failed to declare. Thomas believed the real reason elated to his philosophical belief, which he described as 'English nationalism'.

Thomas, who stood for the English Democrats party in several elections between 2004 and 2016, was represented in court by the party’s chairman, solicitor Robin Tilbrook.

Employment Judge Hyde, at London South Employment tribunal, dismissed Thomas’s claim for discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, on the basis that his belief in English nationalism, which includes anti-Islamic views, is not capable of being a protected belief.

The judge said Thomas’s beliefs in English nationalism itself - which was described as promoting the cultural unity of English people with a focus on national identity which does not depend upon ancestry or race - would likely have been protected at law. But Thomas also had anti-Islamic beliefs, which included a belief in the ‘coercive removal’ of Muslims from the United Kingdom, the judge said. The findings were partly based on Thomas's social media posts, one of which carried the hashtag ‘RemoveAllMuslims’.

Oscar Davies, the barrister representing Thomas, argued Thomas’s views had been ‘misunderstood or misinterpreted’. Thomas argued he had only used the hashtag on one occasion on June 4 2017 while he was in a ‘very emotional state’ after the London Bridge terror attack.

At the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Davies argued Thomas’s belief was ‘nowhere near the types of beliefs that should be restricted’ under Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which provides states with a mechanism for ensuring that individuals or groups who seek to employ the right to freedom of expression for ends clearly contrary to the values of the convention are not protected.

But Mr Justice Sheldon ruled that the claimant’s views of an English nationalism which believes that there is no place in British society for Muslims or Islam itself aligned with the types of belief which would fall foul of Article 17 of the convention. The judge said: ‘In my judgment, that shares features with an ideology such as Nazism which did not see there being any place within German society for Jews. In my judgment, these views are not capable of protection under the convention as they would offend Article 17.’

Commenting on the decision, Tilbrook, of Ongar, Essex firm Tilbrook’s Solicitors, said his client is planning an appeal.