English nationalism is not a protected belief

The case of Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust and anor [2024] EAT 141 required the EAT to consider whether a worker’s belief in English nationalism could constitute a protected belief. So far, so good, you would think – laudable and worthy – and so indeed the EAT found.

Sadly, the part of the belief that gave the EAT a serious headache was that the worker’s belief included a desire to forcibly remove Muslims from the United Kingdom.

The litmus test for whether a belief qualifies as a protected belief is enshrined in another EAT determination Grainger plc and ors v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360 where – without breaking sweat – the Tribunal found:

• The belief must be genuinely held.
• It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
• It must have a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

The final requirements (worthy of respect and compatible with human dignity) excluded beliefs that reject social pluralism or that demonise other people.

This must be taken as a nuanced view as the decision in Redfearn v United Kingdom [2012] ECHR 1878 allows that even views that offend, shock or disturb can qualify for protected status.  In this case however, it was held that the views were so extreme as to strike at the foundation of human rights and freedoms.

---

Authors

Victoria von Wachter

Call 1997

Related areas

Employment

---