Man Sacked by Acas After Being Accused of Racism for Opposing CRT Discovers Employment Tribunal Included Friend of Accuser

A man sacked by Acas after being accused of racism for opposing critical race theory has learned that his employment tribunal included a political associate of the activist colleague who accused him. The Telegraph has the story.

An employment tribunal stands accused of a conflict of interest after a racism row that has split the conciliation service Acas.

Mohammad Taj was one of two lay members of the tribunal which ruled that Acas (the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, set up to provide impartial advice on workplace relations) had not discriminated against Sean Corby, its former employee.

It has now emerged that Mr. Taj is a close political associate of one of the Acas staff whose initial complaints of racism against Mr. Corby eventually led him to appeal to the tribunal. Mr. Corby believes this was a conflict of interest.

Mr. Corby, a former senior conciliator at Acas, had told the tribunal he was harassed and discriminated against when his employer ordered him to remove posts on the contentious subject of critical race theory (CRT) that he had published on its internal bulletin.

Zita Holbourne and a number of her colleagues had accused Mr. Corby of racism after he posted on the Acas intranet outlining his opposition to CRT.

Mr. Corby, who has a black Jamaican wife and mixed heritage children, had written that he believed CRT – which argues that racism is embedded in society and entrenched in legal systems – divides victims of racism and oppression.

The civil servant said that he preferred to follow the exhortation of the Reverend Martin Luther King, the U.S. civil rights leader, to “judge a man by the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin”.

Mr. Corby approvingly quoted Howard Thurman, the civil rights leader who influenced Martin Luther King, and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the Nigerian writer who criticised cancel culture and said “young people [are] terrified to tweet anything”.

Acas disciplined Mr. Corby and ordered him to permanently remove what he maintained were “objectively inoffensive” statements from the workplace intranet. He was subsequently dismissed from the organisation for discussing his case in the media.

Ms. Holbourne and her colleagues had complained that Mr. Corby’s comments demonstrated “a deep-rooted hatred towards black and minority ethnic people who challenge racism, organise in black structures and safe spaces and mobilise against racism” and promoted “racist ideas”.

They added that they would not feel “safe to be in contact with him in person” and questioned his right to be employed by Acas.

Mr. Corby took the conciliation service to the tribunal, accusing Acas of discriminating against him by ordering him to remove eight of the posts from its Diversity and Inclusion Forum.

The panel, composed of Employment Judge Kirsty Ayre, Ms. B.R. Hodgkinson and Mr. Taj, ruled in September last year that Mr. Corby’s opposition to CRT was a protected philosophical belief under the Equality Act.

However, it concluded eight months later that Acas had not treated Mr. Corby unlawfully by demanding he remove his posts because it had “a duty of care” to take action where others had taken offence.

The tribunal found that this was lawful because Mr. Corby’s belief “genuinely upsets a group of employees”.

Worth reading in full.

Is anyone else alarmed that, according to this ruling, ‘protected’ beliefs may not be expressed whenever they “genuinely upset” someone? What kind of protection is that? A veto of the delicate and easily offended, more like.