THE case of Chris McEleny, the SNP councillor who has won the right to challenge the Ministry of Defence over alleged discrimination against him, has profound implications for the political, industrial and cultural life of the UK, and perhaps not all of it is for the public good.
McEleny, the SNP group leader on Inverclyde Council and a former candidate for the party’s deputy leadership, took the MoD to an employment tribunal after his security clearance was withdrawn in 2016 while he worked as an electrician at a munitions depot in Bishopton, Renfrewshire. He quit his job and said he would take the Ministry to an tribunal, alleging discrimination.
McEleny stated that he was questioned by officials from National Security Vetting – part of the MoD – on issues that apparently included his views on Trident, his mental health, Irish politics, independence and, ahem, Rangers FC.
So last week’s decision of Glasgow employment tribunal Judge Frances Eccles that McEleny can put forward his claim to a full tribunal is frankly historic.
The judge interpreted the infamously woolly wording of the Equality Act 2010 to mean that McEleny’s belief in independence was a “protected characteristic” under the Act.
It states: “A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.”
The “protected characteristic” in this case – others include sex, race and age – is McEleny’s belief in independence, belief being defined in the legislation as “any religious or philosophical belief.” Yes, it’s as open as that.
The judge was clear that McEleny held a philosophical belief in independence that went far beyond mere political party membership. So now the tribunal has to decide if the MoD discriminated against McEleny because of his philosophical beliefs.
It seems a slam dunk in McEleny’s favour, for the gaping hole in the MoD’s case is that McEleny had already been vetted and given security clearance, and that clearance was only withdrawn after he made his pitch for the SNP deputy leadership.
In other words, it was only when he became a higher-profile SNP member that they decided to investigate and suspend McEleny, withdrawing his security clearance. The case has huge implications for independence supporters, not least those in the armed forces, the police and prison service.
For if the tribunal rules in the MoD’s favour, that will give the British state the right to sack anyone whose support for independence is deemed a “security risk”.
Technically, and in strictly legal terms, it would also mean any employer could sack you if your support for independence became a “problem”. And should that decision, the setting of the bar, be left to the state and employers?
Much will depend on the tribunal’s interpretation of the “philosophical belief” claim by McEleny. The judge has said it is a protected characteristic but the tribunal may ask McEleny to prove it.
There is also the possibility that if the tribunal finds in McEleny’s favour then those who espouse a philosophical belief, as opposed to mere political persuasion, could claim discrimination if employers sack them because they are fascist, communist, socialist, naturist, libertarian or have any belief system that goes beyond mere politics.
Once again, Britannia waived the rules, but this time thanks to Judge Eccles, Chris McEleny will have the chance to right a wrong.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel