This is very good news:

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination under equality laws, judge rules
People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws

English nationalists can be protected from discrimination in the same way as followers of a religion or those who hold philosophical beliefs, a judge has ruled.

People with firm political views regarding the culture, identity and politics of England potentially qualify to sue under equality laws if they believe they have suffered as a result of their opinions.

However, publicly expressing anti-Muslim sentiments disqualifies them from protection because it infringes on the rights of others.

These conclusions were reached by employment judge Christiana Hyde at a London tribunal involving the political figure Steven Thomas, who was attempting to sue the NHS for discrimination.

Mr Thomas, who has campaigned for the English Democrat Party, claimed he was sacked as a consultant from Surrey and Borders NHS Trust in July 2018 after just three months due to his political views.

...

The 56-year-old from Kent claimed his nationalistic views are equivalent to a philosophical belief and should therefore be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010.

Judge Hyde concluded that Mr Thomas was entitled to claim for discrimination under the Equality Act as his nationalistic views could qualify as a philosophical belief, but his opposition to multiculturalism and Islamification undermined his claim.

To qualify as a protected characteristic, a philosophical belief must be: genuinely held; a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint; a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Judge Hyde ruled that while Mr Thomas had succeeded on the first four points, his anti-Islamic views meant he had failed on the fifth.

...

“He clearly had a very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English.

“(His) belief included views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered.

So, some thoughts ...

Potentially, the judge introduced two important caveats.  First, the relentless and pointless anti-Islam garbage one encounters so frequently among Britain First members, civic nationalists such as For Britain, and Tommy Robinson fans is disqualifying.  But criticising what has become known as Muslim grooming ... criticising the criminality of that part of the Muslim male population which has groomed, trafficked, and abused or prostituted for abuse underage girls ... cannot be so.  It really does require only a modicum of intelligence to stay the right side of the law.

The second caveat is that the law is indeed crafted to defend multiracialism and multiculturalism, as we all know.  But it does not state that the English people are in any part a non-white people.  On the contrary, government itself confirms the specificity of the English people in its ethnicity choices for the 2011 Census form for England and Wales:

White: Total Š English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British Š Irish Š Gypsy or Irish Traveller Š Other White Š Mixed/multiple ethnic group: Total Š White and Black Caribbean Š White and Black African Š White and Asian Š Other Mixed Š Asian/Asian British: Total Š Indian Š Pakistani Š Bangladeshi Š Chinese Š Other Asian Š Black/African/Caribbean/Black British: Total Š African Š Caribbean Š Other Black Š Other ethnic group: Total Š Arab Š Any other ethnic group

So the judge’s comments conceding Mr Thomas’s supposed “very static and somewhat simplistic view of what constituted all things English” cannot reasonably extend to the question of English ethnicity.  Her further remark that Mr Thomas’s “views about the way in which a society in which those of varied racial origins, religions and cultures should be ordered” likewise is at odds with the law’s support for Jews in Jewish organisations, say, to advocate for the import of more and more refugees and impose stricter and stricter hate speech laws.  The fact that the interests of a native people must differ in multiple ways from those of non-native peoples, and that will impact upon “the way in which a society ... should be ordered” cannot reasonably be held as grounds to exclude advocacy of the former from legal protection.

To expand on this point, there is a primary and universal principle at issue here, which is that all peoples grouped by kinship naturally self-identify, and naturally express self-interest and self-concern.  In fact, British law does not disqualify any ethnic or racial group from so doing.  It is silent on the matter, seeking only to defend all groups defined by their “protected characteristics”, one of which, importantly, is national origin.

Our defining characteristic is not solely that we possess the physical trait of white skin by way of our northern European descent.  Our identity as the native ethny of the land which bears our name is also our defining characteristic of origin.  It is a proving point of difference to every other group in our home, white and non-white, for it automatically orients our self-interest and self-concern as qualities of a people equipped by Nature with the right, unique to us here, of defence of life and land.  It cannot be otherwise.  British law, in protecting our national origin, cannot but protect that orientation or it is to void it of meaning.  Nowhere does British law void our native status of meaning.  The principle of non-discrimination itself cannot void the native status of its meaning, for that would be discriminatory and therefore fall foul of itself.

British law does not void our native ethnic self-interest and self-concern of its meaning.  Therefore, attacks on our nationalism as the expression of that meaning (ie, as defence of our people against non-national groups colonising our home) cannot be lawfully made or communicated.

Discrimination against our native status is possible only because of a quite unexamined and one-eyed presumption that our act of self-defence is illegitimate merely because it expresses in opposition to the other groups who have come into our home over the past seven decades.  Those groups, by their acts of colonisation, initiate the oppositional relationship.  No native people, ensconced in its own home, can be held uniquely responsibly for the oppositional character of the relationship between coloniser and colonised.  It is the party which is offended against.

We must establish if the existing protections under law, ie, those parts of legislation dating from the 2010 Equalities Act back to the 1986 Public Order Act which are relevant and have force, apply equally to all.  If so, we must recover our right to speak and act in our own group interest, free of untrue and hateful accusations, like any other group.  The fact that, as the natives here, our people’s ethnic interests run contrary to the interests of non-native groups and to government policy on race, immigration and population is completely immaterial, and cannot constitute a lawful basis for discrimination against advocacy of our ethnic interests.