A Glasgow civil servant who claimed his employer's diversity and inclusion policies amounted to an "attack on white people" has lost his tribunal fight.

Daniel Powell claimed there had been an “incursion” into the MoD by “idealogues pushing Far Left, Marxist, anti-democratic agendas”.

An employment tribunal heard he objected to certain aspects underpinning the policy including critical race theory, "which he views as an attack on white people".

The core idea is that race is a social construct and racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

Mr Powell said there was an attempt to manipulate him and other staff by the way in which lived experiences are presented as part of the diversity and inclusion program.

This is a reference to individuals describing their own experience of discrimination and the degree to which their perception of events is to be respected.

READ MORE: CalMac wins 'blacklisting' fight after man rejected for 60 jobs in 13 years 

His objections to his employer's equality policies were not restricted to the issue of race but also included sexual orientation and trans issues.

A complaint was made by Lt Colonel Simon Maggs about a comment posted by Mr Powell on an internal blog.

He wrote: "He refers to the Pride flag being flown over MoD buildings in terms of “being representative of having been conquered by an invading army”.

"There is also a reference to Trans Day of Remembrance cheapening the actual Day of Remembrance."

Further complaints were made about other comments made by the civil servant on the staff intranet including one where he suggested the death of a colleague's father after he contracted Covid-19 was due to the vaccine.

He suggested that posters about getting vaccination boosters which had been put up in MoD buildings were "reminiscent of Soviet-style propaganda" and said official figures around deaths had been fudged to support this.

He said “all the athletes keeling over with heart problems being vaccinated speaks for itself”.

READ MORE: Social worker 'treated like criminal' awarded £28k after racism ordeal 

He was later told to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting and was given a first written warning.

On June 13 last year, Mr Powell asked why two questions had been deleted from a staff question and answer session held online including one stating a lack of belief in gender identity theory and asserting that staff should be safe to "acknowledge there are two biological sexes."

He had not posed the question "but liked it" according to the tribunal papers.

He received a response half an hour later explaining that the question had been flagged by colleagues as showing a lack of respect for others and had been “rightly” removed.

Mr Powell replied to this almost immediately insisting that there was nothing disrespectful in the question and alleging that this amounted to censorship.

READ MORE: Ex-footballer loses 'inexplicable and unfounded' tribunal fight against Scottish club 

The question was later restored before the staff session took place, on June 16, but the civil servant claimed the fact they had been temporarily removed amounted to direct discrimination.

Three days later Stephen Lovegrove, permanent under-secretary for the MoD, issued a communication to all staff saying comments made about race and discrimination had been "disappointing" and had caused distress to colleagues.

It noted that most of these comments had been posted anonymously.

They included the assertion that white Britons needed to be recognised as "different within their own network", that any focus on diversity was at odds with fairness in general and that there is no implicit or explicit prejudice in the MoD.

Mr Lovegrove said the statements had no place in the MoD and anyone who made offensive or discriminatory comments would be subject to disciplinary action.

The Glasgow tribunal heard Powell, who works in a witness liaison role in the ministry's litigation team, had described the diversity and inclusion team as "radicals, subversives and insurgents".

His claim that there was no discrimination in the MoD was said to be "offensive" to those who had experienced it. 

He argued he had been treated less favourably because of his opinions including being ordered to attend a disciplinary hearing for comments made on internal blogs.

However, the tribunal found no evidence of either direct or indirect discrimination and the claim was rejected.

Andrew Gibson, the lawyer representing the MoD, said the claimant "simply had a skewed view and sees himself as a spokesperson for downtrodden white men."