Republican Party to rediscover Establishment Clause, international law

Erik Mesoy

Core Tester / Intern
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
10,959
Location
Oslo, Norway
After a UK court said climate change counted as a religion. :p

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.


By Stephen Adams and Louise Gray
Published: 3:11PM GMT 03 Nov 2009

Comments 108 | Comment on this article
Tim Nicholson: Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly. Photo: PA

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

Related Articles
Belief in man-made climate change as important as religious faith?

The decision regards Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger plc, who claims he was made redundant in July 2008 due to his "philosophical belief about climate change and the environment".

In March, employment judge David Heath gave Mr Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment.

But Grainger challenged the ruling on the grounds that green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature.

John Bowers QC, representing Grainger, had argued that adherence to climate change theory was "a scientific view rather than a philosophical one", because "philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof."

That argument has now been dismissed by Mr Justice Burton, who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan.

The decision allows the tribunal to go ahead, but more importantly sets a precedent for how environmental beliefs are regarded in English law.

Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, told a previous hearing that his views were so strong that he refused to travel by air and had renovated his house to be environmentally-friendly.

But his beliefs led to frequent clashes with Grainger's other managers, while he said that Rupert Dickinson, the firm's chief executive, treated his concerns with "contempt".

Once Mr Dickinson flew a member of staff to Ireland to deliver his Blackberry mobile phone after leaving it in London, Mr Nicholson claimed.

Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as "a victory for common sense" but stressed climate change was "not a new religion".

He said: "I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.

"This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.

"Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence."

His lawyer Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, argued that if the ruling had gone against them, "the end result would be that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination".

Grainger now plans to contest Mr Nicholson's claim of unfair dismissal at tribunal.

Dave Butler, its corporate affairs director, said: "This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

"We are looking forward to addressing the issues at tribunal level and demonstrating that there was no causal link between Mr Nicholson's beliefs and his redundancy."

The grounds for Mr Nicholson's case stem from changes to employment law made by Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, in the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003.

The regulations effectively broaden the protection to cover not just religious beliefs or those "similar" to religious beliefs, but philosophical beliefs as well.

And I suppose that would make this earlier thingy a court of eco-sharia religious terrorism or something. :p

Let the partisan hackery continue! Me, I'm going to sleep on it and then reread the article a few times, but I trust most of you will, like me, only read the headline and the first few sentences before making replies containing any or all of the following:
-snide comments
-baseless assertions
-spurious arguments
-discredited evidence
-equivocation
-hypocrisy
-strawmen
-invalid comparisons
-personal attacks
-ignorant statements
-And, of course, ideological bickering. (But no reasonable discussion!)
 
The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

This strikes me as being incredibly ridiculous. Nobody is entitled to these kinds of luxuries simply because of their belief system; if they want "low-carbon travel", then the company should pay only as much as a regular airfare ticket would cost and then have the employee fork over the remainder.

If I were British, I'd demand my next employer to buy me a Prius and an energy-efficient house... after all, if you don't, you're going against my deeply-held environmental convictions and opposing them is tantamount to rasism. :D

As for his dismissal, I don't think employee terminations should be subject to such scrutiny... if it is my business, then it's my business to manage it. :)
 
what the crap
 
These events are so wrong-headed and confusing that it's hard for me to properly mock them...
 
As for his dismissal, I don't think employee terminations should be subject to such scrutiny... if it is my business, then it's my business to manage it. :)
You've got to be willing to accommodate a bit. People go beserk if you expect them to work on December 25th, even if it falls on a weekday.
 
You've got to be willing to accommodate a bit. People go beserk if you expect them to work on December 25th, even if it falls on a weekday.

I work then...:confused:

So in the Uk, work has to make accommodations for your beliefs? Jews get friend out, HOW AWESOME!
 
The UK has a state religion.

And they get a four day weekend at easter (4.5 if you work in certain areas of the public sector)
 
What a joke.

So if they refuse to travel by air because of their enviromental beliefs, the company will have to reimburse them for their mileage plus extra days in a hotel?

F - that.
 
[If I were British, I'd demand my next employer to buy me a Prius and an energy-efficient house... after all, if you don't, you're going against my deeply-held environmental convictions and opposing them is tantamount to rasism. :D
Getting to and from work isn't the employers responsibility -> no prius and fancy house.

You probably could demand that you are allowed travel by train rather than plane if required maybe or that they minimise travel and provide web conferencing for example.
 
Getting to and from work isn't the employers responsibility -> no prius and fancy house.

You probably could demand that you are allowed travel by train rather than plane if required maybe or that they minimise travel and provide web conferencing for example.

Or get another job where you don't have to fly? What's next, the vegan cashier in a food mart refusing to sell meat???

It seems if you believe in something so deeply, then you best believe your getting a new job.
 
Anybody supporting this lawsuit had best have been supporting pharmacists refusing to sell contraceptives.
 
First, all he's won is the right to be considered for an unfair dismissal hearing and a broadening of the criteria on which unfair dismissal claims can be heard. That ain't necessarily a bad thing, assuming unfair dismissal hearings are still reasonable and based on common sense.

Although, actually, why are faith and "philosophical" views more protected than fact and reality-based opinions? Why are they treated differently?

Genuine question.

------

Side note, I think this is a good thing in terms of incentivising positive corporate behaviour:

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.
 
This is actually good. I belief in climate change in on an equal footing with religion, I can finally say that a court has ruled it as unscientific faith and dismiss it. :D
 
Having read the news story in the Independent on wednesday, I must say I agree with the ruling, and personally think the mans beliefs which are based upon science should be treated more importantly than religious beliefs in a fictional god(s) when it comes to rights at work (aka the right not to get fired for holding a belief in something).
 
This is actually good. I belief in climate change in on an equal footing with religion, I can finally say that a court has ruled it as unscientific faith and dismiss it. :D
Of course you'd be completely wrong as the court did nothing of the kind.
 
I think Arwon hit the nail on the head as usual. It's not saying that he was dismissed unfairly, just that he is entitled to a hearing to establish whether or not he was dismissed unfairly. If flying was a core part of his job then he will probably lose, but if it is an avoidable tangent to his job then he might win.

More generally, I see these kinds of things like phobias or allergies. If you're allergic to nuts, you shouldn't expect to take a job at a nut factory. But if your employer asks you to visit a nut factory for a conference, you're entitled to decline without risking your job.
 
Top Bottom