For KRonn: British Judge Climate Change Religion Thing

[Sheilbh]

Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion

Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal



Tim Nicholson leaves an employment tribunal at Audit House, London. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA

When Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive of one of Britain's biggest property firms, left his BlackBerry behind in London while on a business trip to Ireland, he simply ordered one of his staff to get on a plane and deliver the device to him.

For Dickinson's then head of sustainability, Tim Nicholson, the errand was much more than an executive indulgence: it embodied the contempt with which his boss treated his deep philosophical beliefs about climate change.

In a significant decision today , a judge found Nicholson's views on the environment were so deeply held that they were entitled to the same protection as religious convictions, and ruled that an employment tribunal should hear his claim that he was sacked because of his beliefs.

The judgment could open the door for people to take their employers to tribunals over their stance on a range of issues, from animal rights to feminism.

Earlier this year, Nicholson, 42, claimed that his beliefs had put him at odds with senior executives at his former employer Grainger, the UK's largest listed residential property company. When he was made redundant in July last year, he launched his legal action.

He alleged that while the firm had good written policies on the environment it had refused to abide by them, and claimed that when he tried to encourage the company to become more responsible, he was obstructed by his bosses. Dickinson, in particular, had shown "contempt" for his beliefs, Nicholson told the employment appeal tribunal, citing the BlackBerry incident as evidence.

In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

The written ruling, which looked at whether philosophy could be underpinned by a scientific belief, quoted from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and ultimately concluded that a belief in climate change, while a political view about science, can also be a philosophical one. The same judge ruled last year that Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan as he assessed whether it should be shown to schools.

Nicholson's solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "This case confirms, for the ever increasing number of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change, and who lead their lives according to those principles, that they are protected from discrimination."

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment, but the ruling was challenged by Grainger on the grounds that green views are not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs. The firm maintained that environmental views are political and a "lifestyle choice" which cannot be compared to religion or philosophy.

Legal experts said tonight the ruling could usher in future damages claims over the way firms handle environmental concerns. Peter Mooney, head of the Employment Law Advisory Service, said: "This would open the floodgates for others who believe their employers have victimised them simply because of their views on the environment."

Camilla Palmer, of Leigh Day and Co, said it opened doors for an even wider category of deeply held beliefs, such as feminism, vegetarianism or humanism. "It's a great decision. Why should it only be religions which are protected?"

At the Employment Appeal Tribunal last month, Dinah Rose QC, for Nicholson, said: "The philosophical belief in this case is that mankind is headed towards catastrophic climate change and that, as a result, we are under a duty to do all that we can to live our lives so as to mitigate or avoid that catastrophe for future generations. It addresses the question, what are the duties that we own to the environment and why?"

Nicholson, who now works for the 10:10 climate change campaign running its health care strand, said he was delighted by the ruling. He said: "It is the moral and ethical values that I hold that have motivated me to action on climate change and these moral and ethical values are similar to those promoted by the world's major religions."

However, he did not believe that climate change was the new religion, because "it is based on scientific evidence, not faith or spirituality".

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

"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company."
Five tests

In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination

• The belief must be genuinely held.

• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.

• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.

• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Humanism was given as an example meeting the criteria, while belief in a political party or the supreme nature of Jedi knights, from the Star Wars movies, were offered as ones that do not.

• This article was amended on Wednesday 4 November 2009 to make clear Tim Nicholson's current role.

It's all rather interesting.  By the sounds of it I think the Judge was right.  Though I do wonder where it leads.  You could presumably fire someone for being a Lib Dem, but you couldn't fire them for believing in a liberal philosophical framework

[Tamas]

Nice, the Great Parent sticking its nose into even more stuff. WTF

[The Brain]

What a douche.

[Neil]

Wow.  Talk about making yourself unemployable.

[Martinus]

It's all rather interesting.  By the sounds of it I think the Judge was right.  Though I do wonder where it leads.  You could presumably fire someone for being a Lib Dem, but you couldn't fire them for believing in a liberal philosophical framework

Is the EU directive on non-discrimination in work place not in force in the UK? It prohibits firing people for, among other, their political beliefs or political organization membership (excepting illegal organizations, of course). So unless Lib Dems were delegalized, I don't think you could fire someone for being a Lib Dem.

[Martinus]

Anyway, the ruling goes in the right direction, even though it showcases why the "protected class" approach to non-discrimination is a bad idea.

There is no reason why someone's religion should be protected, but their political or philosophical views shouldn't - we don't choose our views any more than we choose our religion, and personal integrity (including being true to our own beliefs) is not less important than being true to one's religious rules.

But then again, laws should prohibit discrimination based on any personal trait, unless such trait is in a direct and irreconcilable conflict with the nature of one's work duties (e.g. a pacifist joining the military; an atheist wanting to become a priest etc.)

[Martinus]

Also, I think that in this case the fact that the firm had a "green" policy but didn't follow it is relevant to the ruling, since this does an element of a fair and reasonable expectation on behalf of the employee that the firm will be green-friendly, which was obviously relevant for him.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, I think that in this case the fact that the firm had a "green" policy but didn't follow it is relevant to the ruling, since this does an element of a fair and reasonable expectation on behalf of the employee that the firm will be green-friendly, which was obviously relevant for him.

The plaintiff *alleged* they didn't follow their own policy.  I don't know how they're written in the UK, but in the US they say things like "we will work to protect the environment," as opposed to "no employee shall travel by plane for the purpose of retrieving misplaced Blackberrys."

[Sheilbh]

Is the EU directive on non-discrimination in work place not in force in the UK?

No, we've got an opt-out on labour laws and the social chapter and stuff like that.

The plaintiff *alleged* they didn't follow their own policy.  I don't know how they're written in the UK, but in the US they say things like "we will work to protect the environment," as opposed to "no employee shall travel by plane for the purpose of retrieving misplaced Blackberrys."

That's for the employment tribunal to decide.  I think the judge has just decided that he can go to a tribunal on these grounds.

[MadImmortalMan]

Wow.  Talk about making yourself unemployable.

Nonsense. I'm sure he will find a place in some grant-funded activist organization precisely because of this notoriety.

[Malthus]

How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?

Also, seems pretty clear from the story that the fellow was sacked because he did not hide his contempt for his employers, not for merely holding his "beliefs". I cannot imagine that holding "beliefs", religious or otherwise, entitles one to impose them on others in the workplace, such as one's boss. If I'm an orthodox Jew and my non-Jewish boss chooses to eat a ham sandwich, am I entitled to some sort of remedy if I pester my boss not to eat ham and he shows "contempt" for my views by continuing to eat it anyway - then fires me for being an ass about it?

If that's the case, this "victory" may be a pretty meaningless one on the substance of the tribunal (though some administrative tribunals are pretty nuts, so who knows).

[garbon]

Well it was his job to be a bother, Malthus.

[Berkut]

The nice thing is to see how thoroughly kronn managed to not understand the relevance of the ruling.

[grumbler]

How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?

Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them").   Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! 

[Neil]

How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?

Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them").   Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! 

Being a cunt isn't protected.