For KRonn: British Judge Climate Change Religion Thing

[alfred russel]

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

Apparently no one told him he could stop now that he has been fired.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?

[grumbler]

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.

Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?

Why would it matter whether the company followed their own environmental policy?  I don't see what that has to do with the reason this guy got the sack.

[KRonn]

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

" 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. "

Hmm, this actually speaks to my point about the stridency that some people have over enviro issues.

[Berkut]

But it doesn't speak to your point that somehow because a judge said people deeply held beliefs (ANY deeply held beliefs), therefore it is reasonable to dismiss concerns about GW in general.

The judges ruling means nothing in relation to the discussion at hand - he could have made the same ruling about literally anything.

Unless, of course, your point itself is redundant and meaningless, and amount to nothing more than "Gosh, some people sure do care a lot about the environment!".

[Admiral Yi]

Unless, of course, your point itself is redundant and meaningless, and amount to nothing more than "Gosh, some people sure do care a lot about the environment!".

In other words, even if I've been beating you up over a bullshit strawman this entire time you're still wrong.

[Berkut]

Unless, of course, your point itself is redundant and meaningless, and amount to nothing more than "Gosh, some people sure do care a lot about the environment!".

In other words, even if I've been beating you up over a bullshit strawman this entire time you're still wrong.

Not a strawman in the least - do you want to show us how this ruling applies to the discussion about global warming? Kronn certainly has failed to do so.

[Admiral Yi]

Not a strawman in the least - do you want to show us how this ruling applies to the discussion about global warming? Kronn certainly has failed to do so.

Do you want to show us where KRonn said this?

But it doesn't speak to your point that somehow because a judge said people deeply held beliefs (ANY deeply held beliefs), therefore it is reasonable to dismiss concerns about GW in general.

[Berkut]

Not a strawman in the least - do you want to show us how this ruling applies to the discussion about global warming? Kronn certainly has failed to do so.

Do you want to show us where KRonn said this?

But it doesn't speak to your point that somehow because a judge said people deeply held beliefs (ANY deeply held beliefs), therefore it is reasonable to dismiss concerns about GW in general.

The UK courts have allowed climate change to be classified a religion, as I said before. That's a bit concerning to me.

How is it concerning, since the ruling does not especially apply to "climate change" nor has the court said that "climate change" is a religion anyway.

I honestly feel that we've been pushing the whole debate of how we're destroying the planet too far, and pursuing policies based on that too far.

This in response to questioning the entire line of claiming that global warming is a religion put forth by spicey and kronn.

Didn't we just have a thread about the UK courts determining that climate change proponents or groups, could be classified as a religion?    

In response to me suggesting that we should not really concern ourselves with individual nutjobs on either side of the debate - he responds by clearly claiming that "groups" could be classified as religions by the UK courts. This is both untrue, and irrelevant to the extent that what the court said was that particular people could have beliefs that are held strongly enough to entitle them to protection as if those beliefs were religious. Court said zilch about defining proponents or groups that have something to do with global warming as religions.

Case closed.

[Berkut]

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

" 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. "

Hmm, this actually speaks to my point about the stridency that some people have over enviro issues.

But your point was not that "some people" are strident about enviro issues - it was that supposedly the UK courts had "determined that climage change proponents or groups could be classified as a religion".

[Sheilbh]

Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?

I imagine that'll be part of his case.  The employment tribunal will be to decide whether he was fired because of his green view or not, the court case was to decide whether or not he could go to an employment tribunal on the basis of his green views - do they form a philosophical 'belief' or not.

[Martinus]

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).

I don't think this is a good analogy. I understand the guy was fired for refusing to take a plane and bring the Blackberry to his boss. In your analogy it would be a guy asking his Jewish assistant to prepare a ham sandwich for him. 

[Martinus]

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.

Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?

Because firing someone for refusing to break the company's own policy is easier to challenge than firing someone for following their beliefs, I imagine.

[Neil]

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.

Why would it be for the employment tribunal to decide if they followed their own environment policy or not?

Because firing someone for refusing to break the company's own policy is easier to challenge than firing someone for following their beliefs, I imagine.

Except this guy didn't refuse to follow anything.

[grumbler]

I understand the guy was fired for refusing to take a plane and bring the Blackberry to his boss.

Can you cite me the source which says (or even implies) that Nicholson was the one sent  for the Blackberry?  I see no such evidence.  Nicholson doesn't claim this in the OP article.

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.
(snip)
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.