Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Beliefs about climate change ruled as valid as religious convictions

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 November 2009
AN ENVIRONMENTALIST who claims he was sacked because of his green views yesterday won a fight to take his former employer to a tribunal.
In a landmark court ruling, a judge ruled that Tim Nicholson's views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as "religious or philosophical beliefs".

Mr Nicholson's successful defence of his right to challenge Grainger Plc over his treatment could "open the floodgates" for other claimants with strongly held political views, in a case which applies UK-wide.

Mr Nicholson, 42, was made redundant as head of sustainability at residential landlord Grainger last year, but claims his opinions on climate change led to his unfair dismissal.

He says his beliefs affect his whole life and that he fears for the future of the human race. Mr Nicholson said he no longer travelled on planes and had made his home eco-friendly.

It was said Grainger chief executive Robert Dickinson showed "contempt" for these concerns and once flew a colleague to Ireland to deliver his BlackBerry after he left it in London.

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Mr Nicholson permission to take the firm to a tribunal over his treatment, but Grainger challenged the decision.

Yesterday, appeal court judge Michael Burton found in Mr Nicholson's favour and dismissed the company's arguments that his views were not the same as "religious or philosophical beliefs".

The judge said: "If a person can establish he holds a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection."

Mr Nicholson, from Oxford, said his views were becoming "more and more relevant" to the planet's future, adding: "I am grateful that Mr Justice Burton understood that deeply and genuinely held views about catastrophic climate change and the need to change our ways to protect the human race are philosophical views that are worthy of protection."

Legal expert Peter Mooney, head of consultancy at Employment Law Advisory Services, said the ramifications of the ruling were huge. He said: "In essence, victory will put employees who hold strong environmental beliefs in the same category and with the same protection as workers who hold strong religious beliefs.

"This would open the floodgates for others who believe employers have victimised them because of their views on the environment and how business deals with pressing environmental issues such as climate change and reducing our carbon emissions."

But Innes Clark, head of employment at Morton Fraser in Edinburgh, was more cautious, pointing out that the judgment set out "significant" limitations on the interpretation of beliefs.

"It is unlikely that those following the belief of Jedi Knights would be able to use this sort of argument if they suffered discrimination in the workplace as a result of their belief," he said.

"However, what is less certain is the issue of strongly held political beliefs and it is likely that, at some point, we will see arguments that certain strongly held views could now be protected as a 'philosophical belief'.

"Vegetarianism is another example referred to in the judgment and, again, it is possible that his sort of belief could be argued as being protected in certain circumstances at some point in the future."

Grainger's director of corporate affairs Dave Butler denied Mr Nicholson's views had any bearing on his dismissal.

He said: "Grainger absolutely maintains … that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required other structural changes to be made within the company."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 November 2009 12:15 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Cynicus Unbound,

04/11/2009 00:28:02
'In a landmark court ruling, a judge ruled that Tim Nicholson's views on climate change should be given the same consideration by employers as "religious or philosophical beliefs".'


Well, why not?

But how will an IDSEC (ideological secularist) like Patrick Harvie, MSP feel about being calssed as a crazed religionist?
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 04/11/2009 01:08:44

Nothing new about climate change, why the scaremongering anyway?, did the ice-age never happen, was it caused by Humans?

3

eyeswider,

04/11/2009 01:12:20
"If a person can establish he holds a philosophical belief based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection."

Show us the science. Not proof of warming (the billions spent on that truly amaze me), but evidence that CO2 did it (a few million would do it).

It is a belief system until then so I agree it should have the same protections as a religion.
4

Anna nexr door,

04/11/2009 01:47:37
Climate change is fact, God is an idea!
5

Anna nexr door,

04/11/2009 02:35:57
GW is only one issue facing the world.

http://www.chrisjordan.com/
6

DeanConinPeteFSteed,

04/11/2009 05:09:46
Can't be easy to be down graded to a faith from a stance you thought to be fact.
7

Kenny A,

04/11/2009 06:32:43
I am in total disbelief over this. Anyone for any reason can now use the religious belief argument. Pushing it to the limit could a rapist say what he did was because he was a follower of some sex god he invented, A murderer because human sacrifice was his religious conviction.

I know my points are OTT but after this moronic ruling who knows. The world has truly gone mad.
8

paul o,

Wodonga 04/11/2009 06:44:49
#6, DeanConinPeteFSteed,
"Touche!"
Well noted! Personally I'm not a Climate Change Sceptic, It has happened several times, before humans were the predominate species, but I'm very wary of the science used to back-up the so called "CARBON" pollution theories. The more I see of the proposals the more I see TAX GRAB for government and BIG PROFITS for "Carbon Traders".
9

sceptic,

livingston 04/11/2009 07:19:51
Legal confirmation that the global warmers can be classed along with followers of Scientology!
10

broadgait,

gullane 04/11/2009 07:34:22
The dwindling band of anthropogenic global warmers have been recognized as a secular cult, something many have long known.
11

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 04/11/2009 07:40:16
The faithful will now be out praying to the great GW god. They don't need to let facts get in the way anymore.
12

Unimpressed one,

04/11/2009 08:00:06
Environmentalism is now officially a religion. This has been known for years. They have come full circle in worshiping the earth gods and no doubt just as in the days of the Aztecs, people will be sacrificed to the great god Gaia.
13

sam the god,

04/11/2009 08:10:20
PC at its best aye right
14

Selgovae,

04/11/2009 08:14:37
#7 Kenny A

"I know my points are OTT"

Not OTT so much as premature. He's only won the right to go to a tribunal. The tribunal may say that the company had every right to fire him because his actions stemming from his beliefs interfered with the operation of the company. (Pure speculation on my part as the article says little about why he was fired.)
15

Selgovae,

04/11/2009 08:26:19
#13

"PC at its best"

Just the opposite. The good judge is just giving everyone an equal chance to attend an employment tribunal.

Some might wonder why the company took the pre-emptive approach of trying to stop the tribunal on legal grounds rather than present their side of the case at the tribunal.
16

Thomas the Tank,

Edinburgh 04/11/2009 08:26:50
#14 - He wasn't 'fired' - the Article states "Nicholson was made redundant . . (due to) . .the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence, which also required other structural changes to be made . "
17

Ben Thehoose,

04/11/2009 08:28:52
There IS global warming and climate change. No belief is required.

There is NO proof that humans are causing it. This is where 'belief' comes in.
18

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 04/11/2009 08:38:36
"Whatever happened to the popular front?

There he is over there, SPLITTER!!!"
19

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 04/11/2009 08:43:04
If he felt that strongly why did he not resign instead of having to be chucked out? Another insufferable self-righteous AGW religionist.
20

Selgovae,

04/11/2009 09:27:07
#16

"the Article states"

Yes, but it was a quote from the "director of corporate affairs". I see he "absolutely maintains" this to be true, which in orthodox corporate religionist terms means it's as accurate as rising from the dead or the forthcoming eco-catastrophe.




21

John Cameron,

St Andrews 04/11/2009 09:34:03
This was clearly not the legislative intent of the original regulations and bending regulations in this manner is unacceptable. Nicholson was fired, not because of his beliefs, but because he kept badgering the chairman of his company to share his beliefs. Had he been Christian or Islamic, would he have been awarded damages if he were fired for badgering his boss to share those beliefs? As far as I can see the complainant in this case has managed, for purely selfish reasons, to legally ring fence himself and his views against criticism. So now we have something else we cannot discuss without fear of someone taking us to court for 'discrimination'.
22

Courtney,

East Molesey 04/11/2009 10:00:38
The judge is a dreamer
23

El Franko,

04/11/2009 10:03:57
We have had climate-based fanatics call for the imprisonment of those who call attention to the complete lack of evidence for any important influence of humans on the global climate system. Their faith was been challenged, and they lashed out. This recent judgement will encourage more such behaviour, and so we shall slip a little further towards more totalitarianism. Any decent logician can show how anything can be deduced from false premises, and alarmism about human interference in climate is based on patently false premises. The simplistic notion of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere is false, and indeed ironically enough it goes under the phoney title of 'greenhouse effect', phoney because radiation effects are all but irrelevant to the efficacy of greenhouses. Nevertheless, many with political and media power have apparently swallowed the malevolent PR of the IPCC. Sic transit gloria mundi - by the actions of crooks and clowns.
24

El Franko,

04/11/2009 10:09:29
For an intelligent, non-hysterical, non-partisan, discussion of the complexities involved in assessing the role of CO2 in the atmosphere, see: http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

25

El Franko,

04/11/2009 10:12:45
For links to hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting scepticism about man-made global warming alarmism, see: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

26

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:03:07
Like I said on the post about Nutt being sacked science is the new God. Be afraid, be very afraid.
27

Vigilant Watcher,

Bo'ness 04/11/2009 11:12:04
Not surprising at all! The proponents of the human-driven global warming exhibit all the traditional traits of the the religious fundamentalist:-

> belief without evidence (faith)
> dogmatic repetitive argument not substantiated in reality
> denigration of others who do not hold their belief
> expectation that all others should agree
the list could go on...

As others have pointed out there is a whole body of independent research that questions the dogma, but similar to religious belief, it is conveniently sidelined in the drive for 'global' acknowledgement of their preferred solutions.

It is a very strange judgement to have made, not only for the climate debate, but will have wider and possibly dangerous implications for society in general.
28

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:25:24
27# You will find now that people are questioning these new Gods that they will become even more venonmous in the defence of their kingdom. Be afraid.
29

kenbo9,

04/11/2009 11:40:39
human-driven global warming is more likely to be true than all the varios God/religious theories
30

JayJay,

Right here 04/11/2009 11:41:53
I really have no position on climate change one way or the other.
What however I do see as quite transparant is the spectacle of a whole host of politicians giving thanks to the great taxman in the sky for giving them a new conduit for a whole range of new tax initiatives - all backed up by the mantra "its for your own good."
We have relentless media spin, usually accompanied by nodding ministers, as an almost daily news feature and I can just see the new taxes piling up - tax on energy use, tax on imported goods, (more) tax on motorists, tax on public transport...all to disappear into a big black hole or alternatively sent directly to bail out the chumps in the city of London when the next bubble explodes.
31

danbob,

04/11/2009 11:50:47
29# The storys not about religion, it only made a comparison. There again it was expected that somebody who worshipped the new earthly Gods would raise their heads.
32

mk-ultra,

Edinburgh 04/11/2009 13:52:20
Looks like Al Gore is losing his religion....

"Gore clears carbon dioxide of most blame"

"Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_clears_carbon_dioxide_of_most_blame/

Wait a minute, I thought the science was "settled" ?

33

Lys Alf,

Scotland 04/11/2009 14:20:29
Post #12 Unimpressed one

Actually Gaia was an Earth Goddess of the Greek Pantheon, not a deity the Aztecs worshipped!

Also, no human sacrifices were made to her.

It was the Aztecs who cut the living beating hearts out of their sacrificed victims to their bloodthirsty deity Quetzaquotal (not completely sure of the spelling), the feathered serpent.
34

Richard Lionheart,

04/11/2009 14:26:27
So Gordon Brown has just pledged £100bn a year of taxpayers’ money to support his religion!
35

Nelson Sherwood,

Lumberton 04/11/2009 20:59:51
Here's some facts for the record: 1884 to 1941; Daily average temperatures rose .37 degree celsius. 1941 to 1998; temperatures rose another .19 degree celsius, for a total of .56 degree celsius in 114 years. From 1998 to 2009, temperatures have been going down slightly. The world does not exist in a static state: It's either warming or cooling, take your pick. My figures come from the US National Weather Service and Accuweather. I would imagine that the UK equivalent to the NWS would show the same numbers. Have a nice day, folks.
36

Jim Forsythe,

Sandia Park 05/11/2009 00:54:30
This guy is a nut case to believe it junk science like global warming. All this "science" does is make Al Gore rich.
37

JH Ross,

raleigh 05/11/2009 22:55:18
This guy is truly sick. His god, Al Gore is also a "nut case" Please support mental health. Also, by the way,the polar bears have increased in numbers. The temp has gone down the last 11 years. Many scientist are on the side of NO global warming has occured.No, None.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.