It seems that my numerous observations (here, for instance) concerning anthropogenic global warming and the discussion surrounding it being more akin to a theological debate than to the pursuit of scientific understanding of a physical phenomenon was more true than even I knew.
The Guardian recently reported on a landmark case before a UK employment tribunal.
In the first case of its kind, an employment tribunal decided that Nicholson, 41, had views amounting to a “philosophical belief in climate change”, allowing him the same legal protection against discrimination as religious beliefs.
Nicholson, the former head of sustainability at Newcastle-based Grainger plc, says he was dismissed after disagreeing with practices including an instance where an IT worker was flown from London to Ireland to collect his BlackBerry, and another where Nicholson’s attempts to obtain data to develop a carbon management strategy were blocked.
Despite having written policies on the environment, Grainger executives attended meetings in “some of the most highly polluting cars on the road”, Nicholson claimed.
“[My belief] affects how I live my life including my choice of home, how I travel, what I buy, what I eat and drink, what I do with my waste, and my hopes and fears,” he said. “For example, I no longer travel by plane, I have eco-renovated my home, I compost my food waste and encourage others to reduce their carbon emissions.”
Judge David Sneath said at the employment tribunal: “[Nicholson] has certain views about climate change and acts upon those views in the way in which he leads his life. In my judgment his belief goes beyond a mere opinion.”
The decision, which is being challenged by the company, comes two years after the law on religious discrimination was changed so that beliefs no longer had to be “similar” to religious faith to receive protection in the workplace.
Under the new law “philosophical belief” is protected by the law alongside religious belief if it passes a legal test requiring it to be cogent, serious and “worthy of respect in a democratic society”.
The case has attracted criticism from some, however, who argue that the removal of the requirement that beliefs are “similar” to religious faith will create a potential minefield for employers.
Caroline Doran, employment partner at London solicitors Sprecher Grier Halberstam, said: “The removal of the word similar has [also] led to a range of employment litigation to determine whether patriotism or loyalty to a flag or support for the British National party are covered as suitable beliefs.
“This … may create an abundance of litigation in the future as the tribunals will have to weigh an individual’s belief against the yardstick of current popular thinking.”
Nicholson’s lawyer said that the case reflected a necessary clarification of the law that would affect large numbers of employees.
“This is a case that will clarify the law for the ever-increasing numbers of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change, and who lead their lives according to those principles”, said Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at solicitors Bindmans.
This is a reversal of the religious show trials of the middle ages. Now it is not religious belief and dogma that must be protected from discussion and debate but rather, scientific views and strongly felt philosophical beliefs that must be protected in employment law.
“These are often deeply held views based on the premise that without change humanity will suffer … people should be able to express such views without fear of retribution or discrimination.”
Can campus-speech codes or Canadian-style hate-speech codes be far behind — to protect from debate or challenge people whose deeply held views concerning global warming and the urgent need to prevent it? We’ve already heard calls for Nuremberg-style trials for climate “deniers.” Will driving your car become a crime against humanity? Why stop there? Will editorial cartoonists have to refrain from mocking global-warming alarmists, lest the climate clergy call them before a new inquisition?