We're delighted to read that George Moonbat, the well-known environmental nut, is furious about the leaked emails from the Climate Research Unit at University of East Anglia, and has called for the resignation of the scientist at the heart of the row. To be honest, anything that makes Moonbat furious is OK with us. It must be especially galling for him that after extensively promulgating faulty science based on very shabby evidence, through no fault of his own a sceptical public now know that the whole thing is a sham. And that's as far as our sympathy goes, I'm afraid.
However we have no sympathy at all with 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 a landmark ruling last March 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", and gave Nicholson leave to sue his former employer. The ruling could open the door for employees to take action against their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.
Grainger plc challenged the ruling on the grounds that green views were political and based on science, as opposed to religious or philosophical in nature. Their lawyers 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," but the argument was dismissed by Mr Justice Burton.
Nicholson 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".
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."
The grounds for Mr Nicholson's case stem from changes to employment law made by Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General (you'll remember, no doubt, that she was fined £5,000 for breaking her own law on employment checks after she employed an illegal immigrant), 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.
Grainger plc deny that Nicholson's redundancy was anything to do with his stand on global warming, and will fight the decision before an employment tribunal.
So, Nicholson and Judge Burton are our Wankers of the Week. In Nicholson's case it's not for being so stupid as to believe in Global Warming; he's entitled to believe what he likes, and society should find room for the intellectually challenged as well as for us normal people. No, he's a Wanker for believing that not being prepared to do your job the way your boss wants it done is reasonable, and that your boss shouldn't have any say in the matter.
And the judge? He wins this prestigious award for being an inconsistent tosser. It was he who last year ruled that the environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore was political and partisan. Now he thinks that someone who won't do their job properly because of his personal opinions should have the protection and encouragement of the law.
This legal judgement opens the way for some fascinating future scenarios. We look forward to legal challenges by BNP members who are discriminated against because of their philosophical beliefs, or fundamentalist Christian ministers who are sacked because they refuse to marry gay couples, or an animal rights protester demanding the right to work for Huntingdon Life Sciences. Only this week we read about a straight couple who have been refused a civil partnership because they aren't gay.
When the law starts interfering in matters of conscience, the only logical outcome is confusion. Matters of conscience are just that - matters for the conscience of the individual. They cannot and should not be the subject of legislation because by their very nature they are not capable of factual, logical examination. All too often people's irrational beliefs bring them into conflict with the irrational beliefs of others - as in the case of the Catholic adoption agencies which refused to place children with gay couples. When the law got involved in that one, we all know what happened: it was the children who lost out.
The GOS says: I'm thinking of taking a job at the local branch of B&Q. I could do with the extra cash, and I do know quite a lot about tools and things. Trouble is, I'm not too sure how the management will respond to the fact that my strongly-held philosophical belief in fairies means that I have to spend at least two hours every afternoon lying down in a darkened room with a cup of tea and a cinnamon hobnob.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS