Adapted from a photo by Remy Steinegger
Justice Michael Burton ruled that Tim Nicholson’s belief in climate change is akin to a religious belief, and can thus file for unfair dismissal on that ground.
While Nicholson sees this as a victory for his cause, I’m still surprised more people aren’t complaining ‘it’s scientific fact, not religious belief’. Justice Burton last year ruled on whether An Inconvenient Truth should be shown in schools, finding it “political and partisan” (and thus, presumably, ruled against its showing).
One particularly interesting outcome of this trial was the criteria the judge established to decide what constituted a religious or philosophical belief. Apparently he cribbed heavily from Bertrand Russel’s History of Western Society (1945), and the five essential points were:
• 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.
Although these were the criteria to consider it a philosophical belief covered under the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations act, we shouldn’t really be too flippant about its equation with religious belief.
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.
Karen McVeigh ‘Judge rules activist’s beliefs on climate change akin to religion‘, The Guardian (3/11/09)
UPDATE: The first piece I’ve seen criticising the equation of belief in anthropogenic global warming with religion. Still, no-one has really pointed out since McVeigh’s article that the judge considered it a philosophical rather than religious belief (though a belief all the same).
Andrew Brown ‘We’re doomed without a green religion‘, The Guardian (6/11/09)
… and another. This guy cites a few similar opinions, although everyone seems to be overlooking the religion/philosophy distinction. Is this something McVeigh made up? I really need to see the text of the ruling.
‘Going green isn’t a “human right”‘, National Post (9/11/09)
