Tim Nicholson entitled to protection for his beliefs, and his claim over dismissal will now be heard by a tribunal

 www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/03/tim-ni cholson-climate-change-belief

• Karen McVeigh
• guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 November 2009 20.42 GMT
  

Tim Nicholson leaves an employment tribunal at Audit House, London. Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA

When Rupert Dickinson, the chief executive of one of Britain's biggest property firms, left his BlackBerry behind in London while on a business trip to Ireland, he simply ordered one of his staff to get on a plane and deliver the device to him.

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.

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.

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.

In today's ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton decided that: "A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations." Under those regulations it is unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs.

The written ruling, which looked at whether philosophy could be underpinned by a scientific belief, quoted from Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy and ultimately concluded that a belief in climate change, while a political view about science, can also be a philosophical one. The same judge ruled last year that Al Gore's environmental documentary An Inconvenient Truth was political and partisan as he assessed whether it should be shown to schools.

Nicholson's solicitor, Shah Qureshi, said: "This case confirms, for the ever increasing number of people who take a philosophical stance on the environment and climate change, and who lead their lives according to those principles, that they are protected from discrimination."

In March, employment judge David Neath gave Nicholson permission to take the firm to tribunal over his treatment, but the ruling was challenged by Grainger on the grounds that green views are not the same as religious or philosophical beliefs. The firm maintained that environmental views are political and a "lifestyle choice" which cannot be compared to religion or philosophy.

Legal experts said tonight the ruling could usher in future damages claims over the way firms handle environmental concerns. Peter Mooney, head of the Employment Law Advisory Service, said: "This would open the floodgates for others who believe their employers have victimised them simply because of their views on the environment."

Camilla Palmer, of Leigh Day and Co, said it opened doors for an even wider category of deeply held beliefs, such as feminism, vegetarianism or humanism. "It's a great decision. Why should it only be religions which are protected?"

At the Employment Appeal Tribunal last month, Dinah Rose QC, for Nicholson, said: "The philosophical belief in this case is that mankind is headed towards catastrophic climate change and that, as a result, we are under a duty to do all that we can to live our lives so as to mitigate or avoid that catastrophe for future generations. It addresses the question, what are the duties that we own to the environment and why?"

Nicholson, who now works for the 10:10 climate change campaign running its health care strand, said he was delighted by the ruling. He said: "It is the moral and ethical values that I hold that have motivated me to action on climate change and these moral and ethical values are similar to those promoted by the world's major religions."

However, he did not believe that climate change was the new religion, because "it is based on scientific evidence, not faith or spirituality".

Grainger's corporate affairs director, Dave Butler, said: "This decision merely confirms that views on the importance of environmental protection are capable of amounting to a philosophical belief.

"Grainger absolutely maintains, as it has done from the very outset of these proceedings, that Mr Nicholson's redundancy was driven solely by the operational needs of the company."

Five tests

In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination

• 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.

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.

• This article was amended on Wednesday 4 November 2009 to make clear Tim Nicholson's current role.

--------------------------------------

Gore Not Interested In Solutions To Climate Change That Don’t Line His Pockets

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, November 5, 2009

Al Gore has been on the defensive over his financial motives for pushing for a cap and trade system to reduce CO2 emissions, arguing that he is merely putting his money where his mouth is, however, a startling revelation in a recent Newsweek article proves that Gore is only interested in solutions to environmental problems that line his pockets.

For argument’s sake, let’s accept the highly contentious premise that the life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants absorb, carbon dioxide, is a dastardly evil threat to the planet, despite the fact that Al Gore himself admits CO2 is not the major driver of global warming.

If there was a solution to neutralize CO2 emissions that didn’t involve devastating the economy, taxing the citizens into oblivion, de-industrializing the west and giving government huge regulatory powers over our private lives, would Al Gore, Maurice Strong and the rest of the kingpins of the globalist environmental movement be interested?

You can bet your bottom dollar they’re not interested.

One of Gore’s global warming advisors, CEO Timothy LaSalle, told Gore’s team that CO2 emissions could be neutralized completely by clever use of agriculture and technology, without the need for a global carbon tax or the use of cap and trade systems that Gore, along with people like the Rothschilds, Maurice Strong and Barack Obama, have a huge financial stake in promoting.

The Newsweek article states:

“If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit,” says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to suck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore’s assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn’t.)

So there you have it – LaSalle proposed a way of solving the CO2 issue but was basically told to shove it by Gore’s team because the methods he advocated would eliminate the need for what Gore and his cronies are really pursuing, nightmare regulation, taxation, and control over American’s lives, along with billions of dollars flooding into the coffers of Gore and the rest of the “carbon billionaire” globalists via the carbon trading systems they own.

“Could it be that Mr Gore and his team want the US economy and its free market system to be overturned regardless of the science? Could it be that they do not want to know about any science that does not allow them to tax and interfere in the lives of every American?” ask Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer.

“This is an outrageous interference in science for a political purpose. But what is the political purpose? Al Gore has called for stopping the use of fossil fuels and the complete restructuring of the economy in the US within ten years but when offered a chance to remove “harmful” CO2 from the atmosphere his team tries to change the science.”

That’s because Gore doesn’t give a damn about the science and he doesn’t give a damn about the environment. Like the rest of the vultures circling around the rich pickings of the global warming fraud, his only interest is in feasting on the corpse of the U.S. economy and the American taxpayer once he manages to ram though the cap and trade scam that will enrich the very carbon trading systems he owns.