Employees who raise concerns about their company’s environmental practices won the right to legal redress yesterday after a judge ruled that green beliefs deserved the same protection in the workplace as religious convictions.

The appeal judge’s decision means that workers who are victimised for their strong environmental views such as how a company should deal with cutting carbon emissions, managing waste or using aviation to travel to meetings, can bring compensation claims against employers.

Peter Mooney, who is head of consultancy at Employment Law Advisory Services, said: “The ramifications of Tim Nicholson winning this test case are massive. 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.”

It appears that philosophical beliefs are the same as religious beliefs in the eyes of the (Brit) law, however in order to demonstrate this belief you must be a zealot. Interesting.

  1. bobbo, most things are plain to see says:

    “It appears that philosophical beliefs are the same as religious beliefs in the eyes of the (Brit) law, however in order to demonstrate this belief you must be a zealot. Interesting.” /// Yea, verily. Exactly what is, and what is wrong, with religion on full display.

    On a deeper “more sincere” level, religion is a “PRIVATE” relationship between one person and what they hold sacred. Once you open your pie hole, it is no longer religion, but politics, and the UK has taken on environmentalism as a State Sponsered Religion/Political Litmus Test.

    And the spiral continues downward.

  2. Cephus says:

    All I can say is I’m certainly glad I don’t live in England.

  3. Mr. Fusion says:

    #1, Bobbo,

    Good points.

    It shouldn’t matter what your religion / politics / philosophy / child rearing habits are, they don’t belong in the work place. If you disagree with your employer, either learn to live with it or find another job.

    #3, pedro,

    As usual, you didn’t read the article and it says no such thing.

  4. Dallas says:


    If I see my company pour toxic chemicals down the drain, I want the same level of redress as the other guy worshiping a space god and feels a calling to wear sandals.

  5. Improbus says:

    Next thing you know they are going to make Richard Dawkins the Pope of Atheism. Has the UK gone mad?

  6. Greanities says:

    The UK has always been mad why do you think ancestors moved HERE.

  7. Ralph, the Bus Driver says:

    #5, Dallas,

    I want more protection.

    Pouring toxic chemicals down the drain is usually a criminal act. Protecting those who report criminals should always be a paramount concern of society.

    Hoopty doodying about your imaginary friend should NOT have any special protections in the work place. I don’t care if his name is Mohammad, Buddha, God, Janus, or Beelzebub Buddy and he will rain down fire if you don’t comply.

  8. qb says:

    If you dig into this is it really about the difference between a philosophical point of view and politics which is where the bulk of the court arguments were.

    Anyway, this cuts both ways doesn’t it? You can’t be fired for being a climate change skeptic, or against vaccinations, or belief in creationism, or any other similar viewpoint where you have deeply held belief. There is a huge difference between faith and religion, and I see religion everywhere, not just in houses of worship.

    One last question, should Buddhism be protected? Or Falun Gong? These are spiritual philosophies more than a religion. Many Christians think that Yoga is a cult, and some even think it should be outlawed. Should you be fired because you’re into Yoga?

  9. chuck says:

    Environmentalism should be recognized as a religion. Most people who “believe” in it don’t concern themselves with the science and seem to prefer blind faith.

    Also, if it’s a religion then Al Gore doesn’t have to pay tax on those carbon credits he’s been selling.

  10. Argleton Andy says:

    What Bobbo said in #1.

  11. Breetai says:

    We’ve been saying for years that it’s a religion not a science and now judge has said so?

    Is officially being a recognized religion instead of a science good or bad for the movement? I vote bad.

  12. MikeN says:

    So was he being harassed for wanting to recycle, or was he insisting that others recycle?

    Jon Stewart was interviewing an author of SuperFreakonomics, and asked him if he was stepping on a secular religion.

  13. BigBoyBC says:

    I don’t know if England has anything like “separation of church and state” but, I was just thinking how this could really screw-up the global warming agenda if this happened here…

  14. YeeeeeeHaaaa says:

    Yet another reason to move jobs out of english speaking countries,


Bad Behavior has blocked 19561 access attempts in the last 7 days.