In a significant decisiontoday [sic], 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.
...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.
At first glance the ruling might appear to elevate the status of scientific understanding by affording it the protection of the law. But instead, the court reduces scientific understanding to a philosophy or position just as legitimately discarded as accepted, rather than a rigorously tested description of the natural world based on the most robust evidence we currently have (and which, unlike religion, will evolve in response to new evidence). I'm all in favor of your right to believe in God, or Allah, or a can of creamed corn, and to be protected from being fired from your job based on that belief. That's why I like the First Amendment. But what if I said that I should be protected from discrimination because I believe in gravity? I would look like a maniac, because only ignorant zealots don't believe in gravity. Right?
Aside from legitimizing the views of ignorant zealots (or perhaps more kindly, climate change skeptics), is there any real harm in this finding? That's one I haven't yet got my head around. True, only ignorant zealots don't believe that the earth is round, right? Or that all people should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, color, religion, or sexual orientation. Right? Seems obvious to me, and yet not everyone's there yet. This wouldn't be the first time a court ruling went ahead and held a place while society was slow to catch up. And you can't miss the glaring irony that a similar ruling could have saved Galileo a huge headache at the hands of the Catholic church. So I'll watch that space for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment