« Cameron's Approach to Europe | Main | School Place Cheats »

No Blaspheming Allowed at the Church of Climate Change

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion - Telegraph

In a landmark ruling, 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".

I've never been sure of what a philosophical belief is and how it differs from a scientific belief, is there something about provability about it?
But I suppose I better not mock any greenies in case I'm brought up in front of the beak for disrespecting their beliefs.

Comments

The real point is that the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations are utter bollocks and have no place in a free society.

Tim Nicholson is a pathetic little cry baby who should grow up and be prepared to accept robust criticism of his ridiculous outlook on life. "Mr Nicholson, 42, from Oxford, 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." Shame they're not a little bit stronger so that he might choose to make the ultimate sacrifice to Gaia and stop breathing, he wouldn't be missed. It would at least save him the embarrassment of looking a complete arse when AGW is finally accepted to be a myth.

Concerning laws against discrimination, some sort of reasonable case can be made (IMHO) that it is bad/illegal to discriminate against people for what they, unchangeably, are: for example race, skin colour, disabled, sexual orientation.

However, as soon as government starts making laws against discrimination on grounds of what people do: we are pretty much stuffed. Doing and thinking are, after all, almost invariably matters of choice.

What people think privately is a somewhat different matter. However, acting on such thoughts inappropriately in a work environment is doing. So is proselytising one's non-work thoughts to the detriment of one's work and/or that of one's fellow workers.

So, laws against discrimination on grounds of overt religious activity at work are an extremely bad thing: bad in totality as well as bad as a start.

Some government person then extended this to personal philosophy. [IIRC, a someone who was so smart as to break a law she herself introduced and then claim the defence of 'minor omission on a technicality' when the whole point of the law was to prevent that defence.]

Now we have some judge extending it to - well I'm not sure what: lifestyle choice, political opinion.

For the sake of practicality and sanity, we need to wind back these anti-discrimination laws, at least to the position where materially and repeatedly disagreeing with one's boss, and refusing to follow their reasonable work-related instructions, is grounds for proportionate penalty: dismissal, demotion, compulsory transfer to another department, etc.

Best regards

Well, we could take the p1$$ out of this and continue mocking the Greenies and running the risk of being charged with blasphemy. Alternatively we could use this ruling to our advantage.

IWith this ruling Mr Justice Burton has declared Climate Change a philosophical belief on a par with all other religions. Now that's fine, everyone should have the right to talk to God in whatever way they find the most amenable; but when it comes to public policy things are a bit different. In most modern societies if a leader stands up and says: "God/The Pixies/Henry the Holy Heffalump told me to do this" they tend to get laughed at and their ideas thrown out.

Mr Justice Burton has just handed us a big stick.

Who laughs at Henry the Holy Heffalump? Tell me their names and I'll issue a fatwa in the name of the Prophet Piglet (PBUH).

Actually, can't we use it to our advantage and continue to extract the urine out of greenies?

No, this is good. It means that my belief that global warming is complete bollocks should, according to this judgement, mean that I can challenge the council's recycling policies because they're against my philosophical beliefs. It's discrimination to require me to forego a weekly bin collection and take part in the recycling scheme as it's against my fundamental beliefs.

Now that AGW is recognised as religion, it can now be argued that it CANNOT form the basis of government policy, due to the secular basis of the government; seperation of state and religion forbids the promotion by the government of any religion over another.

I'm afraid I take a more pessimistic view: now that AGW is a religion, it means that insulting it is a hate crime, and what with the enabling Act allowing your council, the postie, the water companies and Uncle tom Cobley to come into your home and sequester your assets as the proceeds of crime, without a warrant of any sorts.... we're in big trouble.

I like to flaunt my gorgeous body in my "I'm maximising my carbon footprint" T shirt.

Civil disrespect and the ensuing civil disobedience is the only retort.

Post a comment