Man sacked for belief in psychics backed by judge

[Rrose Selavy]

Quote:

A police worker who was sacked because he believed psychics can help solve criminal investigations is to go to court today to defend his right to legal protection from religious discrimination.

In the first case of its kind Alan Power, a trainer with Greater Manchester Police, will rely on a previous judgment that found his belief in mediums who contact the dead is akin to a religious or philosophical conviction.
In an unpublished judgement in Mr Power's favour seen by The Independent, the employment specialist Judge Peter Russell said that psychic beliefs are capable of being religious beliefs for the purpose of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. This is the same law which was used by the environmental campaigner Tim Nicholson when he successfully argued that green beliefs were the same as religious beliefs in a case decided last week.

In Mr Power's case Judge Peter Russell, sitting at Manchester Employment Tribunal, said: "I am satisfied that the claimant's beliefs that there is life after death and that the dead can be contacted through mediums are worthy of respect in a democratic society and have sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to fall into the category of a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Regulations."

More here:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-1819025.html

[RSLancastr]

I'm not sure that I disagree with the judge.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by RSLancastr

I'm not sure that I disagree with the judge.

I pray that you are right.

[imjohn]

I agree with the judge.

However, if he was sacked for hiring psychics after a supervisor instructed him to not hire psychics, my position would be different.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by imjohn

I agree with the judge.

However, if he was sacked for hiring psychics after a supervisor instructed him to not hire psychics, my position would be different.

Agreed. The belief itself shouldn't be grounds for dismissal. What is done because of those beliefs certainly should be.

Also, I'm not personally going to treat belief in psychics with the same kid gloves I tend to give people of faith. Psychics are fairly easily falsified.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Also, I'm not personally going to treat belief in psychics with the same kid gloves I tend to give people of faith. Psychics are fairly easily falsified.

Serious question: why do you give faithers the 'kid glove treatment'?

[IceSage]

Originally Posted by imjohn

I agree with the judge.

However, if he was sacked for hiring psychics after a supervisor instructed him to not hire psychics, my position would be different.

This is pretty much my opinion on the matter. You shouldn't be fired from something for simply believing in such things. It has nothing to do with your job, unless you actually apply those beliefs to your job... As for example, hiring a psychic to take care of a crime when your supervisors told you not to, or time could be better spent with more reliable (and realistic) measures.

[Darat]

Wish we could see the full judgement, however as others have said as long as his beliefs were not interfering with his ability to do his job then it should not be grounds to dismiss him. However from the article it appears that he was not dismissed for his beliefs but trying to "foist" them onto others:

Quote:

...

Judge Russell said that a later hearing would have to establish whether the claimant was "dismissed for the possession of religious or philosophical beliefs or for his alleged inappropriate foisting of his beliefs on others."

...snip...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

...snip...

Also, I'm not personally going to treat belief in psychics with the same kid gloves I tend to give people of faith. Psychics are fairly easily falsified.

The bloke is a member of a recognised and quite old church, I think it is about 200 years old, "Spiritualism" so I would have thought you would be willing to treat him with "kid gloves"?

[pakeha]

In the trial, was the percentage of psychic 'hits' in crime-solving actually discussed?

[Darat]

None of that would be at all relevant to the matter that the tribunal was looking into it.

[pakeha]

Quite right, Darat. I stand corrected.
That subject would be for a later hearing.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Judge Peter Russell

I am satisfied that the claimant's beliefs that there is life after death and that the dead can be contacted through mediums are worthy of respect in a democratic society

I dislike the attitude that a belief should be accorded more respect than it's supporting evidence warrent just because someone claims it's 'religious'.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

I dislike the attitude that a belief should be accorded more respect than it's supporting evidence warrent just because someone claims it's 'religious'.

And I don't think that is what the law is getting at. The law basically says you can't be sacked for what you believe in.

However, if you hire psychics to investigate crimes instead of doing proper policework then that's nothing to do with your beliefs that's just incompetence.

In the same way, it's not a sackable offence to believe black people are inferior, that Muslims are all nasty people or that gays should be strung up from the nearest tree. It would be a sackable offence to start proclaiming those views openly and/or acting on those beliefs in the workplace in a way that disadvantaged others.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

And I don't think that is what the law is getting at. The law basically says you can't be sacked for what you believe in.

Agreed (to a degree, the spector of blasphemy and defamation of religious laws still hangs heavy). But that is not what the judges quotes says, and the attitude that the belief itself is should be respected, and that therefore when believers want special treatment it should be accomidated unless a case can be made otherwise, rather than a case being made for the special treatment is extremely prevelant.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Quite right, Darat. I stand corrected.
That subject would be for a later hearing.

I don't think it would be in this instance. This is a matter of employment and the determination will be whether someone was dismissed in accordance with the law.

So, for example, I can't be sacked for just believing that angels guide the hands of police marksmen even if my job is to train the police officers. However if my job description is that I am to train people in the correct procedures in handling firearms I can't ignore the standard procedures because of my beliefs and say "Close your eyes and the angels will guide you hands".

From the wording in the article i.e. "for his alleged inappropriate foisting of his beliefs on others" I think it is likely that his dismissal was probably for trying to introduce "psychics" to his work colleagues.

And I wouldn't be surprised with his "spiritualism" being recognised as his belief system he hasn't shot himself in the foot in regards to getting his dismissal overturned (or compensation). Whilst he could argue that he believes that psychics are effective so making suggestions and talking about them to his colleagues would have been appropriate in a work setting, it can now be argued that he was in fact promoting his belief system, and whilst he is protected from being discriminated against for having his beliefs his work colleagues are also protected from him "foisting" his belief system on them.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Agreed (to a degree, the spector of blasphemy and defamation of religious laws still hangs heavy). But that is not what the judges quotes says, and the attitude that the belief itself is should be respected, and that therefore when believers want special treatment it should be accomidated unless a case can be made otherwise, rather than a case being made for the special treatment is extremely prevelant.

Where do you get that from the article?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

Agreed (to a degree, the spector of blasphemy and defamation of religious laws still hangs heavy). But that is not what the judges quotes says, and the attitude that the belief itself is should be respected, and that therefore when believers want special treatment it should be accomidated unless a case can be made otherwise, rather than a case being made for the special treatment is extremely prevelant.

There is a difference between respecting a belief and giving special treatment to accomodate it.

If the guy thinks psychics are the best thing since sliced bread then I guess we have to respect his right to believe stupid things. If he wants to use psychics in his investigations because he thinks they work, his employers have no obligation to accomodate that.

They can't necessarily fire him for suggesting it though, unless he starts making an issue of it.

There is a fine line to these things though and that's why there is so much debate. At what point does respecting become accomodating and to what extent should we accomodate the belief systems of others?

The sad thing of course is that the legal system is just as full of woos as other walks of life, so they are probably open to accepting psychics and other woo beliefs as legitimate.

[Jack by the hedge]

The article ends with a Police statement that "...a member of police staff was dismissed from his role as a trainer."

So it may be that the problem was not that he believed there was a better way to do the job, but that he was passing this opinion on as fact while training recruits.

[Cainkane1]

Unless this mans beliefs interferred with his ability to do his job he shouldn't have been fired. If he caused a innocent person to be arrested or if his efforts caused a guilty man to go free then he should be fired.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Darat

Where do you get that from the article?

I don't, it was a comment on the Judges wording. Legal judgements carry weight and my point was that the individual and their rights had to be respected not a belief.

It is my belief (which I don't insist you respect!) that this point is too often confused and contributes to the situation where the default position is to give in to religious requests unless a case can be made otherwise, whereas similar requests made for non religious reasons would tend to be rejected unless a case was made for them. You might consider that OT but I felt it was relevent given the wording.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles

There is a difference between respecting a belief and giving special treatment to accomodate it.

A lot depends on how you consider 'respect' should be shown. I think the believer and their rights should be respected. But why should their beliefs be? You have should have the same rights whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, Karl Marx held the answers to societies ills or Manchester United is the worlds best football team.

Sorry, kind of typed out a different train of thought. edited to address the actual point...

All too often 'respecting' someones religious belief involves impinged on someone elses rights (eg censorship) or special treatment, uniform exemptions, special spaces, breaks, diet, avoiding duties, certain hours etc.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

A lot depends on how you consider 'respect' should be shown. I think the believer and their rights should be respected. But why should their beliefs be? You have should have the same rights whether you believe Jesus was the son of God, Karl Marx held the answers to societies ills or Manchester United is the worlds best football team.

Sorry, kind of typed out a different train of thought. edited to address the actual point...

All too often 'respecting' someones religious belief involves impinged on someone elses rights (eg censorship) or special treatment, uniform exemptions, special spaces, breaks, diet, avoiding duties, certain hours etc.

And that last paragraph is where the law has to play a role in defining what is alright and what isn't.

I think in general we see a lot of media hype and scare stories about certain beliefs being given special treatment but I'm not sure how many of them are genuine. Just because someone makes a complaint doesn't mean it was upheld.

There is no need for an employer to go out of his way to make life difficult for someone, nor should their practices disadvantage any group unless their is a good reason for those practices.

For example, if a Muslim wants to work as a butcher then they need to be happy to prepare and serve Pork.

On the other hand, if a Muslim wants to work in a supermarket then I think its probably alright for them to request duties that don't involve handling or serving pork - there are plenty other duties for them to do.

If a Muslim woman wants to cover her face in a desk job then its probably alright. If the same woman wants to work as a window cleaner then its probably right to say she can't do that for H&S reasons.

Most employers are happy to make allowances for reasonable religious requests (e.g. a prayer room) just as they make allowances for reasonable requests from parents, the disabled, people with medical conditions etc. It helps the business when the employees feel accomodated.

Very rarely do any of these accomodations actually impinge on the rights of others, with the exception of their imaginary right to not let anyone else get something I they don't get. (It rarely works in the opposite direction though)

[P.J. Denyer]

LotF,

I pretty much agree with you. We might disagree on some specifics (I don't know how you'd stand on the wrapped pork and bottled, boxed, shrink wrapped alcohol on a fork lift cases for example). I agree that employers should make allowances for reasonable requests, whatever the basis, but I do think there is greater pressure on employers if the request is presented as religious compared to not. Complaints may not be upheld but the publicity encourages other people to think it is their 'right' too and HR departments want to avoid hassle and expense to defend themselves. I would have just liked the judge to have phrased his verdict differently.

[dogjones]

Originally Posted by Darat

I don't think it would be in this instance. This is a matter of employment and the determination will be whether someone was dismissed in accordance with the law.

So, for example, I can't be sacked for just believing that angels guide the hands of police marksmen even if my job is to train the police officers. However if my job description is that I am to train people in the correct procedures in handling firearms I can't ignore the standard procedures because of my beliefs and say "Close your eyes and the angels will guide you hands".

As a point of interest, would this belief be reasonable grounds for not hiring you in the first place? I would say yes...

[Darat]

Originally Posted by dogjones

As a point of interest, would this belief be reasonable grounds for not hiring you in the first place? I would say yes...

I can't see how it could be grounds for not hiring someone - indeed how would you even know they had this belief?

[Jack by the hedge]

Originally Posted by Darat

I can't see how it could be grounds for not hiring someone - indeed how would you even know they had this belief?

It's not unusual to ask at interview what the candidate thinks they can bring to the job. They might have explained how keen they were to bring their knowledge of psychic divination to bear in directing detectives toward clues to solve their cases.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge

It's not unusual to ask at interview what the candidate thinks they can bring to the job. They might have explained how keen they were to bring their knowledge of psychic divination to bear in directing detectives toward clues to solve their cases.

That I think would be different - then you would be able discount them based on their..er... "inappropriate skills" for the role.

What I was meaning was that you shouldn't be asking people what their religious beliefs are when interviewing them for a job (unless it is one of those jobs were is part and parcel - priest in the RCC for example), so you wouldn't know that they held such beliefs.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by six7s

Serious question: why do you give faithers the 'kid glove treatment'?

Usually because they were raised that way, and I can't blame them for adopting something stupid. There are just so many people of faith out there that I can't very well us the more efficient language with all of them that I can with psychics and still be a member of my community.

I'm not saying it's completely consistent, but people who believe that police investigations are helped by psychics I can allow myself to call 'stupidly wrong' where people of faith I let myself call, 'probably wrong'.

Originally Posted by Darat

The bloke is a member of a recognised and quite old church, I think it is about 200 years old, "Spiritualism" so I would have thought you would be willing to treat him with "kid gloves"?

April or March of 1848 I believe with the Fox sisters. I didn't read close enough to see that he was a Spiritualist. In that case, yes, I'd be more polite. I live less than fifteen miles from Lilydale, and have visited it about twice a year for many years. Of course I drove past it twice a day, every school day for five years of college. In that case I won't call him stupidly wrong, to his face.

I still don't believe he should be fired for those beliefs. Using them on the job however certainly is grounds for dismissal.

[six7s]

Originally Posted by six7s

Serious question: why do you give faithers the 'kid glove treatment'?

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Usually because they were raised that way, and I can't blame them for adopting something stupid. There are just so many people of faith out there that I can't very well us the more efficient language with all of them

Why the hell not?


Richard Dawkins covered this widespread yet ridiculous 'kid glove' treatement after the inevitable backlash from excruciatingly polite apologists who, having read the God Delusion, told him 'I'm an atheist, but I wish to dissociate myself from your shrill, strident, intemperate, intolerant, ranting language.'

How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Quote:

Objectively judged, the language of The God Delusion is less shrill than we regularly hear from political commentators or from theatre, art, book or restaurant critics. The illusion of intemperance flows from the unspoken convention that faith is uniquely privileged: off limits to attack. In a criticism of religion, even clarity ceases to be a virtue and begins to sound like aggressive hostility.

A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant. My nearest approach to stridency was my account of God as "the most unpleasant character in all fiction". I don't know how well I succeeded, but my intention was closer to humorous broadside than shrill polemic. Restaurant critics are notoriously scathing, but are seldom dismissed as shrill or intolerant. A restaurant might seem a trivial target compared to God. But restaurateurs and chefs have feelings to hurt and livelihoods to lose, whereas "blasphemy is a victimless crime".

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Darat

...From the wording in the article i.e. "for his alleged inappropriate foisting of his beliefs on others" I think it is likely that his dismissal was probably for trying to introduce "psychics" to his work colleagues.

And I wouldn't be surprised with his "spiritualism" being recognised as his belief system he hasn't shot himself in the foot in regards to getting his dismissal overturned (or compensation). Whilst he could argue that he believes that psychics are effective so making suggestions and talking about them to his colleagues would have been appropriate in a work setting, it can now be argued that he was in fact promoting his belief system, and whilst he is protected from being discriminated against for having his beliefs his work colleagues are also protected from him "foisting" his belief system on them.

My bolding.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, indeed.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You know, the workplace is just getting way too serious. Back in the day, we would have just laughed at the guy.

~~ Paul

[GanipGnop]

While I would agree that this man has a right to believe anything he wishes without fearing for his job I also believe this case revolves around him using his position as a trainer to foster his beliefs on department trainees without official sanction to do so. If this guy is claiming religious freedom as a sanctuary doesn't that open the police to using prayer as an official tool of police work? If they are going to pay psychics to do detective work why not pay priests to pray for a solution? For that matter why not reinstate "Trial by Ordeal" that was a church favorite and I bet it got results too!

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You know, the workplace is just getting way too serious. Back in the day, we would have just laughed at the guy burned the guy at the stake.

~~ Paul

FTFY

~~six7s

[GanipGnop]

Originally Posted by six7s

FTFY

~~six7s

OMG your revision is hilarious (and true) !

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Well, that was way back in the day. Things were too serious then, too. There was a part in the middle where people had a sense of humor.

~~ Paul

[six7s]

Originally Posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Well, that was way back in the day. Things were too serious then, too.

Yeah... we're all far too busy having good, clean, civilised, dignified, politically correct fun these days...