Monday, 7 September 2009

They, like, hurt my feelings, man.

A controversial tribunal decision that company practices discriminate against employees with strongly held views on drug taking will be challenged in the courts. Executive Tim RoadChief who is a member of the Native American Church of Navajoland claimed that he was unfairly dismissed by the airline British Virginways because of his insistence on flying planes whilst high on the hallucinogenic Mexican cactus peyote.

Tim Roadchief believes that his philosophical belief in 'North American Peyotism' should allow him the same protection against discrimination as other religious beliefs. Roadchief was dismissed after an incident where in the midst of one of his 'vision quests' involving fasting, solitude, and quiet but steady contemplation, he attempted to fly a Jumbo Jet from New York to London.

Virginways bosses dismissed him on the spot, but Roadchief's lawyer has filed an action claiming that the law needs to be clarified for the increasing numbers of people who take a philosophical stance on the drug taking environment and 'altered states'. "People should be able to express views and act accordingly without fear of retribution or discrimination."

Tim Roadchief himself commented: "All I tried to do was bring onto the plane my friends Cedar Man, Fire Man, Drum Man, and Earth Mother. These guys were carrying nothing more than an eagle bone whistle, various feather fans, water drum, and prayer staff. I kinda believe in this peyotism shit man, so like it follows that it must be religious discrimination if the boss man then dismisses me for acting on those beliefs. Don't it?"

14 comments:

  1. Some would dispute whether North American Peyotism is really a religion - or a set of philosophical beliefs for that matter. Then, some would say the same about climate change

    ReplyDelete
  2. The point surely is that should there be protection for people because of their beliefs - as opposed to what they are.
    Beliefs are arbitrary, whereas race is not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You could say that beliefs are a product of ones being, ones background (ie unique upbringing)... but maybe that is too tenuous

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yep, that is too tenuous

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shame that there aren't any other religions revolving around drug taking.
    Although someone once told me that coke takers achieve a shamanistic state from time to time.
    Probably bullshit

    ReplyDelete
  6. Its true, its true

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tune in, Turn on, Drop out7 September 2009 at 18:33

    Surely next on the agenda is offending political beliefs. It would be perfect if a political party could haul through the courts political refuseniks on the ground of criticising their opinions

    ReplyDelete
  8. The only thing is that that could go both ways. Tories could sue Labour offenders for criticising them as well as the other way round.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tune in, Turn on, Drop out7 September 2009 at 18:38

    But that might not matter if Labour becomes the weaker party after the next election but can still punch above its weight in the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did i miss something? I thought that the religious hatred bill had failed.
    How come these dumb court cases are going on?

    ReplyDelete
  11. some kind of back door bollox, it seems

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anyone heard of thought crimes?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, so who's guilty of the thought crime here then?

    ReplyDelete
  14. You could extrapolate from this guys 'right' to let his views on climate change interfere with his job, that any boss who criticises any employee in such circumstances is guilty of a thought crime.

    ReplyDelete