A British Airways pilot who was banned from flying for refusing to wear a mask during the Covid pandemic has failed in his attempt to sue the airline for discrimination after an employment tribunal declared a “fundamental” human right to expect others to wear a face covering. The Telegraph has the story.
Peter Burch tried to claim he was “a sovereign being who has a right to breathe freely” and that he should not be subjected to “arbitrary and pointless” rules.
The experienced senior first officer argued that his stance against wearing a mask was the equivalent to a religious belief and he should be legally protected as a result.
But an employment tribunal ruled it could not qualify as it potentially infringed on the “fundamental” human rights of others who could catch a disease through his refusal to wear a face covering.
As a result his claims of discrimination and harassment against British Airways were dismissed.
The Watford tribunal heard Mr. Burch had worked for the airline since 1996, first as a short-haul flight captain and then as a long-haul senior first officer flying Boeing 747s.
As a result of the pandemic in 2020, British Airways furloughed a number of pilots, who were paid a reduced salary as they were not required to fly, the hearing was told.
After 20 months on reduced pay, Mr. Burch was invited to return to work but had to complete a course which included a training flight in February 2022 to Miami.
However, the night before the flight he had a “major stress reaction” after being sent a copy of the airline’s policy requiring him to wear a mask on board and was “so stressed” he called in sick.
For his next scheduled training duty, Mr. Burch reported to work without a mask, claiming he was “exempt” from wearing one.
This was rejected by his training captain, but when Mr. Burch refused to comply, he was “stood down” and placed on unpaid leave, it was heard.
Not wearing a face mask infringes on other people’s “fundamental” human rights? Good grief. Is this what the great Western tradition of human rights has come to – a “fundamental” right to require those around you to wear an (ineffective) rag over their mouths to ‘protect’ you from germs? This surely cannot stand. It makes a mockery of the concept of human rights and brings them into disrepute.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Oh dear. So we cannot enter the hospital for vital surgery without their masks etc etc etc. Despite the fact that as someone once described, that a mask is like a scaffolding with tennis balls chucked at it. Sure some of the tennis balls will hit some of the poles, but most of them will fly right through the scaffolding. In other words they are pretty useless. But then so are the politicians that inflict this stuff on us.
That someone was me
, morning, and I totally agree, this is an absolutely incorrect decision and allows anyone to instruct others what to do because of their human rights not yours! Insane
Let us hope there is an appeal to which we can all crowd fund.
Or like using a chain link fence to keep out mosquitoes.
Or a supermarket trolley to transport sand.
So, let me get this straight—-In order to confer ‘fundamental rights” to a group of folk, an individual must be denied his fundamental rights to go unmasked. Yeah, that makes sense—–in Clown world.
It sounds crazy but actually abhorrent as it may seem this is entirely consistent with how modern societies function..
There are a number of things that are claimed as “rights” which imply an obligation by others. The right to education, the right to housing, the right to healthcare. In one way or another these privileges are articulated as rights in many countries. And by their nature none of them can be achieved without demanding something of somebody, typically payment in the form of taxes.
To me, a right is something that you have without anyone doing anything but can be taken away. The right to roam, the right to grow your own food, the right to drive the type of car you want.
Things that require somebody do something for you aren’t rights in my book. But in our society they are called rights and they lead to confusion and atrocities like this ruling where I can now demand behaviour from you as a right.
We are in so much trouble.
Re’ your first two lines and ‘modern society’, In that case,I wish to opt out. “Who do I get in touch with?” (Here, I am minded of the Derek and Clive conversation re’ the ballroom/gorilla/wife/fornication). “Is this any way to run an effing ballroom?”
Things that require somebody do something for you aren’t rights in my book. But in our society they are called rights
This is not quite true. The UN has declared them rights and such UN declarations pass as law in many European countries. This frankenparliament which – to this date – maintains that military invasions of the hostile states – Germany and Japan – are a legitimate way to exercise an influence on domestic politics in either country ought to be dissolved.
Legislation is not Law.
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/legislation
I didn’t use the term, though. The point I was trying to make is that the problem is not some nebulously defined society aka the general rottenness of the times, the usual human allround complaint since centuries, but one of external interference by the UN and associated bodies. Eg, to use an example from Germany, it was decreed that having a right to vote would be a very important fundamental human right. German politicians from the left (which is really all established parties) keep pointing at this whenever they want to fast-track foreigners yet more aggressively towards German citizienship: They’re living among us! They must be given a right to vote, because otherwise, that’s not a democracy!
The same German politicians don’t give a hoot about the fact that Germans living on foreign countries are usually completely disenfranchised in this respect: They’re not allowed to vote in German elections because they’re not living in Germany (exceptions exist, but generally, this is prohibited) and they’re also not allowed to vote in whatever country they’re living in because they’re Germans.
But they’ll arrest and fine you anyway.
There are two kinds of Right – passive Rights as conferred through Natural and Common Law. Theses carry no obligation on a third party to provide them, but prohibit anyone from denying them.
Positive rights as conferred by legislation, which carry an obligation on a third party – usually the State – to provide them.
The nitwits at the tribunal don’t know the difference.
And positive rights, which every functioning society has to some degree, are fine in principle, as long as they don’t unduly infringe on the negative rights of others. Forcing people to wear masks clearly fails that test.
Paying taxes is one thing, but forced masking is a whole other level of crazy.
Technically, we could even abolish all taxes and just print all the money we need for all of the above positive rights and more. And all without infringing on anyone’s negative rights. But the oligarchs prefer to use such artificial scarcity to “discipline” the serfs and keep us in line. And taxes are also a means to control inflation, albeit a very crude and blunt one.
Indeed, it is completely insane. The mental gymnastics that the zealots go through to justify it are ridiculous.
The diapers make you ill, you eat Co2, carcinogens and reduce oxygen flows.
They don’t stop 0.3 micron sized anything, including flying, whizzing, ‘evolving’ viruses if you believe in those fairy tales (zooming miles in their ‘water bubbles’).
I guess if the state wants to murder you because you are unstabbinated that is also not an infringement of your ‘human rights’. How many forests have been felled since 1215 expressing ‘human rights’ and individual soverignty? How many agreements signed? They mean nothing.
Wearing a “face covering” undoubtedly causes discomfort (itchy, hot, sweaty, rebreathing exhaled stale air, fogging of spectacles etc). Rebreathing exhaled air over long durations likely results in lowered oxygen and raised carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, a physiological effect almost certainly reducing cognitive performance. The effects could be worsened by cabin pressure altitude.
Any or all of the above will likely result in increased pilot workload, reducing performance and increasing the likelihood of making an error. Crew workload forms part of the certification basis for the flight deck.
So it seems that a mask mandate potentially breaches the certification basis for the aircraft. Adequate testing would be required to demonstrate that pilot workload is acceptable when flying with a soggy germ ridden rag around the face for hours on end.
The fundamental right of BA managers to sleep soundly at night because they can be sure that BA employees they’ll never meet will not show their faces in public is certainly worth more than some people’s expectation to survive a BA flight! After all, one can always claim that the plane was really brought down by a Russian rocket.
If I remember rightly, I think we had to wear our gimp masks in the flight deck until the aircraft doors were closed, and then put them on again if going out into the cabin.
The really stupid thing in all this was that it meant we were masked when we entered the aircraft critical data. It’s called critical for a reason – the aircraft weight, take off speeds, power setting, and trim for take off.
I’m sure a mask couldn’t cause any ambiguity there.
In reality, 99% of us ignored this stupidity, and then engaged in the theatre in public, for that’s all it was.
And in fact, according to the law, transport workers were exempt anyway, so thanks for backing me up, unnamed British airline.
The tribunal seems to have made the decision based on faith and propagandised social convention, not facts. Human rights are universal, not particular or partisan. Was there no mention of the ineffectiveness of the masks on either side of the argument, if not, why not? Would it be equivalent to a Sikh Senior First Officer requiring all other male flight staff to wear a keski, or a Jewish officer requiring others to wear a yarmulke? What happens if you get one of each on the flight crew? This cannot stand.
What qualifications do the members of the tribunal have? Are they medically or legally qualified or it is a tribunal of lay members? Were expert witnesses called?
Or were they all kangaroos?
Family Courts work similarly as kangaroo courts. They just rubber stamp local authorities’ decisions already made by local authorities which are ostensibly in the interests of child protection but in reality are sometimes decisions already made in furtherance of a political agenda or cover-ups of public sector blunders.
They don’t need qualifications. They need to think and be inquisitive.
Kangaroos most likely.
I hate being unkind to kangaroos – they are beautiful creatures, But I have to agree with you.
This reminds me of Nicholson v Grainger. Judge Burton ruled that Tim Nicholson could try to sue his employer over his idea that humans caused climate change. The judge deemed it to be a religious or philosophical belief and therefore covered by the relevant legislation. (The parties then settled out of court.)
[1] [2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311 Appeal No. UKEAT/0219/09
“Refusing to wear a mask and passing on Covid could potentially affect someone else’s right to life, Judge Coll said.
Dismissing his claim, she concluded: “[Mr Burch] seems to recognise that his exercising his human rights in relation to not wearing a mask could cause a problem to those who were vulnerable.
“His belief is therefore in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, such as Article 2, right to life (defined as ‘no one shall be deprived of his life intentionally’).”
Besides being illogical, unscientific and absurd….I have news for the Judge….just living and being a human being….inhaling…exhaling …sneezing…all come under the same umbrella..does she think we should all stop breathing in case we ‘kill’ someone?
Utter codswallop, for all the reasons everyone is mentioning….and frankly the reason there has to be a revolution…I absolutely do not recognise these insane idiots having any authority over me any more…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8_-9bDWaHY
Neil Oliver: Fancy a Revolution?
The reason why this is nonsense is because submicroscopic organisms and proto-organisms move around as they see fit (so to say) without humans having any ability to notice that, let alone stop it. Because of this, they cannot be held responsible for it. To our coarse-grained senses, skin might seem pretty solid but it’s really full of holes also used for breathing. That’s why people with large burns asphyxiate. And each and everyone of these holes can and is also be used by all kinds of really small animate things to enter and exit our body’s at their leisure.
Simpler argument: Did this shedge (she-judge) continuously wear a face covering since birth? If not, the moment one catches sight of the shedge without one, it should be reported to the authorities for attempted murder because – according to its own argument – the shedge tried to put others intentionally to death by not covering its face. Its own ruling could then be used wonderfully against it. The trial should be televised for national entertainment.
Yes….it’s absolutely bonkers….I honestly think she should be sacked for utter stupidity…..talk about bringing the law into disrepute??
and why stop at masks….?
….according to the WHO, NIH, our own Government and others….
’Convid’ droplets can fall into your eyes..or you can infect yourself by fomite transmission…touching surfaces then touching your eyes, nose and mouth…
What’s the Pilot supposed to do..wear a helmet, mask and fricken gauntlets!!??
I know, right? The reductio ad absurdum practically writes itself!
Even Karl Marx himself would be spinning in his grave over this nonsense!
“…fundamental rights of others who could catch a disease…”
A complete travesty of logic and science. These people seriously think people should permanently walk around in nbc suits to protect others?!?
Humans were not designed to breathe through a mask or face covering. The “face coverings” do not, and cannot, offer any protection against anything. The blue things were not even classed as medical masks to mitigate the worst of fluid splatters.
The tribunal decision demonstrates quite clearly the utter futility of trying to convince a f*ckwit, through logic and reasoned debate, not to commit a weapons grade act of f*ckwittery. It’s part of the human condition.
Either that or the tribunal was knobbled.
It is indeed a travesty. If everyone else was wearing a magic mask why should it matter if Mr Burch wasn’t – unless of course the masks don’t work, in which case the whole argument falls apart.
So true.
For “employment tribunal“, do not read “court“. It is equivalent to “experts said.”
Using such headlines is stooping to the level of a tabloid’s front-page.
The UN has made a mockery of human rights when it invented the ‘human right’ to immigrate illegally into a welfare state from any place that isn’t. Not that long ago, lawyers of some guy from Afghanistan managed to get his deportation blocked by a German court on the grounds that he’d face ‘economic hardship’ when no longer being able to live of German welfare payments. I mean, back in Afghanistan, he might even have to work for a living. That’s clearly intolerable for members of the global majority.
‘Others who could catch a disease’.
Apart from the fact there’s not a single scientific study that proves masks stop viruses.
The pilot must appeal.
https://t.me/omegaprogrammeforum/15669
Yep. Especially since the shedge declared him a murderer. That’s quite of an accusation to make and must not be allowed to stand.
If a mask could actually filter virus particles out of the air this pilot breaths, he would suffocate and die. The fact that these maniacs don’t even realise how masks work makes the fact that they actually have control over our airline pilot community utterly terrifying.
The idiots are genuinely winning.
Tyranny
I know this man personally. He is back flying with BA on intercontinental routes. He never took a jab, he never took a test, he never wore a mask, he never complied, he marched in London, he stood every Sunday and he is back doing what he loves most. Flying.
If anything, he has shown tremendous courage throughout all this, nothing short of heroic imo.
Well done Pete!
Excellent , pass on our best wishes , he is up there ( if you’ll pardon the pun ) with Novak Djokovic both ,absolute legends
he is a hero i hope when i fly british airways he is the pilot
That he is back working is good to hear. Well done to him for standing up for HIS rights.
Only a short step now, to : my human rights are infringed by your refusal to receive vaccination, and your denial of ‘settled science’ shows that you lack capacity to decide what is in your own, or others’, best interests. Therefore, decision making now rests with us and we can (1) ignore any previously expressed personal wishes; (2) use all reasonable means to administer the vaccine, including using covert sedation contained in drinks (as recent paper on these matters suggests, noting the additional benefit of “preventing memory formation”). And all the time, our ‘carers’ will be stroking our hair, cooing (and perhaps believing) ” we’re only doing this for you.”
I read the WEF’s book ‘COVID-19: The Great Reset’, which was published just 3 months after the pandemic was declared. I am now reading ‘Snake Oil – How Xi Jinping shut down the World’ by Michael P Senger.
Before C19 I was going to read ‘The Open Society and it’s Enemies’ by Karl Popper but there doesn’t appear to be time and I already get the gist of what Popper would have written. We are not in a good position.
“But an employment tribunal ruled it could not qualify as it potentially infringed on the “fundamental” human rights of others who could catch a disease through his refusal to wear a face covering.”
Rights are only possible within a world of abundance and that abundance is the product of science and engineering, and I mean real science rooted in reality and not the upside down world where ‘science’ is rooted in rights. When rights are amputated from science and engineering and float free it is possible to argue for all sorts of conflicting insanity as there is no need to check in with the real world. After at least 3 years I would hope that our ‘betters’, the judicial system in this case, would have caught up with what actually happened and seek out all opposing views and data. Instead we have a ‘judgement’ that wouldn’t be out of place in the Soviet Union.
The Gates/CCP inspired right, ‘No one is safe until everyone is safe’, did not extend to cancer patients, or anyone not arbitrarily deemed part of the grand illusion that was Covid. Death was wished on those not taking part in the collectivisation and it was deemed perfectly reasonable for healthcare to be withheld from someone not wearing a mask or who had not been injected with an emergency authorised drug that produces spike proteins in unknown ways.
Yuri Bezhmenov described how the KGB was working to spread revolution and communism to the non-communist western world. Of the 4 phases, which one are we in?
Demoralisation
Destabilisation
Crisis
Normalisation
Update and correction – I have just watched Academic Agent ‘Demoralization: What Yuri Bezmenov Didn’t Tell You’. There Dr Neema Parvini explains that what we are seeing is the product of the Frankfurt School and in particular their involvement in De-Nazifying Germany post WW2, and how this ‘virtuous’ cause has grown to encompass all of the Western World, as we are all fascists, in their eyes. I would say this is all still Communism.
They’re not masks, they’re muzzles.
So not being vaccinated infringes on fundamental Human Rights of others?
The judge needs to be removed as he has no understanding of Law.
There is no Right ‘not to catch a disease’.
So employment tribunals get to decide what are and are not “fundamental human rights” eh?
When did they get that power? Or better, WTFF?
WTF? You mean WEF.
There is no “fundamental human right” to force other people to cover their faces because you’re afraid of their cooties. Zip, zilch, nada. In fact it is an “anti-right”, in that it inherently infringes on the fundamental rights of others.
I recall a similar tortured argument on my side of the pond as well in 2020, where the Bill of Rights’ Third Amendment (against quartering of soldiers in private homes) was used to justify lockdowns. The lockdown zealots read into that amendment a “fundamental right” to be “free from infectious disease” because apparently one of the many reasons the amendment was written was to prevent soldiers from infecting their unwilling hosts with smallpox. Talk about mental gymnastics, disanalogy, non-sequitur, and plenty of other fallacies!
It’s basically the Marxist ideas of “positive rights only” and “social murder”, though ironically Marx himself was a “let it rip” kind of guy when it came to disease.
Negative liberty and positive liberty are two sides of the same coin. Treating them as mutually exclusive is a fool’s errand.
Weird.
What about the “fundamental human right” not to wear a face mask?
There is a considerable body of work that shows that not only are masks ineffective for the claimed purpose, but they are or very likely to be positively detrimental to health.
where in God’s Earth can any human being have a ‘right’ to demand that someone harm their own health (for no good achieved) ?
If we’re going to arbitrarily throw around “fundamental human rights”, and baselessly claim that something-or-other is a “human right”, then surely we could argue that we have the right to relative safety on an airline flight. Given that studies have suggested that masks worn for long periods can affect cognitive function and levels of concentration (presumably due to the breathlessness that can result from increased inhalation of your own CO2), then even if there is a whisper of possibility that these suggestions are correct, then isn’t it my “fundamental right” that the pilot responsible for landing safely (and hence responsible for my life) doesn’t get a bit woozy and lose concentration?
How about we weigh up the risks of the pilot falling asleep and crashing the plane, killing 400-or-so, against the risks of passing on a relatively harmless virus (which is more or less the same whether your muzzled or not)?
As usual, the validity of the premise is undermined by simple common sense: what else might, on the principle according to which this airline pilot has lost his case, constitute a ‘human right’?
– the right to expect others to drive only very slow cars which are less dangerous than faster cars – or no cars at all?
– the right to expect others to speak very quietly because loud noises cause stress?
– the right to expect tube train users to fix soft rubber casings to their suitcases so that my legs aren’t bruised (as happened to me pretty inconsequential last week and from which horrific event I’ve made a full recovery)?
– or, more fashionably, the right to expect others not to eat meat, because, well, we all know how fantastically harmful that is, right?
This case sets an absurd and dangerous precedent, particularly because fast cars, loud noises and suitcases can actually cause harm, whereas there’s no danger to be faced from someone who isn’t wearing a mask – at least no more danger than from someone who is.
(ps, I’m not so frightened of people who eat meat, by the way)
Haven’t read the article yet but was it a kangaroo court?
I would not expect anyone to wear a mask and no doubt many, many others will feel the same way.
Just read the article. SO BA has emplyed this pilot for 26 years which would have included further training etc and has placed him on unpaid leave for his stance on masks!!!!!
A disgraceful way to treat anyone whatever their profession.
This is appalling. Let’s hope he appeals and wins hands down. There must be another process he can use.
The only escape from this madness is to set up our own parallel society. This pilot should apply to the Freedom Travel Alliance for a job.
Complete madness.
This is insane.
The planet is saved. In consequence it logically follows that no one should drive a car in case they lose control and kill me./sarc off