News1 min ago
Ethical Veganism Could Become A Protected Characteristic Under The Equality Act.
https:/
Could this decision pave the way for ethical veganism to become a protected characteristic under the Equality Act?
If this comes to pass, am I the only one to think it is nuts?
Surely it is a false equivalency to suggest a belief, which is arrived at personally, should have the same protection under the Act as race or sexuality or disability which nobody has a choice over.
Could this decision pave the way for ethical veganism to become a protected characteristic under the Equality Act?
If this comes to pass, am I the only one to think it is nuts?
Surely it is a false equivalency to suggest a belief, which is arrived at personally, should have the same protection under the Act as race or sexuality or disability which nobody has a choice over.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Deskdiary. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No:
> Judge Robin Postle ruled in a short summary judgment that ethical veganism satisfied the tests required for it to be a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010. For a belief to be protected, it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not being incompatible with human dignity, and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.
> Judge Robin Postle ruled in a short summary judgment that ethical veganism satisfied the tests required for it to be a philosophical belief protected under the Equality Act 2010. For a belief to be protected, it must meet a series of tests including being worthy of respect in a democratic society, not being incompatible with human dignity, and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.
// Surely it is a false equivalency to suggest a belief, which is arrived at personally, should have the same protection under the Act as race or sexuality or disability which nobody has a choice over. //
In that regard it's only the same as religious belief, which I think is also protected, so it's not really that radical.
In that regard it's only the same as religious belief, which I think is also protected, so it's not really that radical.
// and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.//
Does this include not organising mass protests that deny the fundamental rights of others their right of way? Or the picketing of business and premises that do not share the same fundamental philosophical beliefs? Or the hectoring and brow beating of sometimes vulnerable people with a cult like fervour? Thought not.
Does this include not organising mass protests that deny the fundamental rights of others their right of way? Or the picketing of business and premises that do not share the same fundamental philosophical beliefs? Or the hectoring and brow beating of sometimes vulnerable people with a cult like fervour? Thought not.
Veganism isn't ethical.
To grow vegetation such as lettuce, tomato or peppers a field must be totally and completely sprayed with pesticide which kills 10000's of animals bugs and insects every day. Not to mention the badgers, foxes, birds and rabbits who get shot on sight in case they eat / contaminate the vegetation.
Think a farmer grows vegetables ethically? No... Animals die to keep the veg as best as it can be.
To grow vegetation such as lettuce, tomato or peppers a field must be totally and completely sprayed with pesticide which kills 10000's of animals bugs and insects every day. Not to mention the badgers, foxes, birds and rabbits who get shot on sight in case they eat / contaminate the vegetation.
Think a farmer grows vegetables ethically? No... Animals die to keep the veg as best as it can be.
Veganism and religious beliefs don't go hand in hand in my personal opinion.
If humans were still scavengers do you think we'd have the access to vegetation and nuts in all areas of the world to be vegan?
Evolution and other aspects of science can explain why we need meat and why we eat it and where we could live as vegans and where we couldn't. Science can't explain religion apart from "It's a load of tosh".
If humans were still scavengers do you think we'd have the access to vegetation and nuts in all areas of the world to be vegan?
Evolution and other aspects of science can explain why we need meat and why we eat it and where we could live as vegans and where we couldn't. Science can't explain religion apart from "It's a load of tosh".
Did he get his job back ?
NO
"If humans were still scavengers do you think we'd have the access to vegetation and nuts in all areas of the world to be vegan? "
No, just in dumpsters.
This concept may be beyond the comprehension/contemplation of many fixed, indoctrinated, 'never really thought about anything that wasn't fed to me' minds.
http://
Any hormonally induced biologically imperative animal act in meat eating ?
NO
"If humans were still scavengers do you think we'd have the access to vegetation and nuts in all areas of the world to be vegan? "
No, just in dumpsters.
This concept may be beyond the comprehension/contemplation of many fixed, indoctrinated, 'never really thought about anything that wasn't fed to me' minds.
http://
Any hormonally induced biologically imperative animal act in meat eating ?
This nonsense is just a sideshow.
Mr Casamitjana was not sacked for being a vegan. He was sacked for gross misconduct. He disclosed confidential company information (that his employers - the League Against Cruel Sports - had investments in firms that undertake product testing on animals).
His next task is to prove that he was sacked because of his beliefs and not because he behaved wrongly. I think he might struggle.
Mr Casamitjana was not sacked for being a vegan. He was sacked for gross misconduct. He disclosed confidential company information (that his employers - the League Against Cruel Sports - had investments in firms that undertake product testing on animals).
His next task is to prove that he was sacked because of his beliefs and not because he behaved wrongly. I think he might struggle.
It's not a question of "damaging transparency". When working for an organisation employees have a responsibility to adhere to the terms their employers place upon them. They are often privy to the company's commercially sensitive information and cannot pick and choose what they will keep to themselves and what they won't. As far as I am aware, investing in companies that participate in product testing on animals is not illegal. Presumably, because of what are now held to be his "protected" philosophical beliefs, Mr Casamitjana may not have agreed with the practice. That's his privilege. But that is no reason for him to feel free to divulge his employer's company information to which he had privileged access. He had the perfect remedy to free himself from an organisation that he so vehemently disagrees with - he could have simply resigned.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.