Ethical veganism should be protected the same as religious beliefs, judge rules

A tribunal has ruled that “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and should have legal protection against discrimination in the same way as a religion.

In a landmark legal case, employment judge Robin Postle found on Friday that ethical veganism was worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

The case was brought by Jordi Casamitjana, the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports, who is challenging his sacking by the charity in 2018 after telling colleagues that their workplace pensions were invested in companies that conducted animal testing.

He argued that he was let go due to his vegan beliefs, which the charity denies. Instead the organisation said it sacked him for “gross misconduct” after alleging he had given his colleagues biased financial advice in relation to their workplace pensions, against management’s instructions.

https://www.ft.com/content/0862acd4-2e22-11ea-bc77-65e4aa615551

I have no problem with this ruling; I think this guy's employer fucked him over.

His employer definitely fucked him over....for profit.

eddie wrote:His employer definitely fucked him over....for profit.

It was all about money, for sure. When it comes to high-level corporate decisions, they're all made with profit in mind.

Even when they do things that are objectively good, corporations are still just trying to make people love their brand and their products.

A tribunal has ruled that “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and should have legal protection against discrimination in the same way as a religion.

This is utter bollox imo.  No philosophical belief should ever be ''protected'' by law.    and the same goes for any religion.  your choice to believe what you want but it should never have some kind of legal protection surrounding it.  it's fucking insane.

The case was brought by Jordi Casamitjana, the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports, who is challenging his sacking by the charity in 2018 after telling colleagues that their workplace pensions were invested in companies that conducted animal testing.


that being said, i don't agree with his being sacked for giving his colleagues info about their pension investments.  i think he had every right to do that and they had every right to know, especially given the nature of the charity.

ps, glad you made it back to blighty, ben x

gelico wrote:A tribunal has ruled that “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and should have legal protection against discrimination in the same way as a religion.

This is utter bollox imo.  No philosophical belief should ever be ''protected'' by law.    and the same goes for any religion.  your choice to believe what you want but it should never have some kind of legal protection surrounding it.  it's fucking insane.

The case was brought by Jordi Casamitjana, the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports, who is challenging his sacking by the charity in 2018 after telling colleagues that their workplace pensions were invested in companies that conducted animal testing.


that being said, i don't agree with his being sacked for giving his colleagues info about their pension investments.  i think he had every right to do that and they had every right to know, especially given the nature of the charity.

ps, glad you made it back to blighty, ben x

Thanks, gels! I think the legal protection granted to this belief only serves to keep people from being sacked over it, to be fair. Sadly, the law seems to have to define each of these as they come, rather than just saying, it's bullshit to fire someone over this.

Can't wait for someone to decide that bestiality is their religion.

Maddog wrote:Can't wait for someone to decide that bestiality is their religion.  

What do you mean by that regarding this issue? Explain please.

Ben Reilly wrote:

A tribunal has ruled that “ethical veganism” is a philosophical belief and should have legal protection against discrimination in the same way as a religion.

In a landmark legal case, employment judge Robin Postle found on Friday that ethical veganism was worthy of protection under the Equality Act 2010.

The case was brought by Jordi Casamitjana, the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports, who is challenging his sacking by the charity in 2018 after telling colleagues that their workplace pensions were invested in companies that conducted animal testing.

He argued that he was let go due to his vegan beliefs, which the charity denies. Instead the organisation said it sacked him for “gross misconduct” after alleging he had given his colleagues biased financial advice in relation to their workplace pensions, against management’s instructions.

https://www.ft.com/content/0862acd4-2e22-11ea-bc77-65e4aa615551

I have no problem with this ruling; I think this guy's employer fucked him over.

Any group of people can get together and make a new religion. So if vegans want to …..... hey, be my guest!
I've no interest in veganism myself. I have never entertained it, and never will.

Maddog wrote:Can't wait for someone to decide that bestiality is their religion.  

I think most courts would deem that one step too far, don't you?

You could say that about anything. My religion requires me to murder, to rape, etc. I'm sure it's been tried before.

Remember, people by and large make sound decisions

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Can't wait for someone to decide that bestiality is their religion.  

I think most courts would deem that one step too far, don't you?

You could say that about anything. My religion requires me to murder, to rape, etc. I'm sure it's been tried before.

Remember, people by and large make sound decisions

OK, maybe they will just accept animal-human marriages as long as it's not sexual.

Back on topic.
I despise the idea of either party to an employment agreement being prohibited from ending it at any time. It's oppression.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Can't wait for someone to decide that bestiality is their religion.  

I think most courts would deem that one step too far, don't you?

You could say that about anything. My religion requires me to murder, to rape, etc. I'm sure it's been tried before.

Remember, people by and large make sound decisions

OK, maybe they will just accept animal-human marriages as long as it's not sexual.

Back on topic.  
I despise the idea of either party to an employment agreement being prohibited from ending it at any time.  It's oppression.  

Your employer being able to fire you for your personal beliefs isn't oppression?

It isn't oppressing people to say, if you express your beliefs, I'll deprive you of your livelihood?

Everyone should be able to express their beliefs without the fear of being fired.

"Ethical Veganism"...

Yet another modern day oxymoron..

You can't outlaw stupidity, so you can't outlaw such idiotic fads the likes of "veganism", anti-vaxxers and flat earthers.

But you certainly shouldn't be forced to employ those nutbags !!!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK, maybe they will just accept animal-human marriages as long as it's not sexual.

Back on topic.  
I despise the idea of either party to an employment agreement being prohibited from ending it at any time.  It's oppression.  

Your employer being able to fire you for your personal beliefs isn't oppression?

It isn't oppressing people to say, if you express your beliefs, I'll deprive you of your livelihood?

No it's not. It's a two way street and either party should be able to end it at will.

You don't have a right to employment. You have a right to say anything you like, but your employer doesn't need to tolerate it. Should employees be allowed to march with the Klan?

eddie wrote:Everyone should be able to express their beliefs without the fear of being fired.

So they can match around in Nazi uniforms and the employer is stuck with them?

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Everyone should be able to express their beliefs without the fear of being fired.

So they can match around in Nazi uniforms and the employer is stuck with them?

So you think membership in a hate group is the same as saying we shouldn't kill animals?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So they can match around in Nazi uniforms and the employer is stuck with them?

So you think membership in a hate group is the same as saying we shouldn't kill animals?

No, but I'm making a point. Employers should have the right to determine what sort of people represent their companies.

And I do think people that think one species shouldn't kill and eat other species as a bit strange. I would prefer less strange people working for a company that I ran or owned. No doubt others would be fine with it and those two should form a mutually beneficial relationship.

This Political Correctness is a load of crap, can we not call a Spade a Spade ? --------oops !

Any sympathy that I have for this man and his rights is far outweighed by the fact that so many vegans are intolerant often to the point of aggression of the rights of people to buy and eat meat and eggs, drink milk and wear animal products if they so wish.

The most bigoted and illiberal people that I encountered in my public speaking role as a representative of the UK farming industry were vegans who were on the same platform or members of the audience.

People should be able to think what they think without judging others harshly and without forcing their opinions on others.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

So they can match around in Nazi uniforms and the employer is stuck with them?

So you think membership in a hate group is the same as saying we shouldn't kill animals?

No, but I'm making a point.  Employers should have the right to determine what sort of people represent their companies.  

And I do think people that think one species shouldn't kill and eat other species as a bit strange. I would prefer less strange people working for a company that I ran or owned. No doubt others would be fine with it and those two should form a mutually beneficial relationship.  

Do you think that would be a strange belief for "the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports" to hold?

Poor guy most likely believed he was in a group of like-minded people who would be horrified to learn they were profiting from animal testing.

Oh, and employment is never truly a two-way street. The employee is always more dependent upon the employer. You can't act as though both employer and employee enter into that contract on equal footing.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Any sympathy that I have for this man and his rights is far outweighed by the fact that so many vegans are intolerant often to the point of aggression of the rights of people to buy and eat meat and eggs, drink milk and wear animal products if they so wish.

The most bigoted and illiberal people that I encountered in my public speaking role as a representative of the UK farming industry were vegans who were on the same platform or members of the audience.

So you think he should be punished for the actions of other vegans?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, but I'm making a point.  Employers should have the right to determine what sort of people represent their companies.  

And I do think people that think one species shouldn't kill and eat other species as a bit strange. I would prefer less strange people working for a company that I ran or owned. No doubt others would be fine with it and those two should form a mutually beneficial relationship.  

Do you think that would be a strange belief for "the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports" to hold?

Poor guy most likely believed he was in a group of like-minded people who would be horrified to learn they were profiting from animal testing.

Oh, and employment is never truly a two-way street. The employee is always more dependent upon the employer. You can't act as though both employer and employee enter into that contract on equal footing.

Sounds like the guy was quite the narcissist and tried to abuse his position as an employee to attack his employer

The case has not been decided and its unlikely he will win and rightly so

People should not abuse their beliefs to use as a weapon to attack their employers

So, this being the case, shouldnt those agressive troublemaking shop and farm attacking vegans be treated and hunted in exactly the same way as the terrorists belonging to other so called philosophical beliefs?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:Any sympathy that I have for this man and his rights is far outweighed by the fact that so many vegans are intolerant often to the point of aggression of the rights of people to buy and eat meat and eggs, drink milk and wear animal products if they so wish.

The most bigoted and illiberal people that I encountered in my public speaking role as a representative of the UK farming industry were vegans who were on the same platform or members of the audience.

So you think he should be punished for the actions of other vegans?

I'm not calling for anyone to be "punished" for anything; what an extraordinary idea.

I am simply saying that I have no sympathy for someone who pursues a "right" that does not, in my experience, respect the equal rights of others.

If an "ethical vegan" does not wish to serve me a pack of Tesco smoked bacon, then he or she should not expect be employed in a job at Tesco's which will inevitably involve serving me or anyone who wishes to buy a pack of bacon.

This particular case - which is, I suspect far from over as it is simply the ruling of a judge at an employment tribunal - appears to be centred on this man's deliberate attempt to disaffect  colleagues by making allegations about the employer's pension investment policy. But  with what aim other than to cause disloyalty, disaffection and disruption to the work of the organisation?

Taking his stance to what would be a logical conclusion, he presumably would have "nothing to do with me" (his words) because I, myself, am not an "ethical" or "philosophical" vegan.

Yet but for the bovine artificial aortic valve in my heart I would be dead.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK, maybe they will just accept animal-human marriages as long as it's not sexual.

Back on topic.  
I despise the idea of either party to an employment agreement being prohibited from ending it at any time.  It's oppression.  

Your employer being able to fire you for your personal beliefs isn't oppression?

It isn't oppressing people to say, if you express your beliefs, I'll deprive you of your livelihood?

No it's not.  It's a two way street and either party should be able to end it at will.  

You don't have a right to employment. You have a right to say anything you like, but your employer doesn't need to tolerate it.  Should employees be allowed to march with the Klan?

Don't you see how your stance there gives FAR more freedom to big companies than it does to the average joe?

This is why libertarianism isn't really liberal at all. You simply take power from the state/government (who, corrupt as they may often be, are still largely accountable to the voter every few years and can be out on their ear if failing at their job), and had that power to the super rich. The vast majority would be no more or less free in real terms than they are already, but they'd have far fewer avenues of real justice.

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No it's not.  It's a two way street and either party should be able to end it at will.  

You don't have a right to employment. You have a right to say anything you like, but your employer doesn't need to tolerate it.  Should employees be allowed to march with the Klan?

Don't you see how your stance there gives FAR more freedom to big companies than it does to the average joe?

This is why libertarianism isn't really liberal at all. You simply take power from the state/government (who, corrupt as they may often be, are still largely accountable to the voter every few years and can be out on their ear if failing at their job), and had that power to the super rich. The vast majority would be no more or less free in real terms than they are already, but they'd have far fewer avenues of real justice.

No, it gives the employer and employee the same amount of power.  

What I see is a bias on many against big companies.  Like their very success makes them evil.

And I'm aware that people have an issue with libertarianism as it treats everyone the same without putting people in different groups and assigning them different values and rights.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, but I'm making a point.  Employers should have the right to determine what sort of people represent their companies.  

And I do think people that think one species shouldn't kill and eat other species as a bit strange. I would prefer less strange people working for a company that I ran or owned. No doubt others would be fine with it and those two should form a mutually beneficial relationship.  

Do you think that would be a strange belief for "the former head of policy and research at animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports" to hold?

Poor guy most likely believed he was in a group of like-minded people who would be horrified to learn they were profiting from animal testing.

Oh, and employment is never truly a two-way street. The employee is always more dependent upon the employer. You can't act as though both employer and employee enter into that contract on equal footing.

Guess it depends on the employee.  

In any event, I will always support the idea that two people or groups can end a relationship for what ever reason they like.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No it's not.  It's a two way street and either party should be able to end it at will.  

You don't have a right to employment. You have a right to say anything you like, but your employer doesn't need to tolerate it.  Should employees be allowed to march with the Klan?

Don't you see how your stance there gives FAR more freedom to big companies than it does to the average joe?

This is why libertarianism isn't really liberal at all. You simply take power from the state/government (who, corrupt as they may often be, are still largely accountable to the voter every few years and can be out on their ear if failing at their job), and had that power to the super rich. The vast majority would be no more or less free in real terms than they are already, but they'd have far fewer avenues of real justice.

No, it gives the employer and employee the same amount of power.  

What I see is a bias on many against big companies.  Like their very success makes them evil.

And I'm aware that people have an issue with libertarianism as it treats everyone the same without putting people in different groups and assigning them different values and rights.  

The party with more money always has more power. That's why most people have jumped through hoops to get every job they've ever had.

You offer a company a risk that you’ll end up making them more money than what they invest in you.

They offer in return money to pay for your housing, food, etc.

One is worth far more than the other. It's not equal.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, it gives the employer and employee the same amount of power.  

What I see is a bias on many against big companies.  Like their very success makes them evil.

And I'm aware that people have an issue with libertarianism as it treats everyone the same without putting people in different groups and assigning them different values and rights.  

The party with more money always has more power. That's why most people have jumped through hoops to get every job they've ever had.

You offer a company a risk that you’ll end up making them more money than what they invest in you.

They offer in return money to pay for your housing, food, etc.

One is worth far more than the other. It's not equal.

That would be the case if your bound to negotiate with only one company. In a functioning free market, there are plenty of places to work. Companies have to compete for labor. It's why companies offer competitive employment packages. They have to compete with each other or wind up with the worst employees. That's never profitable.

Maddog wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Don't you see how your stance there gives FAR more freedom to big companies than it does to the average joe?

This is why libertarianism isn't really liberal at all. You simply take power from the state/government (who, corrupt as they may often be, are still largely accountable to the voter every few years and can be out on their ear if failing at their job), and had that power to the super rich. The vast majority would be no more or less free in real terms than they are already, but they'd have far fewer avenues of real justice.

No, it gives the employer and employee the same amount of power.  

What I see is a bias on many against big companies.  Like their very success makes them evil.

And I'm aware that people have an issue with libertarianism as it treats everyone the same without putting people in different groups and assigning them different values and rights.  

More outright economic illiteracy bullshit fantasy from the MadFlog...

The employer and individual employee never have "the same amount of power" in their negotiating..

Never have, never will.

It has always been an unequal situation..

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, it gives the employer and employee the same amount of power.  

What I see is a bias on many against big companies.  Like their very success makes them evil.

And I'm aware that people have an issue with libertarianism as it treats everyone the same without putting people in different groups and assigning them different values and rights.  

The party with more money always has more power. That's why most people have jumped through hoops to get every job they've ever had.

You offer a company a risk that you’ll end up making them more money than what they invest in you.

They offer in return money to pay for your housing, food, etc.

One is worth far more than the other. It's not equal.

That would be the case if your bound to negotiate with only one company. In a functioning free market, there are plenty of places to work. Companies have to compete for labor.  It's why companies offer competitive employment packages.  They have to compete with each other or wind up with the worst employees.  That's never profitable.

In a functioning free market, you still have companies only seeking certain skills -- sometimes in the most ridiculous ways. I remember hearing about a tech company that was seeking programmers with 10 years experience coding JavaScript back when Java had only been around for four years.

You still have salary gradations that mean a father of four with a law degree who doesn't get into a decent firm will not just say, "Oh well, there's always Walmart."

There are only two circumstances in which employer and employee are on near-level footing -- one, we're talking about an industry like construction, where there are so few workers that companies are literally hoping and praying for applicants with a pulse and a few functioning brain cells -- or when labor is unionized properly, so that workers can afford to go on strike to remind their bosses that they need the workers just as much as the workers need management.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

That would be the case if your bound to negotiate with only one company. In a functioning free market, there are plenty of places to work. Companies have to compete for labor.  It's why companies offer competitive employment packages.  They have to compete with each other or wind up with the worst employees.  That's never profitable.

In a functioning free market, you still have companies only seeking certain skills -- sometimes in the most ridiculous ways. I remember hearing about a tech company that was seeking programmers with 10 years experience coding JavaScript back when Java had only been around for four years.

You still have salary gradations that mean a father of four with a law degree who doesn't get into a decent firm will not just say, "Oh well, there's always Walmart."

There are only two circumstances in which employer and employee are on near-level footing -- one, we're talking about an industry like construction, where there are so few workers that companies are literally hoping and praying for applicants with a pulse and a few functioning brain cells -- or when labor is unionized properly, so that workers can afford to go on strike to remind their bosses that they need the workers just as much as the workers need management.

No, he won't say there is always Wal-mart. I know a guy who got a law degree who didn't get into a good firm. He went to work for a company writing law books. He didn't go to Wal-Mart.