To think this sets a dangerous precedent? Ethical veganism is philosophical belief and is protected by law.

[AlternativePerspective]

Ethical veganism is 'philosophical belief' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Now, I’m not saying that how someone lives their life shouldn’t be protected. But in this instance the man was dismissed because he found out the pension funds his employers invested in supported animal testing, and then started to spread the word about them.

That was why he was dismissed and that shouldn’t be supported.

After all where does it end? Someone who is a philosophical vegan objects to workmates eating ham sandwiches at their desks so their belief trumps others’ right? Should they be able to demand that someone who needs an assistance dog not be allowed to bring it into work on the basis their beliefs state that it is unethical to keep any animal for any purpose?

Isn’t it just time people lived out their own beliefs for themselves without feeling they should have the right to make others compensate for their beliefs? And I would apply that to any kind of belief system....

They lost me at the bit on the news where they said this "ethical vegan" bloke wouldn't take the bus in case it was in collision with an insect.

Bet he's a right bundle of laughs.

Yes I agree.. a dangerous precedent that could then be applied to other beliefs/philosophies.

Looking forward to other responses on this.

It makes more sense to me than the protection of Religious beliefs. Animals exist, unlike invisible men.

But sex doesn't exist as a fact or belief apparently ....

I work in HR, I'm not surprised if I'm honest. As to whether it sets a dangerous precedent....well if upheld it will certainly set some sort of a precedent. On the whole, however, ET / EATs tend to be relatively sensible in their decision making (with some glaring exceptions!).

So, sneering at a Greggs Vegan Sausage Roll is now a hate crime?

It's myopic and clumsy at best.

And made for barristers income levels.

I'm not sure. Like a PP said - it also makes more sense to me than the protection of religious beliefs.

It’s no more or less a dangerous precedent than a religious belief imo. And they’re already protected. Whether any belief that potentially impacts on others should be legally protected is a different question.

Meanwhile if you believe a woman can't have a penis you are a bigot.

All these laws will bring down society, for real

But sex doesn't exist as a fact or belief apparently ....

And can get you sacked even when it's nothing to do with your workplace.

@Frariedeamin brilliant!

@MIdgebabe Sex, Sexual orientation (The Act protects bisexual, gay, heterosexual and lesbian people) and gender reassignment are protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, so already recognised?

Can't say I'm surprised to see veganism being bracketed with religion. Some have been acting like it for years.

Just eat your dinner.

If religious beliefs are protected it makes sense that veganism is protected. It's a consistent set of beliefs. It also does not in any way interfere with anyone else's life. This is also only the first part of the ruling. Whether he can prove that he list his job because of being vegan is another matter.

I'm a vegan, btw.
I can't see why he shouldn't spread the word about the animal testing.
It was a fact.

BourbonAndTea, yes sure.

Maya Forstater’s view of sex ‘not worthy of respect in democratic society’, employment judge finds

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2019/dec/18/judge-rules-against-charity-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets

I don't think you're examples follow from the ruling. In some religions people don't eat ham, but protection of religious beliefs doesn't mean the colleagues of someone with those religious views can't have a ham sandwich at work. If you're against animal assistance dogs you shouldn't be forced to work with one, if for example you work in the police, but hopefully there would be other roles available to you. Protection of philosophical beliefs would not mean banning them in your presence.

Just eat your dinner.

Having read a bit of background, the dismissal letter referenced his beliefs as a motivator for his behaviour they considered as gross misconduct

I reckon if they had have left out that comment he wouldn’t have been able to bring this case

I’m not a fan of fanatics etc, but I do get that it was important to him that his employer (league against cruel sports) didn’t invest in companies who conduct animal testing

As I understand it, He raised it, they didn’t change anything, he told colleagues.

It’ll be interesting to see what that judgement means in terms of his unfair dismissal etc

I dont get what he did wrong. He didnt lie

Is it safe toassume that in the future he won’t be accessing his pension due to the beliefs?

I bet his entire office were delighted he got fired. I suspect even the court judgement won’t dim the delight he’s no longer working there- not so much about his veganism but I bet he was really hard work!

As others have indicated, whilst sex is a protected characteristic, if you say something such as " woman is an adult human female" it appears may be sacked for transphobia.

When challenged in court, on the basis of belief that sex is being a biological fact rather than an identify, this was rejected

So sex as biology not a valid belief.

I’m a meat eater who wears leather and uses other animal products.

I still think ethical veganism is fairly straightforwardly a philosophical belief system. It’s based on the idea that animals, as sentient beings, have a right not to be used as a means to an end. It’s an extension of Kantian ethics to animals as well as humans.

I also don’t think he’s out of line for drawing his colleague’s attention to the fact that the pension scheme was investing in testing on animals. In most workplaces that would not cause much of a stir but his employer was the League Against Cruel Sports. I assume that there would be a larger than average number of vegans and animal rights types there. Im not sure that he did anything wrong.

Dont see a problem.

I'm vegan and have always believed that mass slaughter of animals is wrong. I live my life in a way that is less harmful to animals (and therefore our planet). Yes, it makes more sense than protecting religions that tend to contradict each other and be the source of many wars.

Well the article has just been updated to say that yes it IS a protected belief.

but, for this case, I'm a bit confused. He worked for a company against animal cruelty and then discovered they were investing in firms that were testing on animals and told collegaues - you can sort of see why!

Relevant bit of the article below:

"The tribunal centres on his claim that he was sacked by the animal welfare charity League Against Cruel Sports after disclosing it invested pension funds in firms involved in animal testing."

I'm not sure where I stand on the protected belief bit but I struggle to see why he was in the wrong for telling people about the investments, given the company he worked for?