Veganism IS a Philosophical Belief "protected in Law"!! But not "Sex is Real?"

[SarahConnorFem]

More to follow but let's keep an eye on this...

 Ethical veganism is a philosophical belief, tribunal says news.sky.com/story/ethical-veganism-is-a-philosophical-belief-tribunal-says-11900304

Cross post Sarah, I'll get my thread taken down as you've got the link.

@michelleoftheresistence Oh goodness great minds! I'm just shocked and pissed off. Bloke, it's because he's a bloke.

And because veganism isn't a political hot potato with a screaming mob attached, who will drown you in emails and rape threats.

I was reading about this tribunal over Christmas (the only time I get to read hard copy newspapers at leisure). This is really interesting, surely it could be a challenge to what is a protected belief in law, or as it's an employment tribunal does that not count?

Just saw this too - men's beliefs are to be taken seriously and enshrined in law. Women? Pipe down.

I saw this yesterday and thought the very same thing!!

The law is supposed to be impartial but they give a vegan campaigner rights but not a GC campaigner.
If you can print articles in the Times discussing GC ideas then why was it wrong for MF to discuss them I still don’t understand on what grounds she lost.

To me this is a case of BBC bias. Furthering their narrative. This is how BBC bias works. It isn't just by who is allowed to speak and what they are allowed to say. It is done by setting the agenda. BBC has decided this is the top headline for today. Why?

"Animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports did not contest that ethical veganism should be protected... his employer says he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
The judge ruled ethical veganism should fall under the Equality Act 2010 but is yet to rule on his dismissal."

So why is there a story here? What is it about, if everyone knows your diet is your choice? Who even cares? And his employer is an animal rights charity, FFS, of course they embrace veganism. Well, here is an opportunity for some determined BBC staffers to show the stupid public what they SHOULD be thinking, and also btw underlining the recent loss at another employment tribunal without spelling it out, which illustrates how you should NOT be thinking. Yes, I believe they are trying to wind GC people up, and "educate" others.

Too tin-hattery? Maybe. But I refuse be taken in by articles like this anymore. I always ask Why did they?

Veganism - yep

Vaginism - nope

As a GC vegan, this makes me very cross. There's more evidence of sex-based difference than the relative merits of meat vs plant-based diets, FFS (although the latter body of evidence is not inconsiderable).

So why is there a story here?

There is very definitely a story here, because the judge first of all had to rule whether veganism was a protected belief, and then rule whether the guy was unfairly sacked by his employer. If he'd decided that veganism wasn't a protected belief, then he wouldn't have had to consider whether the sacking was fair.

It's a hugely significant decision. It could be key in helping Maya if she decides to appeal.

then why was it wrong for MF to discuss them I still don’t understand on what grounds she lost.

It’s clear. She can ‘discuss them’. She lost because whilst she can believe what she likes, she can’t then refer to a person with a GRC as a sex they do not wish to be referred to as. In other words she cannot ignore the real world enactment of the GRA.

The judge stated you don’t have to believe that people can literally change sex to respect someone’s transition. Sounds like a sensible decision.

Not that she would want to of course. She has stated she would use preferred pronouns etc.

The judge's ruling in Maya's case was all over the place.

We have to bear in mind that the cases were heard by two different judges, of course. It's possible that the judge in the vegan case would have ruled in Maya's favour if he'd heard her case.

RoyalCorgi I thought the guy was sacked because he was a whistleblower. "Mr Casamitjana says he was sacked by the League Against Cruel Sports after disclosing it invested pension funds in firms involved in animal testing."

"Animal welfare charity the League Against Cruel Sports did not contest that ethical veganism should be protected" So not (at least on paper) the reason for sacking.

Not getting it.

Fleetsum

"The zoologist said prior to the hearing that he had been sacked as head of policy and research because he had raised concerns that its pension fund invested in companies that tested on animals. As a result of his disclosures, he claimed he was unfairly disciplined and that the decision to dismiss him was reached because of his belief in ethical veganism.

The animal rights campaign group, which claims to be one of the most vegan-friendly employers, said Casamitjana was dismissed for gross misconduct."

www.personneltoday.com/hr/tribunal-rules-that-ethical-veganism-is-a-protected-characteristic/

One interesting point is that for a belief to be accepted it must not do harm to others. So you can bet if someone tried to get Feminism accept as a "belief" any number of men would come forward claiming it harmed them. ie challenged their privilege.

(Just to add I started a thread on this www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3785298-If-Ethical-Veganismcan-be-protected-as-a-philosophical-belief-why-cant-feminism not knowing there already was one, as have others www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3785190-Maya-vs-Vegan )

She lost because whilst she can believe what she likes, she can’t then refer to a person with a GRC as a sex they do not wish to be referred to as. In other words she cannot ignore the real world enactment of the GRA.

The judge stated you don’t have to believe that people can literally change sex to respect someone’s transition.

Did he say that? This is from the judgement:

I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned. I do not accept the Claimant's contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction.

The Claimant's position is that even if a trans woman has a Gender Recognition Certificate, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

He seems to be saying that not believing that someone has changed sex is 'incompatible with human dignity' and not worthy of respect.

I am GC and also a vegan. I try to be an ethical vegan but it’s incredibly hard in a world where even our bank notes contain animal fat. I feel I have to make compromises daily.

I imagine it’s much the same for people of faith trying to follow a religion. Those who refuse to compromise become extremists.

It’s unfair to suggest the judge made the decision about a ‘diet choice’. They had to look at his entire way of life.

You don’t have to be a vegan to think it is bizarre for an animal rights charity to choose to invest their pensions in companies involved in animal testing!

The judge made the right decision and hopefully it can be used to help others appealing poor decisions.

Many vegans seek out others on forums and will be having nice discussions when along comes someone on a clearly marked vegan thread to spout what would be called hate speech if it was directed at a religious person.

It will be interesting to see if those types of posts will now be moderated differently on forums in light of this decision. Do you think they will?

Comparing the coverage of the "veganism is a belief" case to the Maya Forstater case on the BBC, the former has received considerably more coverage than the latter. And the coverage of the former seems to include nothing in terms of contrary views. This seems strange when you see that they actually both relate to the same issue: what can constitute a protected belief under the Equality Act.

However, in one case the claimant is going along with progressive thought while in the other the claimant has unacceptable thoughts. I'm struck, but not surprised, by how much bias the BBC is demonstrating.

Apparently does not amount to a stated case though so isn't binding on any subsequent hearings

nauticant I agree. To me this is illustrative of BBC bias.

Top story online, mentioned all day in news reports, extended news items examining veganism etc., leading the populace by the nose to an understanding that is acceptable.

Compared with Maya's case and her "belief", which as the judge explained so ham-fistedly, was wrong think.

After seeing a handful of mentions of the Maya Forstater case I was continually surprised by the repeated mentions of the veganism belief case. This went on all day yesterday. There seemed to be half a dozen mentions in 45 minutes at Radio 4 news at lunchtime.

Having thought about this more, the discrepancy of coverage isn't actually between acceptable and unacceptable beliefs. if there had been a case of a race superiority belief failing the Grainger test this would also have been covered by the BBC. It's the fact that the BBC want to make certain stories wither away and disappear by not providing coverage. And doing this because some stories are ideological heresy.

The vegan belief case was covered so much yesterday that it gave DH the RAGE and he had to turn the radio off.

Whereas I had to explain the Maya case to him, as it was so poorly covered.

This sort of thing has really battered my respect for many media sources. I was always aware that choosing stories to focus on was in itself creating a picture, that's unavoidable. But that national broadcasters long considered reliable would so openly bury topics they disagree with is shocking.

Whilst I agree that coverage has been totally slanted in amount, and not that I have respect for the BBC or any other so called news outlet, the implications of this judgement on employment law in practice could be huge.

I suspect trans activists will use this to say their employer should not support or advertise women only services, for instance.

The judgement in the Maya case was, unfortunately, upholding a law that now exists. That provides legal status to the fiction that you can change sex.

Had the media been interested they could have followed up on how was it possible that a law that enforces a fiction every came into being.