Isn’t this interesting?

Ethical veganism is an ethical belief protected by law.

As Maya Forstater found out, blokes are blokes and blokes aren’t birds is not an ethical belief protected by law.

Odd old world, eh?

The judge Robin Postle ruled that ethical veganism qualifies as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 by satisfying several tests – including that it is worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.

It’s the first of those three tests which sells the pass. Because who defines what is worthy?

17 thoughts on “Isn’t this interesting?”

  1. …not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.

    Until they come into your eatery and try to stop people going about their lawful business. But that’s all okay because reasons.

  2. ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’

    FO, judge. We will decide what’s worthy of respect. THAT’S DEMOCRACY, YOU POS.

  3. Like I said today in an earlier thread, you’ve got to dismantle this disabling cockrot. Otherwise, nowt’s going nowhere. That’s the whole point of its conservatism.

    It’s also a very good example of why I had no faith in Bojo achieving anything.

    Theo, et al, I shall be happy to be proved wrong.

  4. What surprised me was who he worked for, a left leaning organisation. They did not contest the principle and I tend to believe their explanation. A statement by a tribunal judge is hardly precedent, especially when no decision on the dismissal has even been decided.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    I’ve seen it suggested on Twitter that we should try to get belief in free markets in free markets qualified as a philosophical belief. A god role for the ASI?

  6. “including that it is worthy of respect in a democratic society, ”

    If one of your judges has the power to decide this then you don’t live in a democratic society.

    I think that, once Brexit is done, you guys need another civil war.

  7. Luddy

    Can you confirm that the ruling that ethical veganism is a protected characteristic is not binding on future tribunals, as Guido claims?

    As to BoJo, he will certainly achieve something, rather than nothing….But, to repeat for the hard of understanding, destroying the centre-right party before the left-wing party is destroyed is crazy.

  8. Given that his claim on veganism was irrelevant to the dismissal case why is the judge even ruling on it?
    It would seem sensible to consider if he was dismissed for being a vegan (looking at case seems he wasn’t) then deciding if that was a protected case rather than deciding it was a protected case first.
    Nice to see that the lefties are discovering there’s always someone ‘woker’ than them and once you start using the courts as a weapon it’s going to be used against you as well.

  9. So, having milk in my tea is an ethical belief protected by law? It must be, a judge has just ruled that your choice of what you consume is legally protected.

    Next time somebody makes me a disgusting cuppa, I can take them court. Wonderful!

  10. @ BniC
    He claimed that he was dismissed because of his philosophical belief.
    His employers claimed that he was dismissed for gross misconduct.
    Before getting onto the facts of the case the judge had to rule whether “ethical veganism” was a protected belief system and so whether the guy had a case to argue. If he had said “No” then the case would be dismissed before trial. It would be a horrible waste of time and money to have the full trial and then find that the whole lot was void/irrelevant because veganism wasn’t a protected belief.

  11. @Mr Lud, Gamecock

    +1

    @KJP

    Blair changing name of Employment & Immigration Tribunal hearings Adjudicator/Chairman to Judge is yet another fraud the Cons have not reversed

    Giving them Judge moniker has inflated their egos above their status

  12. Can anyone define what “worthy of respect” even means? Does it mean that people should think it good, or that it should merely be tolerable? How does “a democratic society” actually affect such a judgement? How the hell did we get to the point of our laws being this vague?

  13. Sausages are a meat product usually made from ground meat, often pork, beef, or poultry, along with salt, spices and other flavourings. Other ingredients such as grains or breadcrumbs may be included as fillers or extenders. Some sausages include other ingredients for flavour.Wikipedia

    Under the traditional definition sausage rolls have protected characteristics, i.e. they have meat in them. Take Greggs to court!

  14. Dunno, Theo. It might be a start if I read the judgment.

    But drawing on general principles, if the judge sits at first instance, in other words he is not appellate, then his ruling would be no more than persuasive.

  15. Given the employer didn’t even contest that it’s a belief that should be protected doesn’t that mean there was no argument/debate for the judge to consider? If so how can it now be protected in law? What, could two like minded people conspire for one to sue the other about something, then no contest it, and it just gets made a precedent in law?

    Seems fishy to me but I’m no lawyer.

  16. Vegetarianism is a part of Hinduism and Buddhism and as neither of those lads are out to get us I have no problem respecting their beliefs.

    Trannies on the other hand can go fuck themselves, because nobody else is going to.

  17. KJP,

    “What surprised me was who he worked for, a left leaning organisation. ”

    This doesn’t surprise me at all. Lefties aren’t particularly co-operative. They’ll fight tooth and nail with each other for 100% of what they want rather than working together based on getting 90-95%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *