New persecuted ethnic minority

[jimbob]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/art ... c-minority

Not really

[jimbob]

It's all a game to them.

[Trinucleus]

Fox sake

[Fishnut]

I'm not a lawyer so may well be missing something, but I'm having great difficulty in understanding the legal basis for their claim. The articles all quote Ed Swales as saying,

“The qualifications of an ethnic group, there are five of them, and we hit everyone straight in the bullseye.”

But don't go into detail about what those qualifications are. I thought I'd listen to the podcast to see if he explains. The Guardian helpfully (for once) linked to the video at the salient timestamp. I've gone a bit earlier to give more context. The transcript is as follows (excluding ums, kind ofs and the like):

Host - Things seem to be going down the route of attacks on us, I mean we have always been aware that the people who want to ban us from hunting are more keen on banning us than on banning hunting, if you see what I mean, and you've managed to do some work in this area which may have a positive effect, can you outline that?

Ed Swales - The attack on hunting and the anti-hunting lobby, let's say by the animal rights extremist movement has effectively been a person on person conflict using the excuse of animal welfare. It's nothing to do with animal welfare, it's just people against people, and therefore the work we've been doing is in the legal space, under the Equality Act 2010 and no work has been done to protect hunting or the minority group of people that partake in it, like us, since that act has been created. There was some work done before in 2007 by the Countryside Alliance, that law has now changed, it's now 2010 Equality Act and so I've spent three years writing a submission, getting it peer reviewed and getting it put in front of leading counsel human rights Silk who sits on the Council of the European Court of Human Rights, and the good news, he - unequivocally - the good news - the round of applause (don't) - is that the outcome of that from the human rights Silk is that as a protected minority group under the Equality Act we qualify undoubtedly 10 out of 10.

[smattering of applause]

Host - We'll take the applause. I think - good man - it's worth it. So like LGBTQ plus, like race, like religion, we are a distinct minority group. We did go down this route years and years ago, we set up the Free Church of Country Sports and things like that, what do we have to do, now a lawyer has said it is so, what do we have to do to properly establish this?

Swales - Ok, so the way we do what everybody thinks is the impossible goal, and I don't because if I did agree with that I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing, which is to get the Hunting Act and the Scottish 2002 Act, same thing, reviewed, replaced and the necessity of doing that would involve the third art which everyone thinks is a complete waste of time and never going to happen which is repeal, with which I completely disagree. I have been privy to some very high level legal information from people that right law, make law and govern it in this country, who say that as a protected minority, leading to an ethnic group, and the qualifications of an ethnic group, there are five of them and we hit every one, straight in the bullseye. So I'm convinced we can and how you do that is you prove through case law, County Court level, there'll be people sitting in this room that'll have suffered from active discrimination against them because of their hunting views - they've lost work, they've lost contracts, they've been abused, they've been slagged off on social media, whatever it might be, right that is a case of discrimination. So you come forward with that and then during the course of that case it is proved, because that's the intention, that it was that person's protected belief in natural hunting that created that discrimination. You win three of those, between three or five depending on them, and you establish the legal precedent of that protected belief in law.

Host - This is like Harry Potter, it's like the Deathly Hallows, you've got to find those three things and you win!

Swales - Well you know, let's go for it. I mean it's there, I've been presented with that answer, that's what I want people to do. And I've just recently launched, I love plugging myself, one night ago, a questionnaire, which is very simple and it gets you to look and it and say "I Fred Bloggs, here's the protected belief, I subscribe to that", name, date, gender, that sort of thing, ethnicity, which is important, and then that's the beginning of this process starting is that I get, well, I've only started it less than 24 hours ago, I think we've got a thousand people very kindly signed the form, that's a good start, we'd like about 85,000 - 2 1/2 million if we could - it doesn't really matter because there's no lower number to be a minority.

Host - Now these cases that you've got to get, can you give me an example of the kind of thing you'd like to see?

Swales - A good one is the provision or the denial of goods and services, so for instance if I, in my hunt, decide to have a party at some hotel, me and the 'blankly hunt' whatever it might by are going to come here and have a party. They then get pressure from the antis, saying 'you can't have these blood-swilling lunatics at your venue', they then collapse and say one week ahead of the event, this has all happened in the last 6 months on two occasions...

Host - This has actually happened?

Swales - Absolutely, spot on, yep, one in Derbyshire, one in Hampshire, hunt balls have been cancelled along with auction prizes and the food and the drinks and the everything, dancing bands and so that is a denial of a good or service that you should be entitled to but you're being denied it because you are in that minority. That's a case of discrimination.

The following are legally protected characteristics:

- age
- gender reassignment
- being married or in a civil partnership
- being pregnant or on maternity leave
- disability
- race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
- religion or belief
- sex
- sexual orientation

What strikes me is that he seems to alternate between saying they are an ethnic minority and they have a protected belief. For one, he says that in his questionnaire it's important that you state your ethnicity, yet is claiming their ethnicity is 'hunting enthusiast' or something (he doesn't explicitly state what he thinks their ethnicity is called). Yet their questionnaire is all about your beliefs. They have come up with a 'statement of philosophical belief' that they are getting everyone to agree to. It states,

- The countryside of the UK has been farmed and managed for thousands of years based on sharing space and sustainable co-existence with animals.

- Humanity has a responsibility of stewardship towards the countryside and for sustainable wildlife management.

- Natural and traditional hunting with animals for pest control and wildlife management is sustainable, ecologically sensitive, naturally selective and humane.

So, they aren't trying to claim they are an ethnic minority, they are trying to claim they have a belief that should be protected under the law. HR Magazine (weird source, I know, but seems to be quite good on the practical application of the Equality Act), say that a belief will be protected if it:
- is genuinely held;
- is a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
- is about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
- has a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance; and
- is worthy of respect in a democratic society, is not incompatible with human dignity, and does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

They have a couple of examples of what counts as protected and unprotected. Helpfully (as the comparisons are quite obvious), the examples they have relate to vegetarianism. Being vegetarian isn't considered a protected belief because it failed the 'weighty and substantial aspect', instead it was seen as a lifestyle choice. Ethical veganism has been protected because it has unifying beliefs and affects many aspects of life, not just diet. However, holding that protected belief isn't enough to break the law.

I don't think that 'I should be allowed to hunt animals with other animals' is going to pass the weighty and substantial aspect of human life' requirement. I'm also dubious that it was pass the 'worthy of respect' requirement tbh. I'm hoping that the 'Silk' he's consulted with is just fleecing a sucker because the idea that a legal professional of such standing thinks they actually have a case is rather worrying.

I used to be ambivalent towards hunting. I knew people who did various forms (legally) and I bought into the whole 'countryside management' line. But I've become increasingly aware that that's complete bollocks. The fact they are arguing under the Equality Act, rather than environmental or conservation legislation, demonstrates that.

BTW, the 'Free Church of Country Sports' that was mentioned... it's just a private Facebook group. It's not even got a wiki page. They wanted to get 8,000 people to say they were members on the 2021 census, which would get them 'minority religion' status. Right now they have 8.5k members. To join you have to agree that "I HAVE FOUND GOD IN THE SPIRIT OF SAINT HUBERT AND SUPPORT THE WORK OF THE FREE CHURCH OF COUNTRY SPORTS." St Hubert is the patron saint of hunters, mathematicians, opticians and metalworkers.

[Fishnut]

In that long post I never got to answer the central question I had, which was, what are the five qualifications for ethnic minority'? Someone else on Reddit had the same question and an answer has been forthcoming,

...this is a reference to Mandla, where the House of Lords (then the supreme court) decided whether Sikhs could constitute a discrete ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act, as then was. The Lords said:

For a group to constitute an ethnic group in the sense of the 1976 Act, it must, in my opinion, regard itself, and be regarded by others, as a distinct community by virtue of certain characteristics. Some of these characteristics are essential; others are not essential but one or more of them will commonly be found and will help to distinguish the group from the surrounding community.

These were:

(1) a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive;

(2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance.

They continued:

In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant:

(3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors;

(4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group;

(5) a common literature peculiar to the group;

(6) a common religion, different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it;

(7) being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community, for example a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups.

[dyqik]

I guess technically the inbred posh w.nkers known as "the nobility" fit most of those. Although they made sure to push their religion on everyone else.

[discovolante]

I haven't really looked into it myself but it is fairly funny when people brag about getting 'top lawyers' to answer legal questions that could probably be just as easily answered by someone more junior. Money to burn I guess.

[noggins]

IF somehow hunters were recognised this way , then hunt sabs would be as well…

[JQH]

Is this a cunning plan to discredit Human Rights and Equality legislation?

[jimbob]

Is this a cunning plan to discredit Human Rights and Equality legislation?

At least to pretend it's spurious.

[Martin Y]

I haven't really looked into it myself but it is fairly funny when people brag about getting 'top lawyers' to answer legal questions that could probably be just as easily answered by someone more junior. Money to burn I guess.

Might be a case of who you know. They could have asked if anyone happens to know a lawyer but discovered the only lawyers they know socially are very expensive barristers.

[Martin Y]

Is this a cunning plan to discredit Human Rights and Equality legislation?

I doubt it.

I think it's just an attempt to use any means available to protect hunting. At first glance the notion that "if gypsies get their traditional way of life protected, why can't we?" isn't crazy just because we think their opponents are punching up rather than punching down. But the quoted piece seems rather incoherent about whether it's arguing about beliefs or ethnicity or culture.

Also the bit about "they hate us, not hunting" is a bit pathetic. Show us that hunt opponents are similarly hostile to those well-to-do country folk who don't hunt and maybe they'd have a point.

[IvanV]

So, they aren't trying to claim they are an ethnic minority, they are trying to claim they have a belief that should be protected under the law. HR Magazine (weird source, I know, but seems to be quite good on the practical application of the Equality Act), say that a belief will be protected if it:
- is genuinely held;
- is a belief, not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available;
- is about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour;
- has a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion, and importance; and
- is worthy of respect in a democratic society, is not incompatible with human dignity, and does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

They have a couple of examples of what counts as protected and unprotected. Helpfully (as the comparisons are quite obvious), the examples they have relate to vegetarianism. Being vegetarian isn't considered a protected belief because it failed the 'weighty and substantial aspect', instead it was seen as a lifestyle choice. Ethical veganism has been protected because it has unifying beliefs and affects many aspects of life, not just diet. However, holding that protected belief isn't enough to break the law.

I don't think that 'I should be allowed to hunt animals with other animals' is going to pass the weighty and substantial aspect of human life' requirement. I'm also dubious that it was pass the 'worthy of respect' requirement tbh. I'm hoping that the 'Silk' he's consulted with is just fleecing a sucker because the idea that a legal professional of such standing thinks they actually have a case is rather worrying.

I suspect they might also have problems arguing all of the 2nd to 5th criteria. But certainly the analogy with general vegetarianism vs ethical veganism makes clear the unlikelihood of it being arguable.

Some other characteristics and activities, that have no legal protection either as a belief or protected characteristic, that in practice may result in quite a lot of other people treating you badly include:

Having red hair (an example of picking on people just because they have a relatively uncommon distinguishing characteristic, as children often do)
Being overweight
Having physical deformities
Having body modifications (tattoos, piercings)
Riding a bicycle

No one should be treating people with less respect, refusing to serve them, insulting them, endangering them, etc, just because of these things. Whether we should have laws about it is another matter. Typically the more dangerous and unpleasant responses are illegal anyway as things you shouldn't do to anyone. And the more minor responses are things anyone could experience in the random rude encounters we all suffer from time to time. And if you do expand the definition of protected characteristics to cover all of these kind of things, it could become very broad, practically any characteristic you could describe would be protected, unless you had some clever criteria to weed out the unworthy.