Veganism.

[Boustrophedon]

So after today's ruling can we still take the piss out of them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

[Pris]

Eh, if they're espousing wootastic anti science beliefs, like 'an all raw vegan diet will cure cancer', I don't see why not.

[Aitch]

According to this morning's i, there are about 600,000 of them, that's about 1% of the population.

Not sure how relevant that is...

[mediocrity511]

So after today's ruling can we still take the piss out of them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

So long as it's equal opportunity piss taking amongst other beliefs?

[bolo]

So long as it's equal opportunity piss taking amongst other beliefs?

Exactly. There seems to be no shortage here of piss-taking re religious beliefs. Why should this one be different?

[dyqik]

So long as it's equal opportunity piss taking amongst other beliefs?

Exactly. There seems to be no shortage here of piss-taking re religious beliefs. Why should this one be different?

As for those f.cking atheists...

[Boustrophedon]

But seriously, in the workplace one cannot take the mickey out of someone because of their race creed or colour and quite rightly so: Does this ruling mean that philosophical belief systems like veganism are similarly protected?

[bolo]

That would appear to be what the ruling says, with the caveats that (a) IANAL and (b) news reports often don't quite report this sort of thing correctly.

[Tessa K]

But seriously, in the workplace one cannot take the mickey out of someone because of their race creed or colour and quite rightly so: Does this ruling mean that philosophical belief systems like veganism are similarly protected?

Hhm. A philosophical belief system may now be a protected characteristic but is it on the same level as a religion/faith? It doesn't rely on any supernatural element for a start. If you said you were a utilitarian, for example, there would be jolly fun debating why it is a very flawed philosophical belief system.

[dyqik]

But seriously, in the workplace one cannot take the mickey out of someone because of their race creed or colour and quite rightly so: Does this ruling mean that philosophical belief systems like veganism are similarly protected?

Hhm. A philosophical belief system may now be a protected characteristic but is it on the same level as a religion/faith? It doesn't rely on any supernatural element for a start. If you said you were a utilitarian, for example, there would be jolly fun debating why it is a very flawed philosophical belief system.

I'm not sure it's all calm philosophy, mind. Emotional ethics would also be a chunk of it, and I don't see why you wouldn't protect that if you're going to protect religion.

[sTeamTraen]

Hhm. A philosophical belief system may now be a protected characteristic but is it on the same level as a religion/faith? It doesn't rely on any supernatural element for a start. If you said you were a utilitarian, for example, there would be jolly fun debating why it is a very flawed philosophical belief system.

I presume that religions are protected out of a combination of pragmatism (over half the population, even in the relatively godless UK, identifies with one religion or another) and historical tradition. (It's interesting to read about the Dutch "zuilen" system, which was developed to keep Protestants and Catholics from each other's throats; it more or less collapsed at the end of the 1960s, but it partly explains why the Dutch don't really do multiculturalism.)

On any rational scale, I would suggest that veganism is more worthy (or less unworthy) of protection than a belief in a specific form of deity; most vegans have some solid reasoning behind their choices, whereas 99.whatever percent of people who have not lost their faith still have the same religion they did when they were told what to believe age 3. (Full disclosure: My dinner this evening included cheese and bacon.)

However, the pragmatism argument carries a lot of weight for me. Of course Dawkins is right when he says that attacking someone for being a Muslim is not the same as attacking them for having grandparents who were born in Karachi, but on a day-to-day basis there's a pretty strong crossover between the two, and I don't think it would make society a better place if it were somehow legal to shout "Oi, Muslim bloke over there, your prophet is a dick" in the same way as it (I think)currently is to shout "Oi, Tory/Labour candidate, your party leader is a dick".

Another difficulty with protecting philosophical systems is where you draw the line. What do you do about someone who is strongly philosophically committed to white supremacism? Or an employee who claims that their "philosophical beliefs" require that they stop whatever they are doing to m.st.rbate every day at 11am, even in product planning meetings? I think I read that there have been cases in US prisons of people inventing "religions"' to get privileges this way. Of course, these are extreme examples, but there has to be a cutoff somewhere.

[dyqik]

But seriously, in the workplace one cannot take the mickey out of someone because of their race creed or colour and quite rightly so: Does this ruling mean that philosophical belief systems like veganism are similarly protected?

Hhm. A philosophical belief system may now be a protected characteristic but is it on the same level as a religion/faith? It doesn't rely on any supernatural element for a start. If you said you were a utilitarian, for example, there would be jolly fun debating why it is a very flawed philosophical belief system.

I'm not sure it's all calm philosophy, mind. Emotional ethics would also be a chunk of it, and I don't see why you wouldn't protect that if you're going to protect religion.

Oh, and you should protect religion.

You go to work to work, not to be interrogated in your personal beliefs that have nothing to do with your ability at your job. ETA: of course, if your beliefs start seriously affecting your work (e.g. because your coworkers or customers are disgusted by your white supremacy), then that's fair game.

[plodder]

There’s also the problem that, deep down, almost everything is a belief. Facts are slippery f.ckers.

[Tessa K]

Hhm. A philosophical belief system may now be a protected characteristic but is it on the same level as a religion/faith? It doesn't rely on any supernatural element for a start. If you said you were a utilitarian, for example, there would be jolly fun debating why it is a very flawed philosophical belief system.

I'm not sure it's all calm philosophy, mind. Emotional ethics would also be a chunk of it, and I don't see why you wouldn't protect that if you're going to protect religion.

Oh, and you should protect religion.

You go to work to work, not to be interrogated in your personal beliefs that have nothing to do with your ability at your job. ETA: of course, if your beliefs start seriously affecting your work (e.g. because your coworkers or customers are disgusted by your white supremacy), then that's fair game.

Some of the other requirements are that your beliefs don't affect anyone's human rights and that they are worthy of being dignified in a democratic society so that would rule out the white supremacist. And the flying spaghetti monster, sadly. Disgusting your coworkers is not enough.

[Sciolus]

Equality Act Explanatory Notes:

Section 10: Religion or belief
Effect

51.This section defines the protected characteristic of religion or religious or philosophical belief, which is stated to include for this purpose a lack of religion or belief. It is a broad definition in line with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The main limitation for the purposes of Article 9 is that the religion must have a clear structure and belief system. Denominations or sects within a religion can be considered to be a religion or belief, such as Protestants and Catholics within Christianity.

52.The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian.

So that's where the law draws the line. Seems mostly OK to me, although I'm not sure about the "must not be evidence-based" bit. That seems to imply it's fine to persecute people for protesting about climate change, for instance, unless there are other protections covering that sort of thing.

[Tessa K]

Equality Act Explanatory Notes:

Section 10: Religion or belief
Effect

51.This section defines the protected characteristic of religion or religious or philosophical belief, which is stated to include for this purpose a lack of religion or belief. It is a broad definition in line with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The main limitation for the purposes of Article 9 is that the religion must have a clear structure and belief system. Denominations or sects within a religion can be considered to be a religion or belief, such as Protestants and Catholics within Christianity.

52.The criteria for determining what is a “philosophical belief” are that it must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. So, for example, any cult involved in illegal activities would not satisfy these criteria. The section provides that people who are of the same religion or belief share the protected characteristic of religion or belief. Depending on the context, this could mean people who, for example, share the characteristic of being Protestant or people who share the characteristic of being Christian.

So that's where the law draws the line. Seems mostly OK to me, although I'm not sure about the "must not be evidence-based" bit. That seems to imply it's fine to persecute people for protesting about climate change, for instance, unless there are other protections covering that sort of thing.

No, it's not saying it's OK to persecute climate change protestors or anyone else, that's a misreading of the intention like saying it's OK to persecute ginger people or left handers as they are not specifically covered in any of the protected characteristics. Climate protestors are not acting on beliefs, they are acting on knowledge of facts.

[Woodchopper]

According to this morning's i, there are about 600,000 of them, that's about 1% of the population.

Not sure how relevant that is...

Here's some UK data: https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/fil ... tables.pdf

Yes, about 1% self identify as vegan or don't eat any animal products. Its relevant in terms of how many people might be affected by the ruling.

That said, fewer people are probably covered by the court ruling. There are many different reasons for people adopting a vegan diet besides an ethical objection to all forms of animal exploitation. For example, people who follow a vegan diet for health reasons, religious observance or to reduce their carbon footprint may also not object to, say, testing drugs on animals or to people wearing woolen clothes.

[Woodchopper]

Hhm. A philosophical belief system may now be a protected characteristic but is it on the same level as a religion/faith? It doesn't rely on any supernatural element for a start. If you said you were a utilitarian, for example, there would be jolly fun debating why it is a very flawed philosophical belief system.

I presume that religions are protected out of a combination of pragmatism (over half the population, even in the relatively godless UK, identifies with one religion or another) and historical tradition. (It's interesting to read about the Dutch "zuilen" system, which was developed to keep Protestants and Catholics from each other's throats; it more or less collapsed at the end of the 1960s, but it partly explains why the Dutch don't really do multiculturalism.)

On any rational scale, I would suggest that veganism is more worthy (or less unworthy) of protection than a belief in a specific form of deity; most vegans have some solid reasoning behind their choices, whereas 99.whatever percent of people who have not lost their faith still have the same religion they did when they were told what to believe age 3. (Full disclosure: My dinner this evening included cheese and bacon.)

However, the pragmatism argument carries a lot of weight for me. Of course Dawkins is right when he says that attacking someone for being a Muslim is not the same as attacking them for having grandparents who were born in Karachi, but on a day-to-day basis there's a pretty strong crossover between the two, and I don't think it would make society a better place if it were somehow legal to shout "Oi, Muslim bloke over there, your prophet is a dick" in the same way as it (I think)currently is to shout "Oi, Tory/Labour candidate, your party leader is a dick".

The main reason has been the existence of sometimes widespread prejudice directed at religions. The assumption is that its a bad thing if someone in Glasgow is, say, denied a job as a computer programmer because they are a Catholic, or someone in Burnley is denied a room in a B&B because they are a Muslim.

[Boustrophedon]

The main reason has been the existence of sometimes widespread prejudice directed at religions. The assumption is that its a bad thing if someone in Glasgow is, say, denied a job as a computer programmer because they are a Catholic, or someone in Burnley is denied a room in a B&B because they are a Muslim.

I would hope that we would all regard that as read.
Maybe this turned out a bit serious for Relaxation?

[sTeamTraen]

No, it's not saying it's OK to persecute climate change protestors or anyone else, that's a misreading of the intention like saying it's OK to persecute ginger people or left handers as they are not specifically covered in any of the protected characteristics. Climate protestors are not acting on beliefs, they are acting on knowledge of facts.

But (at the risk of appearing like a sixth-form debater), who gets to determine the facts? For climate change there is a fairly solid consensus, but consider these two posts linked from the ongoing "Anti-trans sentiment" thread:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2020/01 ... GGxB9WaZXc
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/
Basically, and simplifying only a little, these two posts
(a) make exactly opposing, yet well-formed, scientific claims about the same phenomenon, and
(b) use this to characterise holders of the opposite position as intolerant, in an "unacceptable in decent society, this must be stopped, etc" way.

I have no way to evaluate which of these scientific positions is true, but quite clearly at least one of them isn't, and yet both are being defended as existential issues by their proponents, who each claim a monopoly not only on the scientific facts but also on the societal implications of those facts. (I have avoided posting in the Anti-trans sentiment thread for a variety of reasons, so I'm trying to only make a meta point here.)

[GeenDienst]

Maybe this turned out a bit serious for Relaxation?

There's certainly plenty of meat in it.

[sTeamTraen]

Maybe this turned out a bit serious for Relaxation?

There's certainly plenty of meat in it.

Are veganna have a fight?

[Woodchopper]

Moved the thread as it seems to be a weighty discussion.

[Tessa K]

No, it's not saying it's OK to persecute climate change protestors or anyone else, that's a misreading of the intention like saying it's OK to persecute ginger people or left handers as they are not specifically covered in any of the protected characteristics. Climate protestors are not acting on beliefs, they are acting on knowledge of facts.

But (at the risk of appearing like a sixth-form debater), who gets to determine the facts? For climate change there is a fairly solid consensus, but consider these two posts linked from the ongoing "Anti-trans sentiment" thread:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2020/01 ... GGxB9WaZXc
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/vo ... ansphobia/
Basically, and simplifying only a little, these two posts
(a) make exactly opposing, yet well-formed, scientific claims about the same phenomenon, and
(b) use this to characterise holders of the opposite position as intolerant, in an "unacceptable in decent society, this must be stopped, etc" way.

I have no way to evaluate which of these scientific positions is true, but quite clearly at least one of them isn't, and yet both are being defended as existential issues by their proponents, who each claim a monopoly not only on the scientific facts but also on the societal implications of those facts. (I have avoided posting in the Anti-trans sentiment thread for a variety of reasons, so I'm trying to only make a meta point here.)

Yes, some areas are very difficult to see any kind of clear evidence. That's why it's easier to protect religion because it doesn't have to clear a hurdle of proof and LGB because people are what they are (the T in LGBT is clearly proving problematic). Some of the categories are open to abuse - you could claim to have a religion, for example. But in a court case, there would have to be some way of proving that, some level of observable behaviour (clothing, attendance at worship) or at least an understanding of the tenets of the faith and the ability to coherently describe what it means to someone. Again, this could be abused but it takes a lot of work. There were times in the past when people had to pretend to convert to Christianity to survive. Some got away with it, some were burnt at the stake.

The idea of a hierarchy of rights is also problematic, some rights trumping others (most often religious rights claiming precedence). Human rights are not perfect but they're the best we have at the moment and they will evolve over time because there are no absolutes.

[Opti]

My D-i-L is driving me f.cking crazy with her new-found vegan activism. I've been vegetarian for over 30 years. Now, there's little chance of me forswearing cheese and dairy. The evangelism is strong in this one, and she's making me a bit angry. We'll have to have an awkward conversation quite soon.
She's not really helping to get to get the 'thoughtful eating' message across.

Militant vegans aren't convincing many people. It's Corbynism with food.