Vegans, teetotallers and atheists are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under Harriet Harman’s controversial new equality laws
More absolute madness from Harriet Harman’s “Equality” drive:-
Mail:-
Vegans, teetotallers and atheists are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under Harriet Harman’s controversial new equality laws.
People who do not eat products and refuse to wear leather have been singled out for inclusion under the new legislation by Labour’s super-quango – the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
Official guidance issued by the body points out that the ‘ethical commitment’ of vegan’s to animal welfare is ‘central to who they are’.
The code of practice explains the legal implications of the equality bill states that religions need not be mainstream or well known for their adherents to gain protection.
The Equality Bill, masterminded by Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, is due to come into force this Autumn.
It makes it a legal requirement for public authorities, including schools, to consider the impact of all their policies on minority groups.
But the guidance explains: “A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.”
Singling out vegans as meriting protection from religious discrimination, it says: ‘A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind.
‘That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare.’
A spokesman from the commission explained: ‘This is about someone for whom being vegan or vegetarian is central to who they are. This is not something ‘thought up by the commission’.
‘Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.’
The legislation also covers ‘any religious belief or philosophical belief’ and even ‘a lack of belief’.
This means that members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology, whose supporters include the film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, would also be offered protection, as would atheists.
The official guidance has already caused controversy after warning that schools which force girls to wear skirts may be breaking the law – because the policy apparently discriminates against transsexuals.
It claims the dress code may breach the rights of girls who feel compelled to live as boys.
Religious leaders have condemned Miss Harman’s equality laws for sideling religion to promote a false idea of ‘tolerance’.
The Archbishop of York has warned that Christianity risks being wiped out from public life in the name of equality.
The Pope has also described the Bill as ‘unjust’, restricting religious freedom and violating ‘the natural law’.
Under the legislation, people with philosophical views such as pacificism and humanism could also seek protection from discrimination.
However, the Commission has insisted that scientific or political beliefs such as Marxism and fascism would not be covered. People for whom abstention from alcohol was a way of life would also be protected.
The watchdog also warns that advertisements giving preferential treatment to men or women could be illegal.
This could mean the end of “ladies’ nights” at clubs, when women receive cut-price drinks or free entrance but men pay full price.
Archbishop Cranmer has put together an excellent piece on this today, which cuts straight to the heart of the matter and exposes this “equality” folly:-
That is the only logical conclusion of Harpy Hormone’s Equality Bill, and one which Cranmer not only foresaw but was sufficiently prescient to sound the trumpet about years ago.
The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.
If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warmonger had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; you should never cut your hair; you can be cremated in the open air; you believe that a mortal man may speak infallibly; and if you walk around Tesco in a hoodie carrying a light sabre you are in harmony with ‘The Force’.
And if you want to worship Satan, that is perfectly cool. If you want to take Pagan holidays, that is accommodated. And if you want to believe in man-made global warming, the courts have already decreed that your devotion to such a philosophy is indeed the same as religious faith.
And now we learn that vegans are to enjoy the same protection against discrimination as religious groups.
And if they, why not vegetarians, non-dairy consumers, wheat-eschewers and teetotallers?
Oh, and Atheists are to be given the same protection as well.
Professor Dawkins will be very happy.
Now, this is going to get very interesting indeed.
An atheist in the House of Commons who presents himself in the chamber during parliamentary prayers will have the right in law to object to the affront. Those of all faiths and none will have the right in law to object to the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, which is a manifest discrimination against not only Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, but also the Nonconformists and Roman Catholics.
Tags: Law Moral Ethical, News, Politics
March 9th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
As much as I hate meat eaters shoving hamburgers in my face (happens more often than you’d think) and calling me a “vegan pussy”, I didn’t need a law protecting me from it.
May 18th, 2010 at 3:51 am
I don’t consider my vegetarianism as central to who I am. But I now realize it is: I’ve been this way since childhood and will not change. It’s getting to be more common but still you’d be surprised how many other people make a big deal about it although I try to be subtle. Some people do see it as a religion, creed or highly abnormal. It’s not me, but others who make it their business.
May 18th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Hmmm… Not sure why representatives of the Church are so up in arms about this? Can someone explain. Why does “…Christianity risk being wiped out from public life in the name of equality…” ?
And I think the description in the opening sentence of “Archbishop Cranmer’s” piece (“Harpy Hormone”) is precisely illustrative of the kind of narrow minded nastiness that measures such as these are intended to curb. It’s an appalling thing to call someone, just because you disagree with their policy.
Yes, I know politicians have thick skins, and some may argue that they deserve all the abuse they get, but if you have to resort to offensive name-calling, then I suggest you’ve already lost this argument.
May 18th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
@Jim,
Which side of the road do you drive on?
May 18th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
@ Goy
Curious question. The correct one. Depends where I am.
May 18th, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Like most people, I’ve known strict long-term vegetarians and others who were very halfhearted and had a new fad diet every month. Committed vegetarians should never be obliged to eat meat. The ones I’ve known would vomit it straight back up over you.
Is this right a new thing? I don’t think so. Prisoners, for example, have been allowed to opt for a vegetarian or vegan diet for ages. Same as with other dietary choices. If people are vegetarian for ethical reasons this can be just as important to them as any religion.
And for Archbishop Cranmer to write “Why is the commitment not to imbibe alcohol worthy of protection under the law, but not the conservative tradition of social concern and action which is rooted in the historic Christian faith?” a poor example. Firstly he hasn’t proved that Christianity is unprotected but secondly because he displays a shameful ignorance of alcoholism. There are hundreds of thousands of us to whom this is literally a matter of life or death on a daily basis.
I’m moving increasingly to the view that religion should be kept out of the public sphere pretty much full stop. A spot of C of E for ceremonies perhaps, but nothing else. Because although I find his tone extremely off-putting, Cranmer is right in saying that if we’re duty bound to respect all belief systems it means people can demand recognition for all sorts of bizarre and even dangerous beliefs. Scientology. Literal Creationism. Islamism. I don’t want any of these in public life, let alone in schools.
Veganism is, in comparison, the flutter of a eyelash. Certainly not worth a meaty argument.