An Employment Tribunal has recently confirmed that ethical veganism is a protected belief for the purposes of Equality Law. Alongside many others in the legal community we were very pleased for an express declaration, but not remotely surprised. We had looked at the issue following the media storm which blew up around a chef who boasted on Facebook about having fed mozzarella cheese to a rude vegan customer in her restaurant, and it was clear to us that there was a human rights imperative for the legal framework to provide an adequate remedy for victims of ethical or religious spiking: in other words, people whose food was maliciously contaminated with something physically harmless, but utterly abhorrent to their world-view. Aside from the general point about bodily autonomy, freedom of religion and conscience includes the right to live according to your beliefs, and although the right to manifest your convictions is not absolute, it can only be limited for very good reasons. A Jew, Muslim or Buddhist can quite rightly expect not to have their religious dietary choices undermined to slake a third party’s hatred or twisted attempted at a joke, and consequently, the same must be true for vegans.
For many people veganism is a response to their core values and beliefs, it shapes their entire lifestyle and outlook and is a core part of their identity. In such cases, it undoubtedly clears the threshold set by Article 9, and demands the shield of Human Rights Law. Equally, it should properly come within the ambit of Equality Law, and vegans should enjoy the same freedoms from discrimination as those choosing to express their religion in open and practical ways. Of course, as we have already highlighted, this is not a blank cheque in social and legal terms, and therefore, when the right to manifest a belief clashes with the rights, freedoms or needs of other people, a balance must be struck.
In the case we have alluded to, a vegan employee claimed to have been dismissed for revealing to colleagues that his employer had pension funds invested in companies which conduct animal testing. Given that the employer in question was the League Against Cruel Sports, with a workforce heavily committed to animal welfare, the matter was highly sensitive. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the charity disputes the claimant’s version of events, and the Tribunal has so far only ruled on a preliminary issue. It remains to be seen what conclusion will be reached, and as we are not in possession of all the facts, pontificating about the legal or moral rights and wrongs would be dangerous, as well as futile. Suffice it to say though, that the fact that employees can demonstrate that their words or actions were motivated by veganism does not necessarily mean that their employer was wrong to restrain them. For instance, if someone was in the habit of haranguing their colleagues in the staff kitchen about a protected belief, religious or ethical, their boss might well be acting appropriately in requiring them to stop, if these expressing were upsetting other people who had opposing views.
Recognising veganism, pacifism or a faith as a protected belief does not equate to giving the person who professes it priority over those around them in all circumstances. However, it certainly provides a right to have that belief, and the needs flowing from it, recognised and weighed in the balance when it comes to clashing rights and priorities. In light of this, we would suggest that sincere, important beliefs of any sort should be allowed through this gateway unless there is very good reason to restrict them (see our previous blog on the Forstater decision). If we deny minority, unpopular or even just controversial beliefs a place at the table, what is the point of Article 9 and its guarantee of liberty of conscience? At the end of the day, mainstream ideas and values are, by definition, not in need of protection.
Admittedly, we do not say that every person claiming the label vegan should be recognised as an ethical vegan. At the extreme end, if someone opted to pursue a vegan diet for six weeks in order to lose weight and started objecting to dairy based cakes in the communal work ‘fridge because they were too tempting, it would be reasonable to assert that no freedom of belief issue is at stake. Nevertheless, such examples are at the far end of a spectrum, indeed almost to the point of caricature, and when it comes to religious cases, we quite rightly do not ask to many deep or searching questions about a person’s motivation for claiming to be Christian, Muslim, Wiccan etc, and desiring to behave in a certain way as a result. Consequently, unless there are serious doubts about an individual’s sincerity, they will almost always be permitted under the shelter of both Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and domestic/EU Equality Law, and we shall stress that there is no rational justification for subjecting other forms of belief to a different, more stringent analysis.
Acknowledging the importance of ethical veganism to those who embrace it is the correct approach, both in terms of the legal system and fundamental notions of justice. The decision of the Employment Tribunal is to be welcomed as a test case which is in harmony with the foundational principles of the United Kingdom.
Related Articles
Ethical veganism is philosophical belief tribunal rules BBC News (3/1/2020)
