Des Kinvig
Well-Known Member
There was an ethical vegan sacked a couple of years back for ratting out his employer the League of Cruel Sports for investing money in companies that carried out animal testing. The judge at the tribunal ruled that this was a reasonable thing to do in that case. That doesn't set any binding legal precedents but it can be pointed to in later cases as something to consider.
Veganism is not a protected characteristic and whilst employers clearly can't sack an employee for refusing to eat a beefburger it doesn't offer any protection in law. It is not impossible (but far from certain) that a High Court Judge MIGHT rule that being an ethical vegan protects you from any demand to be vaxxed BUT the claimant would have to prove before a court that he was indeed an ethical vegan and lying to the beak is a very stupid thing to do. (Judges are not easy people to fool)
AND any decision by a Judge can be overruled by Parliament modifying the law.
It's this thing with the care workers again, A care home can't demand staff be vaccinated unless it puts it in their employment contract and it can't alter existing contracts without agreement but the Govt decided that all care workers must be vaxxed therefore that's it the law trumps any contract even retrospectively.
This is just another variation on the Freeman of the Land bollocks, "I Am A Sovereign Entity , No You're Fucking Not, Parliament and Parliament alone is Sovereign."
I only read about this today on this thread, but I’m guessing their plan will be to make a case arguing vaccine passports constitute unlawful discrimination against them on the grounds of their refusing the vaccine because of ethical veganism. veganism isn’t a protected characteristic, philosophical belief is (in the category “religion or belief”) and I think there has been more than one successful discrimination case where ethical veganism has been successfully argued to constitute a philosophical belief. decisions around this lean heavily on precedent, because philosophical belief isn’t defined in the equality act. I doubt having “ethical vegan” recently added to their twitter profile is going to wor.
however, it would be indirect discrimination, and the state would simply argue that vaccine passports are a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and therefore the discrimination isn’t unlawful. So I am certain the deniers are on to plums.