Naturally, the news that the League Against Cruel Sports is being sued by an ethical vegan, one Jordi Casamitjana, for discrimination – on the basis he was allegedly sacked for his beliefs – cheered up my whole day. The hunting sabs being called out for not occupying the moral high ground – Casamitjana says they sacked him for saying their pension funds were invested in firms that were not as ethical as they might be, having participated in animal testing – just goes to show that even the most intolerant prigs can always be outclassed by someone on the even higher moral ground. Ha, and then ha.
But a cursory look at the case suggests that it goes beyond a pension fund dispute – and incidentally, the League says this wasn’t why Casajitjana was sacked; my own guess it may have been because he was a pain in the neck, even for people who go around intimidating hunters. Made for each other, the League and Mr C, you may think.
But objecting to the League on the basis that its pension fund rules were changed so as to admit companies that may have been involved with animal testing isn’t about veganism, is it? My only surprise is that all the members of the League aren’t vegan; hard to imagine them setting out for a day’s work on a ham sandwich. It’s about the principle of animal testing; Mr C is a kind of anti-vivisectionist in this respect. And on that principle, I imagine that many carnivores might be in sympathy; just because you eat animals doesn’t mean to say you want them used as er, guinea pigs in medical testing (though having interrogated one scientist who uses sheep for research, I can vouch that the animal’s quality of life is way better than that of most ovines).
Now, of course, the debate has moved on, to the question of whether Casamitjana’s beliefs – ethical veganism, motivated by regard for animal rights rather than by considerations of health – qualify as a faith or philosophy for special treatment under the Equality Act: Harriet Harman’s parting gift to the nation. That would put his veganism on a par with gender reassignment and sexuality as a protected identity, which must be safeguarded in employment rights, and presumably education and public spaces as well, not to mention inclusion in hate crime categories.
By way of argument, Mr C says his ethical veganism has “informed my daily existence”. Well, so what? It still doesn’t make it a philosophy. I go out of my way to buy meat that had, when alive, a happy home life and it costs me rather more than the cruel stuff. But although it’s an ethical matter, it’s merely the application of broadly Christian ethics to a specific area of life. Mr C seems to be, if I may put it in speciesist terms, a humanitarian, that is to say, philosophically opposed to unnecessary suffering, specifically for brute creation, rather than a vegan ethicist. And how rubbish is it to turn humanitarianism into a protected belief?
A diet is not a philosophy, however much it’s the expression of a broader philosophy. If Mr C wants to dignify his eating habits with that name, he should make clear that he is in fact a Pythagorean; the followers of that eminent mathematician eschewed meat and fish on the basis of the transmigration of souls, so you never know who it is you’re eating, though I think they also had a problem with eating beans. But he should make clear that his Pythagorean beliefs do not include reincarnation. That should clear things up.
Comments