There seems a persistent intuitive urge to apply the broader principle of non discrimination within the equality act, which is to say that “if veganism is to be a PPB then so should carnivorism” in the spirit of equality, but of course the applicability of the equality act to a situation relies on its interpretation, and it does not seem necessarily so that judges interpreting the equality act would be bound by that principle of the act in interpreting the act itself unless there is some anti discrimination-on-ideology provision within the human rights act.
Corollary: are judges bound in their decisions by the human rights act as agents of the state? And: does anything in the human rights act protect against discrimination?
In any event, which factors would the qualification of non- or anti-veganism as a protected philosophical belief are clear/decided or unclear?
The starting point coming up within my mind would obviously be the granger test, and especially the “worthy of respect in a Democratic society” component. On this I would be inclined to predict that a judge would not privilege veganism for its superficially comprehensible “feel good” ideals of compassion and non-killing. On the other hand, whereas the majority of humanity eat meat, it would be silly to hold that the majority of society are unworthy of respect because in vegans’ eyes they are serial murderers, and so therefore as the opposite of held- respectable vegans, they are therefore unworthy of respect on a wholesale basis.
Of course the other components of the test may also come up: is the belief deeply held, does it concern a weighty part of human life, and is it a belief rather than a scientific opinion?
In the latter regard, the courts seem to privilege beliefs that are dogmatic and stubbornly unchanging, which perhaps makes sense, as the statute does indeed group philosophical belief together with religion.
However, if one does not base one’s passionate anti veganism on recent scientific studies but only feels vindicated by them, and generally looks to older teachings that predated one’s birth, such as those nineteenth century writings of Weston A Price which themselves simply applaud and affirm the wise age old traditions of primitive peoples, then that hurdle of the test would seem roundly defeated.
Further many carnivores feel more strongly about diet than a mere scientific theory of healthy lifestyle. Many draw passionate ideological connections with deeper, weightier aspects of human life such as reproduction (natalism vs anti Natalism, the merit of living in perceived alignment with nature “life in its fullest is Mother Nature obeyed” vs. technophilic and transhumanist tendencies of disdain for such strivings “ewww naturalistic fallacy just because something’s natural doesn’t mean it’s good- misogyny and slavery are natural too”.
What precedents and statutory provisions exist to guide a prediction as to how the courts would view these questions, or are there none? Is this question then purely speculative? Even speculation though I would contend is not purely opinion based, in a sense all legal reasoning amounts to speculation as to what a court might hold, but some law essays still get passing marks as they speculate soundly and sensible while others get failing marks.
