- cross-posted to:
- britishcolumbia@lemmy.ca
- vegan@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Knauff, a veteran of Ontario’s provincial forest firefighting force, has been vegan for over 25 years. In 2017, he was working long hours in tough conditions fighting wildfires in British Columbia. According to non-profit Animal Justice, which campaigns for stronger animal laws, Knauff’s employer failed to provide appropriate vegan meals for him at the basecamp where he was stationed.
He was often served meals containing animal products, or nutritionally inadequate meals containing no source of protein. Sometimes no food was provided for him at all.
Despite repeated attempts to work with management to improve the situation, nothing changed.
After Knauff was disciplined and suspended without pay after expressing his frustration, he sued his employer.
I gotta side with him on this one. While his is a lifestyle choice, some people do have special dietary needs. If you want people to work in these types of conditions you have to take their needs into consideration.
I want to side with him, and I think there is a good argument that he’s right, but yours has a fatal flaw:
If you want people to work in these types of conditions you have to take their needs into consideration.
The fact that they fired him indicates they don’t want him to work in these types of conditions. They don’t want the logistics hassle associated with his chosen lifestyle.
The article claims that repeated attempts were made to negotiate with management to “improve” the situation. Those attempts could be considered negotiations. He may or may not have secured promises from management in exchange for his continued employment. The breaking of those promises could potentially be considered fraud.
More so it would be provided if there was a reason
Not liking something doesn’t count as a reason
Some people have medical or religious dietary restrictions. I think the employer would have to accommodate those. Ethical restrictions is a grey area.
But why are ethical restrictions any less valid than religious dietary restrictions?
He argued that veganism was protected as a “creed”. The Ontario Human Rights Code considers 5 factors in determining whether a belief system constitutes a creed. Under that code, a “creed”:
- Is sincerely, freely and deeply held
- Is integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment
- Is a particular and comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices
- Addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher or different order of existence
- Has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief.
Veganism clearly meets 1, 2, and 5, but I’m not quite seeing 3 or 4.
I think you could probably argue that ethical veganism is a deeply held belief that humans are not inherently superior to other animals, and that said animals also have emotions, etc.
This would address 3 as it would definitely govern one’s conduct and practices: not exploiting animals in any way.
I would also argue that it addresses ultimate questions about human’s place in the living world, partially addressing 4.
Also, looking at federal law (https://www.justice.gc.ca/fra/sjc-csj/dlc-rfc/ccdl-ccrf/check/art2a.html), looks like “liberté de conscience et de religion” should be interpreted widely:
La « liberté de conscience et de religion » devrait être interprétée largement et s’étendre aux croyances dictées par la conscience, qu’elles soient fondées sur la religion ou sur une morale laïque et les termes « conscience » et « religion » ne devraient pas être considérés comme tautologiques quand ils peuvent avoir un sens distinct, quoique relié.
So Ontario’s interpretation here is potentially unconstitutional, especially if their decision hinges on something as minor as what a belief system has to say about a Creator.
EDIT: Not a vegan at all, but I can understand the ethics.
I barely accept religious food preferences and now you want me to accept political food preferences? I eat anything and don’t complain because I’m not a bitch and I’ve experienced literal starvation before.
What the fuck is this ridiculous amount of entitlement.
The ONLY appropriate reason for food variety in MRE’s is allergies and so the troops don’t go insane from the constant repetitiveness of one type of trash food over and over.
You eat and don’t complain because you don’t care about a thing, not even yourself. It’s not something you should be proud of.
I understand you have literacy issues so I’ll correct you and move on since I don’t like spending overmuch time in dialogue with idiots.
As I mentioned I have experienced actual starvation, thanks mainly to the loving care the Canadian government puts in group homes.
Now, I don’t complain because I’m not a bitch.
Once again, wrong on all counts and judging from your comment history you have very little likelihood of ever actually being right, but I digress, learn how to read, moron.
Restrictive personal choices aren’t a protected class if it’s not imaginary sky-person friendship.
It’s not really restrictive when there are 40,000 plants you can cook with.
It is restrictive by definition, but it’s in the top 5 most common dietary restrictions, and it’s a government program for forest firefighters, not a dinner party with your friend’s boyfriend. Figure it out and make it work!
And yet all of them taste better when deep fried in animal fat.
Most deep frying is done in vegetable or seed oils.
That is true that veg/seed oils are the most common, but a lot of places use animal-based mediums like duck fat and they shallow-fry instead.
I couldn’t tell you if it actually tasted any better, but it’s annoying as fuck when you look through the menu to find out you can only have fries for lunch, then when it’s brought out the server says something like “…and our famous duck-fat fries. You like them so much it’s all you wanted for lunch?”
This is the key thing, right here.
Although Veganism is a laudable choice, especially considering how meat production contributes so disproportionately to climate change and ecosystem destruction, it is a personal choice and not a fundamental dietary restriction that limits what you can actually safely eat. While an employer should make reasonable allowances to allow you to meet your own personal restrictions, meals in the bush, well away from infrastructure, makes any such allowance that much more onerous for an employer to meet.
Don’t get me wrong, tho - I am not a corporatist. Nothing would have made me happier than the company being found at fault and getting nailed to the wall. Corporations will try to get away with everything they legally can, and a lot that they legally cannot, so long as no-one complains. But the legal ruling did follow the law, and the law was very clear.
Which is a fucking shame. The article says that the judge said the only reason he lost the case was because veganism has no deity. He practices his beliefs more sincerity and deeply than any Christian, but because there’s no deity involved he gets shit.