• New Istat basket: vegan foods, centrifuges and smartwatches

Share

04 January 2020 'Veganism' as an ethics of life is a philosophical creed, and as such comparable to a religion, and therefore cannot be subject to discrimination: this is the sentence, issued yesterday by a British labor court and which promises to do jurisprudence and to create debate, if not controversy. The labor section of the court of Norwich, in the east of England, has given reason to a vegan, Jordi Casamitjana, 55, Londoner, employee of the League Against Cruel Sports, a charity organization to defend animals and against sports such as hunting to the fox, the hare and the deer, who fired him for having 'discredited' on it, accusing her of having invested a pension fund in companies involved in animal tests. A dismissal, in his opinion, dictated by his philosophical belief in 'ethical veganism'.

Casamitjana claims to have warned the leaders of the non-profit organization and then, in the face of their inaction, publicly denounced his objections on the investment also among the other employees. Whether the dismissal is lawful or not, the court will rule later, also because the League against animal cruelty claims to have chased Casamitjana for her "bad behavior", certainly not for her life ethics, in some way similar to that of the non-profit organization. But the ruling creates a legal precedent. Judge Robin Postle, in reading the sentence, said that ethical veganism "meets the requirements for being a philosophical creed and as such is protected by the Equality Act of 2010: the law that integrates, updates and makes organic the various laws of the United Kingdom on discrimination.

"Ethical" veganism differs from "healthy" veganism, because it is not based on exclusively nutritional principles, but aims to exclude from consumption any product not only of slaughter or hunting or fishing, but also of the exploitation of animals: therefore also wool, silk, wax or honey, and medicinal or cosmetic products that contain animal components or the result of animal testing. But the legal effects of the Norwich judgment are still to be verified on the ground.