Quality | 2010.03.09
Disagreement over discrimination law | Afua Hirsch
From veganism to wearing a crucifix at work, debates about discrimination law are dividing legal opinion
The purpose of a roundtable at the British Academy on Monday was to discuss a Conservative Bill of Rights. The group experts on the UK\'s constitution, law and human rights – including Vernon Bogdanor , Conor Gearty , Francesca Klug , Geraldine Van Bueren and many more – were, as usual, in agreement that what the Tories are proposing doesn\'t really make sense. And, as usual, we never really got to the bottom of those Tory proposals, this time because shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve had to escape early to put a question to Jack Straw in the House of Commons on Jon Venables\' recall to prison.
But backstage a more interesting argument was taking place – one that splits the otherwise cohesive pro-human rights brigade. Not about the Human Rights Act per se, but about the closely related field of discrimination law. There is plenty to disagree about at the moment.
Is not being able to wear a crucifix at work indirect discrimination on grounds of belief? Liberty thinks so. Shami Chakrabarti reiterated the organisation\'s belief that Christians should be protected from discrimination if they wear a crucifix at work. The court of appeal found against them in the case of Nadia Eweida and Liberty is determined to appeal to the supreme court.
Not all experts on equality agree this is a case of indirect discrimination, or that one person has any intrinsic rights to be treated a certain way if they can\'t point to someone who is better off because they lack whatever is causing the discrimination. Lord Lester, a pioneer of discrimination legislation, could hardly conceal his disdain for the argument.
At least there is agreement on the fact that Christianity falls within the definition of a "religion" – regardless of the rights that attach to membership. But what about veganism? Proposals by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) that people who abstain from eating, wearing or partaking in the production of animal products should also be protected from discrimination have raised a few eyebrows, to say the least. The EHRC has drafted guidance to accompany the equality bill, which recommends, among other things, that it\'s good practice to give vegans their own food facilities. The draft guidance states:
"Each space has a fridge, sink with cleaning cloths, microwave, separate utensils and crockery all of which are colour coded either green for the vegan spaces or red for the non-vegan spaces. Staff members are strongly encouraged to use the spaces appropriately in order to respect the beliefs of their vegan colleagues."
Critics argue that this was never the kind of belief system parliament intended to be covered by rules primarily geared towards religious belief. As a vegan for more than five years – and a totally non-proselytising one – I have a great deal of sympathy for the guidance. There was nothing more upsetting than the sight of animal fat clogging up a sink or the smell of milk left in a mug. Whether this should be a matter of colleague-courtsey or the subject of "religitation" – as the growth industry in religious cases is affectionately described – is another question but not, in my view, one that can be dismissed out of hand.
I can already hear the Cif responses rumbling. As a young(ish), one-time, vegan, black woman, I will be accused of having a vested interest in the widest possible scope for protection from discrimination. They will be pleased to know that many more middle-aged, middle-class white men are also benefiting from a ruling by the Employment Tribunal last year that views on climate change qualify as a " philosophical belief " deserving the same level of protection as religion.
But if the pro-human rights lobby can\'t agree about it, I wouldn\'t really expect you too, either.
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]2010/mar/09/discrimination-law
