Animal rights activist wins discrimination case

Correction: I do my best TO follow BUAV advice...oops.

Carole, it wasn't my intention to "dodge" Ernie's question; I wasn't clear whether it was directed at me or one of the other posters. In addition, I'm not evangelistic in my beliefs on this topic- I live my way & it's up to you what you do- I'll only defend my beliefs if they're under attack. I've also tried to respond to some points while trying to keep the post on-topic. It would seem I've failed.

However, since it interests you so much:
- I stopped eating red meat 26 years ago because I didn't like it and because I had concerns abotu how farm animals were treated- at my tender age, I didn't know much about battery chickens. I hated most vegetables at that age so continued eating chicken to survive. I've never eaten fish or seafood.
- Two years later, I stopped eating fowl of any kind (had only ever had chicken or turkey anyway) because I had learned to cook and had learned about battery hens.
- I do my best not to follow BUAV advice re using products tested on animals
- I eat dairy produce & eggs which are ethically sourced (in other words, I know where they've come from) but in pretty small quantities
- I do wear leather shoes, yes. I'm not vegan but, yes. there is a good argument that this is inconsistent with my values as leather products don't usually indicate source.

I'm well aware that some carnivores see my choices as inconsistent. Most that I know simply respect my choices. Frankly, I don't care either way because they harm no-one else and I'm certainly responsible for fewer harmed animals than your average carnivore.

For the record, I believe the only totally consistent views are:
- be prepared to eat meat from ANY living creature (including those your culture likes to keep as pets) or
- be vegan & seek to avoid ANY animal-derived product.

I have a dog so, even if I fitted into the first category, I couldn't eat dog. This is a stance with no logic- it's emotional, like a lot of this stuff.

Not many people in society fall into either category. Each of us can only do what our environment allows, what we feel is right for ourselves and, ideally, not condemn others for theirs. I've spent some time in rural & poor areas of sub-Saharan Africa- I'm certainly not going to kick up a fuss because someone in that situation eats meat or fish or because someone makes clothes from a carcass.

Anyway, I've lost to will to try to keep this thread on topic and don't get me started on hunting as an efficient or reasonable method of culling foxes. Urban foxes: come in in- you're welcome.

It's funny isn't it, that eating a deer may well cause more outrage than eating a cow. Especially when you factor in the environmental impact of beef farming and the global demand for red meat. That's Disney for you - if Bambi had been a calf....!
As for the Quorn reference - yeah, nothing tastes like a "proper" chicken but I was comparing it to your chicken in your take away bhuna. I eat Quorn because it hasn't been filled with growth hormones and antibiotics for weeks before it ends up in my dinner.

Quorn does in fact tastes the processed chicken you might find in a supermarket 'chickenburger'. Tastes nothing like actual chicken though.

Ernie,

Just don't like the thought of any animal being torn to shreds by dogs or busting it's heart first being chased for miles. Don't like traps either animals knawing their leg off to get free. A shot in the head is at least humane with a bit of skill too. Now about raising pheasants to shoot by men in tweed trews..................

Quorn is so easy to cook Pat, I use it reasonably often, but give a quorn southern burger to a meat eater and they would probably (and have told me ) it taste like chicken!! I don't know as have not eaten meat for 24 years so have forgotten the taste!

Going back to the last few post however, I will not rise to or comment on them.....

Wow, eat more deer!!! Will, are you trying to make this the longest running topic yet?
I sit back & wait for the outraged comments flood.
On a serious note, I do think it sacrilege to mince venison & what on earth do you do to Quorn to make it seem like chicken? Maybe you are doing something to chicken to make it seem like Quorn..... that would be easier.

As we're going off on tangents - don't give up eating red meat for environmental reasons; switch animals. We have a problem with a deer population explosion, an animal that is not farmed but roams free range in the free-est sense. It is far lower in fat than beef and tastes fantastic. Don't tell me it's 'gamey' - no one that I served venison chilli to has noticed that it wasn't beef (and no one that I've given Quorn curry to has noticed it wasn't chicken for that matter). Help save the planet, help promote free-range - eat one of your local Muntjacs.

Sorry Richard I should have said that I don't see you post as an attempt to foist your opinion on me but merely as an invitation to enter into a debate. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Hi Richard, welcome and good luck with your crusade. It's funny but in numerous forums I've used the fact that cows fart methane to counter the AGW by burning fossil fuels argument many times now but I'm afraid I don't believe that the science behind bovine global warming is any more reliable than that used to support the anthropogenic global warming theory/scam. I could, however, be convinced that our resources are finite and we should become more responsible in our use of them. What a world. Maybe I should wise up and stop thinking so much. I might just get myself a horse and see if I can find a farmer who will let me gallop across his fields, sounds like fun.

Well Michelle you’re right about one thing. Fox hunting is not a sport. I don’t know when it was first described as such or by whom but it’s wrong. It’s actually a rural economy. It’s an economy that has suffered some bad press in recent times just as the fur trade has not, I might add, because it doesn’t fulfill some useful purpose or it isn’t sustainable but because it is viewed by outsiders from an emotional perspective rather than a practical one.
This economy wasn’t created in its current form overnight rather; it has developed over many centuries. I think we all still know that farmers work on the land for a living and have to consider many things and manage many situations. They have to deal with fallen stock and control the number of pests and predators to an acceptable level to mention but a couple. They also have to do these things cost effectively. In the meantime people who like to ride horses, who in the past were mainly the landed gentry, wished to be able to gallop across the land but galloping across the land doesn’t always fit in with the farmer’s plans. So the people with the horses got themselves some dogs and persuaded the farmers to allow them to follow the dogs across the land chasing and killing foxes. The farmer agreed and they became known as the hunt. To the farmer this was a good deal made even better when he realised the hunt would now take his fallen stock to feed the dogs free of charge. The hunt needed to employ someone to look after the dogs so they invited other horse riding enthusiasts from all walks of life to join them for a small fee which they were only too happy to pay for the pleasure of being able to gallop across the farmer’s fields; something that otherwise would be denied to them. A cracking little economy that served the local community well for many years until it became a focus for the urbanised cuddly furry animal brigade who saw only those jumped up upper class twits in red suits using their nasty dogs to murder the poor little furry, cuddly foxes. So it was made illegal and now there are so many foxes that they are not only a pest to the farmers but are rapidly becoming a nuisance to the city dwellers as well. It’s funny Michelle but I think you are saying that the urban fox needs to be culled but hunting them in the countryside isn’t the way to do it. Have you a better method in mind?
Btw I agree that Mr Hashman should not have lost his job just because his view on fox hunting was at odds with his employers.

Animal welfare is not the only issue here! Ernie, you seem happy at your 'place in the food chain' (as you put it) and still 'comforatble with the way nature works'. Far be it from me to force my opinions on you, but are you aware of the environmental damage that the mass production of meat is causing? Nature is is not working any more. Meat production pumps up to 22% of all 'CO2 equivalent' greenhouse gases into the atmoshere every year and is directly contributing to climate change.

I am not against the eating of meat per se (although I have given up red meat as it is by far the worst culprit), but I think we should all take a responsible (and sustainable) view on limiting our meat consumption. Ernie, you think that Elizabeth I was wise beyond her time. Well, shouldn'e we all 'wise up' to what we are doing?

I will wear my fur hat as it is cold here and eat turkey at Christmas too. Culling of animals is necessary if we do not want our cities infested BUT fox hunting for pleasure is cruel and illegal. This man was sacked because the buffoon in the red coat probably did not want to be exposed and had the power to sack him which is why the case was proven.

Fox hunting is alive and well it gives the unemployed something to do when they are not counting their money. Did you know half of Northumberland is owned by bankers living in London, pheasant shooting on their land is a nice little earner. I don't know whether you pay to go on a fox hunt I doubt whether the common folk would be asked it is an elitist sport I use the word sport loosely there 'aint no skill in it just "their" idea of fun wasn't so long ago we were their prey. New ET rules are taking us right back to those halcyon days make no mistake.

Well said Mark. When Queen Elizabeth I declared that she had "no desire to make windows into men's souls" she was saying that people should be judged by how they act not how they think. She was wise beyond her time. It's advice that lots of people nowadays would do well to take heed of.
I'm not in favour of fur farms myself and I am totally against the wanton abuse of animals in any shape or form and am never slow to express my disgust whenever I am confronted with it but I am neither a bigot nor a hypocrite. I grew up in the country and I still shoot a few rabbits which are always eaten by me, family or friends and I know that nowadays some people find even this kind of activity objectionable. Those who have somehow developed a guilt complex about where they sit in the food chain are certainly entitled to their opinions but they are wrong to try and force their opinions on those of us who are still comfortable with the way nature works.

Ernie you are spot on with the biggotry. As for wearing furs, its not illegal is it?
If one persons view is that it is immoral or offensive to wear fur tough, live with it, you don't have the right to cause violence or affront to someone who doesn't - not while its legal.

As it happens I don't approve of wearing fur for anything other than practical reasons in climates where it is commonplace and essential and certainly not for fashionable reasons, but who is the most despicable a person who wears a fur coat out of vanity or the assailant who physically attacks or assaults them for it?

Back to topic it seems Mr Hashman's personal views outside work clashed with the owners but that is no reason to sack him. I'm glad he won the case and compensation. It was stupid and naive to state the reasons for dismissal as personal. Sack him for poor performance if you can but if not 'live with it'.

So, let me get this straight. It's all right to wear the skin of an animal that was killed to be eaten but it’s not acceptable to wear the skin of an animal that was killed just for its skin. However it may still be OK, only just, that in some of the, colder, more remote parts of the world for people living there to kill animals just for their skins in order to keep warm. They may not always eat the flesh but they have developed other uses such as extracting oils and other useful products. How does it work? Does maximising the use of the dead animal’s body offer more justification for using the skin as clothing? We still eat rabbits but Coney coats are just as much a target as other furs, why is that? It’s confusing. While we often hear of people ruining a nice fur coat because they have a personal hang up regarding the fur trade I don’t think I’ve ever heard of an incident where someone’s crocodile shoes were ruined because they didn’t believe the crocodile had been eaten after it was skinned. Is that because, to most people, crocodiles are not considered cuddly whereas furry little creatures are? Although I believe that some people do still eat crocodiles and even snakes so that they can make belts out of their skins. Personally I’d rather wear leather than have to eat a snake.
If we want to wear the skins of animals whose flesh is no longer considered palatable to our developed sensitive tastes would it be OK if we fed the carcases of these dead animals to our cats and dogs, would that constitute sufficient usage of the animal to assuage the concerns of the animal rights activists? Just a suggestion, there must be some way of reducing the tensions between those who want to wear furs and those who don’t want them to without resorting to violence.
Btw I’m totally opposed to blowing smoke into chimpanzees eyes to see if it makes them sore.

I think we all get where leather comes from it would be interesting to know the answer to wether or not it is worn. Getting a lecture on where different skins originate was not what Ernie asked for. A neat little dodge.

its the fault of the animals themselves, if only they weren't so damn tasty.....

Ahh, the old "...do you wear leather?" argument...how I've missed you.
In this country. leather is usually a by-product of killing animals for food. Fur is usually obtained from animals which are only bred & kept for that purpose. It's possible to be a carnivore and object to the wearing of fur. Please don't confuse the issues.

Perhaps this forum should have a section specifically for moral/political debates so that we can stay on-topic in the area of employment/HR/H&S?

The term bigot has been used in several threads recently, in my opinion wrongly, but I can say without any fear of contradiction that there are plenty of real biggotted opinions in this thread. If you think it is wrong to wear fur then don't wear it you're perfectly entitled to hold that opinion but if you will not allow the opposite opinion to be held then I'm afraid you are a bigot. And before you start shouting about animal rights, do you wear leather products as part of your attire?

Lorraine
Don't get me wrong. I support animals being treated humanely, I have donated money and have (literally) got the T-shirt to support the campaign against animal testing. I would never dream of buying/wearing fur, try only to buy products not tested on animals (though this is often hard to identify), and used to sell, part time, cosmetics not tested on animals (anyone remember L’arome?).
My point being that “activist” can sometimes be a slightly watered down version of “terrorist”. Sending letter bombs through the post, attacking people and shops for wearing/selling fur etc….. This does nothing to gain sympathy for a cause, in-fact it does the opposite.

Gareth, I said that not ALL animal activists are criminal, I didn't say they are NEVER criminals. Of course they CAN be criminals. Any of us can be criminals.

I would hazard a guess that a very small minority of activists of any kind, including animal activists, are criminals.
Another small number may practise civil disobedience (such as chaining themselves to railings etc).
The vast majority are as Mel describes- campaigners, fostering/adopting rescue animals, selling stickers/badges/products, fundraising, attending protests, collecting signatures on petitions in the high street or online etc.

There is an objective & a subjective aspect to Mel's point about wearing fur. In the main, drinking & driving is no longer socially acceptable, even though some members of society may disagree. I would suggest wearing fur, in the UK at least, has moved along the spectrum of acceptibility to the point where it isn't considered acceptable by the majority of society's members. WIthout a question being included in the census, it's difficult to be certain.

On a personal note, I don't care whether people don't wear fur because they think it's appalling or because they're worried about being splashed with paint by the one in a thousand activists who might do this. If they're not wearing it, demand drops- fewer animals bred/killed for fur alone. I can accept moral arguments in western society about killing animals for food & using skin as a by-product much more than I can those about killing for fashion. If one lives in remote tundra, killing for clothing might be necessary; it is hardly so in the UK.

On topic, I've not yet seen a reasonable argument about why this gentleman should not have won his case about his beliefs being covered by the legislation. Even those who would oppose his philosophy surely don't dispute his right to adhere to it?

My own belief and opinion, one I do not shy away from........

this is a very emotive topic and peoples feeling and opinions come out i'm afraid....

I don't condone violence against fur wearers but education and encouragement to not wear it, then yes

"As for wearing fur, you get what you deserve, regardless of it being a family heirloom.......times and trends and understanding change, it is not acceptable to wear it anymore" .... hmm, is that fact or just your belief!!

This post has been removed at its author's request.