Dr Jeanette Rowley, Chair of The Vegan Society’s International Rights Network
The Human Rights Tribunal Ontario (HRTO) has ruled against recognising ethical vegans as a creed under the Human Rights Code. The decision raises questions about a requirement under the Code for an applicant to evidence that their belief “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”. This article offers evidence of strong grounds for the protection of ethical veganism under the Human Rights Code.
The Background to the Case
The case involved Adam Knauff who claimed discrimination in employment on the grounds of their creed as an ethical vegan. Mr Knauff explained that they worked long hours as a firefighter but their employer, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, failed to accommodate their dietary needs.
The Legal Test
For a belief to be recognised under the Code as creed, an applicant must show that their belief meets the following criteria:
- It is sincerely, freely and deeply held.
- It is integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment.
- It 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.
- It is a particular and comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices.
- It has some nexus or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief.
The Tribunal’s Rationale
Adjudicator Karen Dawson recognised that veganism meets grounds one and two. In relation to the third ground, they ruled that Mr Knauff failed to adequately demonstrate that ethical veganism addresses ultimate questions of human existence or the existence or non-existence of a higher or different order of existence and/or a Creator, and that, therefore, ethical veganism does not constitute a creed within the meaning of the Code.
Questions of Human Existence or the Existence or Non-Existence of a Higher or Different Order of Existence and/or a Creator
Protection for religion or belief offers protection for beliefs other than those that are religious. A requirement for a non-religious belief to reference religious principles is, therefore, inconsistent with the protection afforded.
However, veganism does, in fact, meet the third element of the legal test in that it is a belief that addresses human existence including ideas about life and a different order of existence.
Ethical veganism is relevant to the concept of humanity and addresses ultimate questions of human existence because it raises questions and invokes discussions about our shared morality, ethical duties, duties towards other animals, prejudice and non-violence and how these issues intertwine.
These questions concern our interconnectedness with other living beings who share earth’s resources, the true nature of human existence, what it means to be human and how we should organise our social systems and system of justice. As such, veganism clearly concerns a higher or different order of existence.
The ruling represents a significant oversight in understanding how ethical veganism engages with ideas about human life and a different order of existence, how it challenges anthropocentrism, opposes prejudice, exploitation and oppression, and looks to a humanity that is opposed to violence and causing suffering. Veganism looks outward, away from the human self. As such, it transcends the self and can arguably be regarded as representing a higher ethical calling that recognises compassion as inherent in human dignity.
The Human Right to Freedom of Conscience and Belief
Authoritative guidance from the Human Rights Committee (HRC) advises that the human right to freedom of belief is far-reaching and profound, concerns non-religious beliefs on an equal basis to religious beliefs and can protect new and emerging beliefs. It also protects beliefs with a dietary element.
Veganism is recognised internationally, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, the constitutions of Germany and Italy, and in the United Kingdom. Judges at the European Court of Human Rights have also acknowledged that defending our human right to freedom of conscience is related to animal protection.
The view that veganism does not meet the third element of the criteria for protection under the Code does not align with the principles of the international right to freedom of belief or the growth of protection for ethical vegans.
Mr Knauff argued that the Tribunal should apply the legal test in conjunction with additional factors from foreign and international law. However, the adjudicator stated that they saw “no reason to resort to international law and foreign case law in order to interpret the Code, an Ontario statute, and I decline to do so.”
Implications of the Decision
The decision suggests a very restrictive interpretation of what is capable of constituting a creed under human rights law. Such an approach does not align with the intended scope of protection under the right to freedom of conscience, and constrains ethical and social progress.
The court's decision not to recognise veganism as a creed represents a controversial departure from the guidance of the HRC as well as the growing trend to validate the convictions of those who defend their right to live with compassion.
Conclusion
Contrary to the decision, it is submitted that the third element of the legal test, as applied in this case, did not present an insurmountable hurdle. However, the decision not to grant ethical veganism protected status as a creed has significant ramifications. Vegans remain vulnerable to discrimination, access to veganism is constrained and unsupported, the challenge of sustaining veganism persists, and critically, the mission to acknowledge compassion for non-human animals as an issue for human rights is stunted.