Canada @lemmy.ca PuddingFeeling [she/her] @lemmy.ca 1y ago

Vegan Firefighter Loses Bid To Protect Ethical Vegans From Discrimination

plantbasednews.org Vegan Firefighter Loses Bid To Protect Vegans From Discrimination

A tribunal in Canada has ruled against a vegan firefighter who sought to stop discrimination against ethical vegans

41 comments

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?
- I agree with this, though "lifestyle choice" can make it sound like a mere preference. Preferences aren't the same as sincerely held moral beliefs, and they shouldn't be treated as flippantly as these people treated him.
- 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 removed 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.
  
  Some people don't want to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. That's not being picky, it's a moral commitment.
  
  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.
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!
  
  Eating healthily as a vegan, especially in a job that is very physical (thus requiring very careful management of protein) is quite a bit more restrictive.
  
  That being said, the employer are fuckwits. They don't cook the food themselves; they very obviously cater. And caterers have catered (hah!) to vegans for decades now.
  
  And yet all of them taste better when deep fried in animal fat.
- 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.
  
  I was vegan for a few years and from personal experiences I can say that eating meat/dairy after months/years of a strictly vegan diet will fuck you up gastrointestinally. Your body just doesn't have the same gut fauna anymore that was able to digest animal products. It would be hard to expect someone to fight a fire while they are experiencing cramps, bloating, and gastrointestinal distress.
- I have to agree with you here.
- 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.
That sounds like a logistics issue. Are there vegan MREs? The station should order some in along with other non vegan options to have emergency rations ready in these situations.
- There are certainly vegetarian MREs. Idk about vegan. Given the compromises to taste that is made with any MREs it shouldn't be too difficult to develop with substitutes for all animal products.

41 comments