The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default Interesting article in the Telegraph;

    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec. 16, 2006
    Posts
    106

    Default

    Hee-hee. They just ignore the law. Every hunt I've been out with in England since the ban has gone out with the full pack of hounds. There is "talk" of someone laying out a drag, plus they'll bring out their Bird of Prey to show to the kids at the meet (since you're allowed to take foxes with raptors, another giggle), but it's a normal hunt. Drag hunts run and run. I haven't. Normal checks. Occasionally I've spent some extended time with the Master and whipper ins at the end of the day as we would do a few more casts after most of the field have gone back.

    The difference is nobody knows if a fox has been taken until later that night at the pub. It gets whispered around....



  3. #3
    Join Date
    May. 21, 2011
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...g-beliefs.html

    Un-freaking-real:

    The 43-year-old has been permitted to take his claim to an employment tribunal after a judge’s landmark ruling said his views on fox hunting should be placed on the same legal footing as religious beliefs.
    Thank God here in America such a tool would be laughed out of civil court for such a case.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    How come some tool always has to say it wouldn't happen in the USA ?
    One would think (in the case you cited) it would depend on the State in which you live and the employment laws in that State. Do States allow you to fire an employee for cause not related to the performance of his job, or can you fire a person if you just happen to disagree with them ?
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  5. #5
    Join Date
    May. 26, 2011
    Posts
    1,008

    Default

    Many states are employment at will states. IN those you can fire an employee for any reason or no reason.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FitToBeTied View Post
    Many states are employment at will states. IN those you can fire an employee for any reason or no reason.
    And the rest are not, hence;

    Quote Originally Posted by Equibrit View Post
    ....it would depend on the State in which you live and the employment laws in that State.
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  7. #7
    Join Date
    May. 26, 2011
    Posts
    1,008

    Default

    See when you put a question mark on the end of the sentence, it means you are asking a question, as in, you don't know the answer.


    Do States allow you to fire an employee for cause not related to the performance of his job, or can you fire a person if you just happen to disagree with them ?
    So, if you are going to ask a question, expect people to answer.



  8. #8
    Join Date
    May. 21, 2011
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Equibrit View Post
    How come some tool always has to say it wouldn't happen in the USA ?
    One would think (in the case you cited) it would depend on the State in which you live and the employment laws in that State. Do States allow you to fire an employee for cause not related to the performance of his job, or can you fire a person if you just happen to disagree with them ?
    In NO state in this country would views on some outdoor sport be given the same standing as religious beliefs.

    The Crown's decision in the cited case is ridiculous prima facie and judicial overreach into legislation from the bench. at least by this country's standards.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    You do not seem to have read the article you cited. This was not taking place in a court. The guy was right. You do not have to agree with him, but he has the right to hold those views AND his job.

    Case note:
    Hashman v Orchard Park Garden Centre, March 2011, (Southampton Employment Tribunal)
    Ivan Hare (instructed by Bindmans) has established that Joe Hashman's beliefs in the sanctity of life and the moral duty to avoid unnecessary suffering to animals constitute a philosophical belief for the purposes of discrimination law. Joe Hashman is a well-known animal rights activist who already has the important decision of the ECHR in Hashman and Harrup v United Kingdom (setting aside his binding over for engaging in hunt sabotage) to his name. He claims that his contract of employment as a gardener was terminated by active hunters when they realised who he was. The case will now proceed to a merits hearing in the Employment Tribunal. The case follows the EAT's decision in Grainger v Nicholson which was argued successfully by Dinah Rose QC and Ivan Hare in 2009.


    Animal welfare campaigner 'vindicated' by ground-breaking tribunal findings
    Posted 28 October 2011

    In a historic judgement, on 26th October 2011 the Employment Tribunal in Southampton found that life-long animal welfare campaigner Joe Hashman was discriminated against under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

    Mr Hashman said

    "My case against the Directors of Orchard Park Garden Centre in Gillingham, Dorset, under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 has included complex legal issues. I am indebted to the brilliance of Shah Qureshi and Nick Fry of Bindman’s LLP and my barrister Ivan Hare for their guidance, support and expertise over the last 2 years.

    “I am proud to have established in Law my philosophical belief in the sanctity of life (including fervent anti fox hunting and hare coursing beliefs). On 26th October 2011 the Employment Tribunal in Southampton found that I was discriminated against because of these beliefs and so I feel vindicated in taking my case to them for judgement.

    “The Tribunal has instructed that financial details of settlement remain a private matter. However, the truth is that succeeding with my case was all I ever wanted to achieve. Therefore I was happy to accept the first offer made to me be on behalf of Orchard Park alongside a public apology in respect of a defamatory memo written about me to their staff.”

    The apology made by the Directors of Orchard Park to Mr Hashman reads as follows:

    “We, the Directors of Orchard Park, unreservedly apologise to Mr Hashman for any injury to his feelings arising from the memo dated 18th November 2010.”

    “In particular, we accept that Mr Hashman did not seek to mislead us or set us up in relation to his animal welfare beliefs and activities. Equally, we did not intend to suggest that Mr Hashman engaged in any bullying or mud-slinging.”

    “We wish Mr Hashman well for the future, in particular in his career as a writer.”
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul. 30, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10,475

    Default

    Another view.

    Some of the comments sicken me.
    Horse Show Names Free name website with over 6200 names. Want to add? PM me!



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    The Daily Mail - that bastion of truth and equality !
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul. 30, 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    10,475

    Default

    Hey, the Daily Wail is entertaining reading!
    Horse Show Names Free name website with over 6200 names. Want to add? PM me!



  13. #13
    Join Date
    May. 21, 2011
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Equibrit View Post
    You do not seem to have read the article you cited. This was not taking place in a court.
    Sure it did. His case set precedent (a dreadful one) by expanding the definitions of "religion and belief" in UK anti discrimination law.

    Right here in the state of Ohio he could not only be fired for cause for holding personal views opposed to his employer's pastime, he would have no legal recourse, and he would have an uphill fight claiming unemployment insurance. Gotta love employment at will.



  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    Suggest you read;
    U.S. Supreme Court
    United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965)

    United States v. Seeger

    No. 50

    Argued November 16-17, 1964

    Decided March 8, 1965*

    380 U.S. 163

    Also the definition of "religion" in the EEOC compliance manual;
    http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/reli...#_Toc203359487
    Last edited by Equibrit; Dec. 26, 2011 at 09:40 PM.
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2010
    Location
    under water, most of the time
    Posts
    237

    Default

    Just to set the record straight (from an employment lawyer), in all but twelve U.S. states (Florida, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado and California), a person can be legally fired by a private employer (public employers are different, because there are First Amendment implications) for advocating a political view his employer disagrees with. The stringency of these rules and when they apply vary from state-to-state. Even in many of the states that do provide protections, employers can ban all political expression in the workplace, so long as they do so across-the-board and do not allow some viewpoints to be heard but not others. Employees can be terminated for how they express themselves (i.e., if it becomes disruptive in the workplace), so long as the termination is based upon the employee's conduct and not his or her message. Moreover, I doubt that an anti-hunting stance would be given status as a religious belief by most federal courts in the U.S. for purposes of Title VII's prohibitions against religious discrimination in the workplace. Few courts are willing to stretch that far; otherwise, every viewpoint becomes a "religion".

    Not advocating a particular position or providing legal advice; my point is that in most states in the U.S., there is little-to-no protection for the type of expression being discussed here in the private employment context. I'll leave the discussion of whether or not that is a good or bad thing to others; that subject is probably beyond the scope of this particular forum.
    Last edited by Peregrine Farm; Dec. 27, 2011 at 11:08 AM.



  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2007
    Location
    Maryland USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Equibrit View Post
    This definition certainly could describe animal rights loons.
    non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”
    Specifics aside, even if you are in an at-will state, you are crazy if you give people a specific reason unrelated to a documented pattern of work performance or major on the job misbehavior for firing them.

    Just because you can legal fire somebody for no reason does not mean you can fire them for "any" reason.



  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    The sanctity of life is a well established religious principle. This employee was fired for believing that, not broadcasting or bringing it to his job.
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  18. #18
    Join Date
    May. 21, 2011
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tangledweb View Post
    This definition certainly could describe animal rights loons.
    Specifics aside, even if you are in an at-will state, you are crazy if you give people a specific reason unrelated to a documented pattern of work performance or major on the job misbehavior for firing them.
    Exactly:

    Your services are no longer required

    Your position has been consolidated with another

    Budgetary reasons.......

    A change in business conditions.......

    Organizational changes drive........

    Pick any of the above or make one up similar.



  19. #19
    Join Date
    May. 21, 2011
    Posts
    1,431

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Equibrit View Post
    The sanctity of life is a well established religious principle. This employee was fired for believing that, not broadcasting or bringing it to his job.
    The employee is a sab. The employer is a hunter.



  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,469

    Default

    Your point ?
    Are you familiar with these documents ?
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



Similar Threads

  1. Interesting article
    By Arrows Endure in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Oct. 7, 2012, 09:32 PM
  2. Interesting Pet Food Article
    By cute_lil_fancy_pants_pony in forum The Menagerie
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Mar. 18, 2012, 10:00 PM
  3. Interesting Article
    By judybigredpony in forum Eventing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Mar. 15, 2012, 02:50 AM
  4. Interesting genetics article
    By vineyridge in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Dec. 27, 2011, 08:45 AM
  5. Interesting article on imprinting...
    By wannabegifted in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Apr. 3, 2008, 10:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness