scholarly journals Should Ethical Vegans Have a Beef with the Definition of Religion?

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Offer ◽  
Renae Barker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Philosophical Beliefs ◽  
Current Definition ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Limited Success ◽  
Definition Of Religion ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
By Products

Veganism, where adherents eschew the consumption of animals or their by-products, has seen a substantial increase in popularity in recent years. Vegans who follow the diet for moral or ethical reasons (ethical vegans) have argued in the United States, with limited success and, more recently, in the United Kingdom that they should be protected from discrimination on the grounds of their adherence to ethical veganism, contending that ethical veganism should be subject to similar protections as religion. In the United Kingdom, anti-discrimination legislation protects philosophical beliefs in addition to religion and it was recently held in a preliminary hearing in Casamitjana v The League Against Cruel Sports that ethical veganism falls within the ambit of the relevant statute. The authors examine the situation in the United Kingdom and the United States and conclude that, given that Australian anti-discrimination statutes only refer to religion as a protected attribute, this outcome is unlikely to be replicated since veganism is highly unlikely to meet the current definition of religion.

Theories of Regulation and Changes in Regulation: The Case of Financial Markets

1986 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 185-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Moran
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Financial Markets ◽  
The United States ◽  
Securities Markets ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Regulatory Styles ◽  
Regulatory Theories

A definition of regulation is offered and the relevance of regulatory theory to understanding change in financial markets is explained. The nature of financial change is sketched. Four major sets of regulatory theories are outlined—teleological, cultural, instrumental and administrative. The adequacy of each in explaining recent changes in securities markets in Britain and the United States is assessed. The article concludes that some cultural and administrative theories perform best, and argues that in the United Kingdom and the United States there is a convergence of regulatory styles.

scholarly journals The Evolving Common Law Jurisprudence Combatting the Threat of Terrorism in the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada

Laws ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
James Simeon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Terrorism ◽  
Common Definition ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Laws And Policies ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Uk

Terrorism is a concept that defies a simple and straightforward legal definition. Therefore, it is not surprising to find that there is no Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism with a universally accepted definition of what constitutes “terrorism.” Consequently, States have devised their own definitions of what constitutes terrorism that are typically found in their criminal law. This raises the fundamental question of whether there is a convergence or divergence in jurisprudential trends on what constitutes terrorism among States? Presumably, a convergence in jurisprudential trends is more likely to contribute to combatting the threat of terrorism at the international and national levels. Accordingly, this article comparatively analyzes the definition of terrorism in three common law jurisdictions: the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada. It finds that although there are a number of similarities in the definition of terrorism in these three States, they have significantly different definitions of what constitutes terrorism. The UK definition, ostensibly, has the broadest definition of terrorism of the three States. The US has, undoubtedly, the most unique, with separate definitions for “international terrorism” and “domestic terrorism.” Additionally, Canada has the most international definition of terrorism, drawing on 13 functional terrorism Conventions to define offenses such as hijacking, hostage taking, and bombing, etc. The second part of the article comparatively analyzes seven of the leading Supreme Court cases on terrorism in these three States. From the ratio or rationes decidendi in each of these cases, it draws out the twelve legal principles that underlie these judgements and finds that they are similar and overall consistent. The conclusion reached is that there is, at least in these three common law jurisdictions, an apparent convergence in jurisprudential trends in the law of terrorism. This augurs well for the development and emergence of a common definition of what constitutes terrorism at the international and transnational levels, as well as more rigorous and effective counter-terrorism laws and policies within and across States.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document