No, this isn't a Matt & Nat design, as far as I know

Vegan handbag maker Matt & Nat is in the news this week over their “no meat in the workplace policy,” which is news because it’s been around since the company started in 1995, but darn it, the news desk fell behind back in ’92 and there’s only so much you can put in a newspaper.  Look out for tomorrow’s headline about Microsoft’s new operating system that’ll blow Windows 3.1 right out of the water!

No, it’s in the news because someone complained about it.  A “former employee” who feels that the policy was a violation of her human rights.  Now, this whiner wants to remain anonymous, which is as good a sign of her willingness to stand by her convictions as anything, but apparently she was “forced” to hide meat in her purse (hopefully not a Matt & Nat model) to get around this draconian policy.

There’s no word on why this person left the company – it could have been for eating meat in the workplace, or it could have just been for massive stupidity.  Or lots of other reasons.  This is all just speculation, and I want to be clear on that, because I’d hate for her to have to complain that I called her a stupid, well, not in a legal complaint kind of way, but maybe to someone who might be able to do something, maybe.  Seriously, is it just me or does whole thing have the stench of sour grapes, and cowardly grapes at that?

The nice part of this story, and I’m glad there’s a nice part, because there’s a bit of an attempt to try to make Matt & Nat look bad for actually having principles, which is a shame, but the nice part here is that it reinforces the fact that there’s actually nothing, at least in the Canadian legal framework, that makes it wrong to enforce a meat-free workplace.  And to be clear, all they were doing was keeping the office meat-free.  Sneaking a burger in her car probably didn’t even violate the rules, despite her best efforts to be a rebel, and people could eat whatever they wanted at home.

That said, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m pretty sure I’m legally allowed to hire only vegans here at VP, if I were in a hiring mood, at least under the Charter.  There’s a list of things you can’t discriminate on, and it varies from province to province, but in Quebec, where Matt & Nat are based, it’s “race, colour, sex, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.”  Unless someone wants to make a case that they’re actually addicted to meat and dairy, which would have amazing repercussions for those products’ respective lobby groups, I can’t figure how anyone – meat eater or vegan – can claim protection from discrimination on the basis of diet (and yes, that means I can be fired for being vegan, probably, but that would be kind of awesome, actually. Especially since I’m self-employed.)

Of course, that won’t stop Ms. Anonymous from showing her ignorance, either of the law or of what it actually means to work for a company with values.

OK, the bear has nothing to do with this latest legal decision, other than set the chain of events in motion, but a judge has ruled that the Canadian government wasn’t at fault for the mauling that injured two Australians who were in town to work at some ski resorts (This was back in 1995, well before the fed started dressing up in bear suits and attacking people in a bid to distract people from the seal hunt. And also to dress up like bears and attack people. Winter is lonely.)

The plaintiffs claimed that the government didn’t do enough to warn them about the possibility of bear attacks, and wanted, I don’t know, a million dollars or something.  Specifically, they felt there should have been more signs, perhaps saying “You know that joke about bears pooping in the woods? Guess what? YOU’RE IN THE WOODS” or something to that effect, because that’s kind of where bears live.  The men were also given some kind of written material about bears, but it must not have been on a post.

As the incident was 15 years ago, I don’t know if the bears were hunted down and killed (which seems to happen after animals do animal-like things,) but this seemed like a modest victory for nature.  Yes, it sucks to get mauled, and it’s got to suck worse fighting for 15 years in court to get a payday out of it, but at the end of the day a court just said that bears were allowed to be bears, and that seems OK by me.

Oh, and I stole this story from Fark, where the write-up was shorter and sweeter: “Campers mauled by bear lose lawsuit. It was probably because bears have no money.”

Zing.

They also had this in the comments:

Yeah, the squirrel bit almost distracted me from the punch line too.

I'm not saying Atlanta is short of vegans, but this is the number one search result for Atlanta vegans. This soup's a dick, always asking me if my belt's leather.

I’m sure I have something or other in the back of my brains that will emerge triumphantly if I ramble enough, but for starters, take a look at this article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and see if you notice anything weird.

Here’s the hint: “Lawyers for vegans…”, “Jack Camp denied the vegans’ request”, ”…the vegans’ lawyers said…”, “…they and other vegans…”

Oh wait, they are mentioned by name in the last paragraph.  The rest of it, it’s “the vegans.”

Are there really only two vegans in Atlanta?  Really?  It’s weird, I’ve been trying to substitute words into the article instead of vegans to see if it would make sense or even be acceptable otherwise, and I guess you could do something like “the schoolteachers,” but then the schoolteachers union would probably think it’s weird.  If you go with something like “the fat people,” it’s clearly offensive.  ”The fat vegan schoolteachers” showing up in an online article would herald the end of the internet and a mass return to print.

Like I said, weird. Also, potential alarming because it might be these vegans. Why else would the writer do this if not to send a secret message?

Anyway, the article itself is kind of interesting, if you can see past the strippers and cocaine (they put that in every story now) – “the vegans” were arrested 7 years ago, falsely as it turns out, at a protest, and they sued the police department.  And won.  Four dollars.  Their legal fees? Two hundred thousand dollars, to say nothing of the stress and time spent over the past 7 years on the case.  I’m not accredited, but I could put together an investment portfolio that achieves similar returns with very little effort.

Oh, the strippers and cocaine part comes from the judge who denied awarding legal fees being on cocaine and having sex with an exotic dancer.  There’s an appeal in the works on the grounds that this kind of thing really messes with your judgement.  I’m waiting on a government grant to study exactly that.  I’ll let you know how it goes.

So from this I reckon it sucks to do outreach in Atlanta, which the tourism board probably isn’t losing sleep over, but I’m less likely to visit a region where this kind of thing happens.  The free speech/assembly stuff that is.  Not sure how I feel about judges, strippers, and cocaine, but I’m sure I’ll form an opinion after reading an article with 5 references to “the drug-addled judge.”

This is all a thinly veiled business proposal, read down to the bottom (or rock bottom, or the gutter, if you prefer) for the amazing details!

Naked Law (it’s like Vegan Porn that can sue you!) has a list running of 5 Foods Americans Love That Are Banned in Europe, and it’s worth a look for at least one “huh, that’s weird.” Here’s the breakdown:

Dairy products made with growth hormones. This was a big deal back when they first got approved in the USA, and I think it might have been stopped outright if the internet had been big enough at the time. It’s also the most boring recap I have to offer. Always lead with your weakest stuff, I say!

Genetically modified soy, corn and wheat. To be fair, to the best of my knowledge GMO wheat isn’t being grown anywhere in the world right now. You wanna know the real reason I’m against these things? They totally run counter to what all my comic book training has taught me. If you get genetically modified, you get a super power, and it’s going to be something you can use in a fight. Crop yield doesn’t qualify.

Brightly coloured breakfast cereal. I didn’t know that this wasn’t available in some parts of the world. Some nonsense about marketing to kids, like a young child’s honestly going to pick a bowl of vibrantly coloured bits over a uniform beige clump of oatmeal. As if. And if this was a concern, couldn’t they just legislate special colour-removing glasses for children under 12? Optics lobby, just what exactly ARE you doing with my donations?

Bleached white flour. It turns out bleached flour is bleached with bleaching agents, which, if not actual bleach, would involve peroxides and other things that have universally recognized “do not put your toddler in a bowl of this stuff” safety logos. Fun story: I once wrote to a major Canadian flour company asking why they had peroxide in their ingredients list. They sent me a letter that didn’t answer the question, quoted various health regulations, and gave me like ten bucks in coupons and a bunch of (non vegan) recipes that I, it seems correctly, interpreted as a payoff. Anyway, in Europe they lighten the flour by exposing it to air for a week or so.

They also talk about man-made fats, but I feel almost guilty for rewriting their post (hey, it’s not my fault they didn’t talk about my flour investigation!) so go read the rest here. And then you can tell me if my business plan still makes sense:

As you may know, while I do some programming and marketing work a big chunk of my “job” is my veg web work including VP. Nobody’s paying $100 per post, which I think is an amazing deal, for me at least, so I’m forced to work on an actual product to help pay the bills. Now that we’ve done geographic research, will this still work?

Neon Tofu: brightly coloured firm tofu with the same great taste you grew up with! Available in individual foil-wrapped 1 inch cubes. Which colour will you get? Will your friend trade 2 orange tofus for one of your fuchsias? Each cube is lovingly crafted from the best tofu science has to offer and bleached to a pristine off-grey before a coating of lead-free food dye is added. Tune in next quarter for our hydrogenated edition, with 84% more spreadability!

Wow, good thing I didn’t sacrifice my vegan values and add dairy to that, or I’d have a real hard time launching in the EU, eh?

John from LOHV-NYC keyed into my passion for influencing the governments of foreign powers and sent word that there’s a special election coming up for the 40th Council District in New York, and candidate Zenobia McNally is LOHV-NYC’s choice for the councillor who’ll do the most for animals, including supporting a ban on foie gras. Having never managed to vote in a US election, all I have to go by are tales of futuristic voting machines (we use something called a “pencil” to make a “letter” called “X” on a “paper”), so I look forward to a futuristic society where animals are considered in matters of government. Link.

I’m a pretty pro-accessibility guy, but I just snorted tea through my nose when I read darrek‘s latest submission. Drinks down? OK. A lawmaker in Texas is trying to make it easier for legally blind people to go hunting. If the bill passes, visually impaired people will be allowed to use laser sights to assist in aiming, and they would be accompanied by a sighted guide who could whisper things like “two inches to the left, a bit higher, no wait, that’s grandma.” It seems like every time I read something about “one shot, one kill” and other “responsible hunting” rhetoric, I stumble across some pro-hunting genius like this guy who shows absolutely no concern whatsoever for the welfare of the animals that’ll be maimed with all the bad shots he’s about to allow. As bill sponsor and no doubt mighty warrior Rep. Edmund Kuempel says, “This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that’s great.” I can only hope that this is a sign of desparation from a rapdily declining hunter population, and we won’t have to deal with any of this in another generation or two. Link.

A Minnesota man might be getting off (in the legal sense) after having had sex with a deer. According to the defense, the “animal” had become “venison” by the time the assault took place, as Bryan James Hathaway found the deer’s corpse at the side of the road. According to the public defender, the bestiality law was intended to protect animals, and since the deer was already dead, no real harm was done. The potential future adventures of a man who gets turned on by roadkill are left as an exercise for your nightmares. This is actually an interesting case, if you’re someone with no legal training who likes to speculate. In most regions, animals are considered property under the law, and thus have about as many rights as a coffee table (you may, however, have sex with your coffee table, but please, watch out for splinters), but depending on how this decision goes down (it’s apparently the first time the issue’s come up), the status of meat might be subject to some interesting interpretations in the future. Link.

The American legal system has once again proven its worth by stepping in to answer another of life’s Big Questions: is a burrito a sandwich? The answer, assuming there’s no appeal, is no. Now, is a samosa a pie? If you chop the beans up, at what point does chickpea salad become hummous? Is there a food product that people won’t find more appealing with the addition of sugar? Let’s flood the courts – post your food classification question (or an attempt at an answer) in the comments. Link.

In “poor man’s Digg” style, there’s been a call to move something to the front page. While we don’t have that capability at the moment, there’s always the digital equivalent of the telephone game, wherein I can repeat the information and then add the word “poop” to the end. beforewisdom reports that Tammy Grimes of Pennsylvania has been arrested for “stealing” a dog who was clearly in need of veterinary care and then refusing to return the dog to his “owner.” Grimes faces charges of theft, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and criminal trespass, and the Pennsylvania legal system faces a slap upside the head for their handling of the matter, if the situation is as presented. Link to Grimes’ story with videos, contact info for support, etc., Link to original post, comments there please. Poop.

heartshapedbox notes that Massachusetts Senator Jarrett Barrios is finally doing something about fluffers in schools, after his 3rd grade son was offered one in the cafeteria. The practice has been around since the 1920s (ironically it was invented in the Senator’s home district), but I’m not sure how long it’s been available at King Open School in Cambridge. In any event, the Senator will be working to ensure that fluffers have no place in anyone’s idea of a nutritious lunch. Lunch? Yeah, I’m talking about those marshmallow fluff sandwiches. Some people call them fluffernutters. What did you think I was talking about? Link.