The Slimline Royal Family Diet

Despite her 50 year reign I pretty much had never heard of Margrethe II of Denmark until she came down with COVID-19 following Queen Elizabeth II's funeral a couple of weeks ago. Sorry. But I was today years old when I decided I don't like her. Not sorry.

CONTEXT:

Margrethe Alexandrine Þórhildur Ingrid was born in 1940 making her 82 years old. In 1967 she married Henri de Laborde de Monpezat, known as Henrik, who died in 2018 aged 83.
The couple had two children, both born before her reign began - Crown Prince Frederik, who is 54 and Prince Joachim, 53.

So the story is that to slim-down and modernise the Danish Royal Family she is stripping Joachim's children(^) of their titles, effective from the New Year.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/29/denmarks-queen-margrethe-strips-four-grandchildren-of-royal-titles

Crown Prince Frederik married Mary Donaldson in 2004. They have four children:

• Prince Christian, who is nearly 17
• Princess Isabella, 15
• Twins, Prince Vincent and Princess Josephine, who are 11

Prince Joachim first married Alexandra Manley in 1995. They had two children before divorcing in 2005.

• Prince Nikolai, 23^
• Prince Felix, 20^

Prince Joachim remarried in 2008 to Marie Cavallier and they had two children together:

• Prince Henrik, 13^
• Princess Athena, 10^

Just think about that for a moment. The cardinal rule of parenting is to treat your children equally. Of course, life doesn't work like that: one son will be King, the other will not. But this just smacks of favouritism. The golden child, the heir, gets everything; the spare not only gets nothing but his children get stripped THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OR THEIR OWN what they have had since birth.

I've already seen from social media responses that there's a loud contingent of 'aw diddums, poor little rich kids' but that's REALLY NOT THE POINT. It's about the inherent unfairness of treating one group of grandchildren differently because they were not born to the favoured child. The wrong of taking back a gift. 
So I make no apology for the overuse of the word 'imagine' in the following rant. Whether or not you approve of royalty is irrelevant; put yourself in the shoes of a young man in his early 20s or a girl of 10 and imagine your granny doing something this unkind.

"The official reason was to allow the four children of her youngest son, Prince Joachim, to live more normal lives"

I've argued this before with Britain's (or America's) Harry and Meghan - stepping back from Royal Duties and / or renouncing titles does not a commoner make. Especially regards the security concessions (amounting to the team he is paying for being given any relevant information) Harry has asked for - opting out does not reduce or negate the RISK OF ASSASSINATION. Harry, Meghan, Archie & Lilibet will always be potential targets whatever their titles or roles, as will Nikolai, Felix, Henrik and Athena. This in no way affects who they are, for all it cuts at their personal sense of identity.

"With her decision, her Majesty the Queen wants to create a framework, for the four grandchildren, to a much greater degree, to be able to shape their existence without being limited by the special considerations and obligations that a formal affiliation with the Royal House as an institution implies."

Do you know what affiliation means? It means 'adopted as a son'. These are actual sons (and daughter) who are not adopted (which presumes that adoption is any less than biology), by unaffiliating them from the Royal House literally means rejecting them as family. How can that be anything other than cruel?

It is barking mad that Queen Margrethe thinks switching out 'Prince' and 'Princess' for 'Count' and 'Countess' would give them any more freedom over their personal destinies. There is nothing you can do as a count that you can't as a prince. It makes zero sense to me.

"They can't understand why their identity is being taken from them." 

This quote refers to the older two children as it was made by their mother but I imagine this will be just as hard on the younger two. Most little girls go through a phase of wanting to be a princess... poor little Athena *is* a Princess and is having it snatched away. I can't imagine any of them being disposed kindly toward their grandmother for this. Even at Nikolai's twenty-three I can't see this as being 'understandable'.

I've seen people comment that it's just a title, not their identity. Ye gods... Imagine you are a doctor... you get to keep your qualification but you are no longer allowed to use the title. Would you be hurt and angry about that? Maybe because that's something a Dr worked hard for you think it is different to a hereditary title... so imagine instead you have your SURNAME stripped. Your grandma has decided you're surplus to requirements so you no longer get to use the name you have had since birth. 
Maybe your title (Mr, Miss, Mrs, Ms, Mx) is irrelevant to you but it is literally still part of your name whether you use it or not. Also, if you *choose* to change your name (by deed poll, by marriage, whatever then that's a CHOICE) but imagine someone suddenly deciding you're no longer allowed to use the one you have. Your parents may be cruel, may reject you, but I know of no culture where they have the right or ability to take your familial identity away.

My parents didn't see fit to give me either of their names. Perhaps you will think that means, never having experienced that sense of belonging, that I don't know what I am talking about. Naturally, I believe the reverse is true - that I am fully cognisant of the sense of fundamental rejection that comes with being denied what is normally considered your birthright. It makes you feel neither fish, flesh nor good red herring. Bad enough from birth, I can't imagine the pain of being rejected anew at an age enough to understand.

I can understand, to an extent, the logic for sliming down the Royal Houses of Europe but there are far better ways of doing such things. For starters, how about offering the kids a CHOICE when they come of age? Rather than expecting Frederik's children to become working royals ASK THEM. It'd be quite something if Christian, Isabella, Vincent and Josephine were to reject the job, huh? If I were one of those siblings that'd be what I'd suggest - that we all ganged up against the system in solidarity with our cousins. Strike action!
Another idea would be to decide that, apart from the direct heir, no one's spouse would receive a title on marriage and no one's children would have a title either. It'd just be a matter of time until it slimmed down naturally. Far less hurtful too.

"Only the future king, Prince Christian, will receive an appenage, a decision taken in 2016"

An appenage is described as 'a grant of land or revenue' gifted when the royal child comes of age. Note the timing of this change - just as Nikolai was approaching his coming-of-age. The average family equivalent might be throwing a granddaughter a Quinceanera and then changing your mind when your eldest granddaughter hits fourteen... while promising to do one for just one of their (younger) cousins. Although a party is obviously not directly comparable to a gift that sets a kid up for life it's still going to be a bitter disappointment; expecting a celebration and being denied. Sure, that's a very privileged gift to receive but imagine being led to expect such a thing your whole life only to be told it's not happening practically on the eve? Not kind. And to keep that gift in place for the one kid who very specifically doesn't need it (because they stand to inherit everything)? Weird.

That was bad enough as it was a gift not yet given but taking back a gift, whether it's a child's Lego set or royal titles, is a big no-no. 

All I know is that if I treat my grandkids as shoddily as Queen Margrethe is doing I'd be disowned. And they'd be damned right too.

JDvsAH

IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT THE TRIGGER WARNINGS ARE FROM THE TITLE DO NOT READ

THIS IS AN OPINION PIECE. AN EXPLANATION OF WHY I TOOK A PRO-JOHNNY STANCE LONG BEFORE THIS CASE WENT TO TRIAL AND WHY THAT STANCE HAS REMAINED UNCHANGED

I have been #TeamJohnny from the get-go. Not because I am a fan, but because it was, for me, the logical stance.

I am a female of the species but I identify as agender and I am egalitarian. Oppression, violence, victimhood... these things can be caused or exacerbated by gender but it's not all one way, and the Depp Vs Heard case is a prime example.

Amber Heard was believed because she is a woman. That's it. Not because her claims were proven true, supported by evidence or even plausible. Because of her sex-slash-gender-identity. Like women can't / don't / won't lie. Like they wouldn't lie about THAT.

Can you hear the eyeroll as I typed?!

Anyone can lie. Some more effectively than others. But believing a lie because of the sex of the person telling it? Beyond stupid.

I've had rows on social media with feminazis (so shall I call them if so shall they act) who would believe ANY woman, regardless. They would literally throw their fathers, brothers, partners and sons under the bus on the word of a stranger who just happens to be female. Zero loyalty, zero faith in the men in their lives. Nice.

So yeah, that's my starting point.

I do not #BelieveAllWomen or even #BelieveAllVictims as a default setting. Which is not to say I disbelieve them, of course. But it's this little thing called critical thinking: the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.

I can at least start at the chronological beginning.

When Johnny married Amber my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG he's got himself a gold-digger, she's gonna bring him down. Call it a premonition. I knew NOTHING about this woman.

When Amber first made her claims my knee-jerk reaction was OMFG she went THAT FAR???

First Allegations

In the first instance I don't know either of these people, obviously. However there's always unconscious bias - this is where gender is a very strong factor, along with race. Most people will lean toward the female, especially a pretty blonde one (see Missing White Woman Syndrome) whether they are overtly sexist or racist or not; it's almost a learned behaviour as the news more heavily reports missing white women / children creating the idea that men and women or children of colour are less vulnerable. Meanwhile, there are others who will default in favour of men, wealth, fame, or perceived power.

I defaulted in favour of Johnny Depp. Why? Because I am a misogynist who respects fame & wealth? I certainly hope not. I certainly believe it's because I know OF Johnny (whereas I only knew of Amber as his Mrs), and had been aware of him / his career for decades. I knew the man had substance abuse issues but from the outset it seemed curious that there had never been a sniff of violent or sexual scandal around his name.

Of course you never *know* but the fact he'd worked repeatedly with certain directors (eg. Tim Burton) and actresses (eg. Helena Bonham Carter, Keira Knightly) suggested that he wasn't a monster to work with.

This was a very short time later amplified by two of his highest profile exes (Vanessa Paradis and Winona Ryder) saying publicly NOT me too. Along with a number of co-stars (inc. Penelope Cruz and Kate Winslet) speaking of him positively. Of course, being an abuser in one relationship does not mean you will be in all of them. But, for me, it was telling that a number of high profile women said 'he wasn't like this with ME'. Naturally some of that might have been their fans asking them to say #MeToo or offering sympathy for their presumed past suffering at JDs hands. But again, respect for saying openly that it didn't happen.

Even more telling has been the distinct lack of anyone coming forward to say #MeToo. For a man now 58 that seems pretty solid. The only ex who spoke against him was Ellen Barkin who recalled him once throwing a bottle at a wall, had no idea of the context, and couldn't even remember how long their relationship lasted.

Honestly, at this point I've lost the plot as to when exactly which photos / statements came into the public eye so I'm just gonna look at the salient points individually.

The Photos

The newspapers carried photos of a 'bruised' Amber Heard coming out of court having applied for a restraining order. Even in grainy newsprint it looked like nothing. Looking at the photos presented in court with the 'bruises' supposedly shown in the 'best light' of the apartment and ignoring, for the moment, the idea of filters, resolution discrepancies etc etc I looked at the pics... is that a pimple? is that a mosquito bite? is it blusher? why can't we see her OTHER cheek for comparison?!

That's not to say she didn't have a bruise. *I* don't bruise well, especially on the face for some reason. *I* have tried to photograph injuries and failed. But then *I* have never tried to use my inadequate photos as 'evidence' in the press or in a court room.

Then there's the black eyes, broken nose, split lip that she supposedly had on the James Corden show. Yeah, not believing that either. Makeup on a split lip? I don't think so. Also, where's the show's make up artist testimony? And the mouth stretched wide photos? Lord, give me strength...

The Cabinet Video

When the cabinet video first came out several things were obvious:

• Amber was recording Johnny without his knowledge in his own home which is pretty gross
  
• He's clearly distressed
• She's clearly goading him
• The video was clearly edited

Did I believe it proved anything? Hell no.

Is violence against cabinetry illegal? Not if you own it. Criminal damage at most if you don't.

If fact, I felt it proved the opposite - he's upset, he's goaded... he slams a cabinet door? Fair amount of restraint there. If that's the most damning video you can leak there's a problem with the claim. And before anyone starts with the 'imperfect victim' argument as stated in the summing up:

“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen.

If you did take pictures, they’re fake.

If you didn’t tell your friends, you’re lying.

If you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax.

If you didn’t seek medical treatment, you weren’t injured.

If you did seek medical treatment, you’re crazy,” - Benjamin Rottenborn

She did take photos - but they don't fit with her testimony. We can SEE they're filtered, so yeah, FAKE. She also took videos - none of which managed to capture what she claims was happening. All the way up to this case she's been saying she has copious amounts of damning evidence. The evidence we've now seen, extensively, is 'meh' at best. If she'd made these claims on her WORD alone it would have looked better!

The Bottle Incident

This really needs its own headline but most of my reaction to this is the same as in testimony... it doesn't ring true. It's implausible in the extreme that she could have been assaulted in the way she described.

Sadly there are a LOT of comments online calling this out BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUFFERED IT.

There is NO WAY you can be raped with a bottle and 'not know' if it broke. If you were bleeding and in pain to the point you thought it was broken EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE is not an optional extra. Ms Heard was in no way prevented from seeking medical care - she didn't. She was in no way unable to access medical care due to poverty or location either.

I've seen repeated claims she made and was photographed THE NEXT DAY walking and acting and dressed normally. Things many victims says is simply not possible.

I can't speak for whether those photos were taken the next day but every victim of this kind of assault, bottles broken or intact, says of her account THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS. Why do I believe these self-confessed survivors over Ms Heard? Because IT MAKES SENSE. The very idea of being violated with a potentially broken bottle is enough to make most females, if not most people, wince and cross their legs.

We're supposed to believe that Ms Heard was vulnerable, intimidated, trapped in an abusive relationship but where many / most DV survivors are separated and isolated by their abusers - she was surrounded by her employees, her friends, her sister. Many / most DV / SA survivors (in the US) don't have medical insurance or can't access healthcare due to cost, or fear that it'll be reported back to their abuser. That was never her situation and a lot of survivors are pretty angry that a woman with her wealth and privilege is claiming their level of disadvantage.

As with the Rottenborn statement above it's hard to imagine anyone being assaulted the way Ms Heard describes and deliberately NOT seeking help. If she had sought help she certainly wouldn't be 'crazy' for it - there'd be records, PROOFS of what did or did not happen.

The same is true of her alleged broken nose. I got my nose broken. It was on straight, it was not bleeding profusely, so I followed the NHS advice to just let it heal. Therefore it's not on record. It's perfectly possible Ms Heard did the same... but HER FACE IS HER LIVELIHOOD. It stretches credulity that she wouldn't have at least called a professional for advice or get it checked.

The Testimony

I have said it over and over throughout the trial... I expected acting. Both parties are professional, Hollywood actors for heaven's sake. Despite having the above detailed pre-conceived ideas I still expected to have to watch closely for tells and inconsistencies.

Boy, was I wrong.

If Johnny was acting it was immaculate. There are those who criticise his smiling in court but y'all expect stoic, stone-faced for six solid weeks?! He smiled at his team, with whom he clearly had a good rapport. He smiled at certain things that were said on the stand. There was context.

Amber on the other hand... What the HECKAMAJIG was all THAT about?! On the stand she was over-acting in the style of a dramatic five year old. Only most five year olds are more convincing. Fake tears (and I do think she had something untoward in that tissue - not least cos every damn time she wiped her nose on the back of her hand anyway). All the wrong facial expressions. The borderline rage when she was interrupted or corrected. Y'all don't need to be an expert in acting or body language to see that was dodgy AF.

Off the stand she was the epitome of a cold fish. Example: if Dr Curry had been saying such things about me I'd have been in floods of tears, bright red. Telling the world I'm totally unbalanced? There should be emotion. Nothing. Nose in air, perfect Ice Queen. It's not normal, it's not natural, and no power on this earth can convince me it's genuine.

I've seen commentary that Johnny presented badly on the witness stand. I disagree. It's not about 'performance'. A person can be low IQ, mentally impaired, struggle to express themselves and still they deserve to be heard. Johnny was not eloquent, he was not reciting a script; he was hesitant, nervous, embarrassed. 

Aside from expert witnesses, many of Johnny's were friends & employees of long-standing. And an ex girlfriend calling BS on one of Amber's lies about her.

Amber's witnesses included her sister. And a bunch of friends who admitted they'd been freeloading off Johnny.

Johnny's account gelled with what the experts set, what his other witnesses said. At times, even with the opposition testimony!

Amber's made no sense in and of itself and did not match with anyone else's. How can you ever reconcile that? Her testimony didn't gel with the people she and her team *chose* to back her up.

So, I was working on this opinion piece explaining my personal stance between summing up and verdict. I am literally typing this waiting as the clock ticks down and the courtroom filling up... I think I better leave my reaction for another blog. YIKES!

Can ye believe it?

Once again, The Heggie Zone is kinda embarrassed to present and expanded & explained Twitter rant.
This one is on the linked article, entitled "Kanye West Is Publicly Struggling. We Need To Give Him Grace"
(source: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/elaminabdelmahmoud/kanye-west-mental-health-dangerous-media-narratives?bftwnews&utm_term=4ldqpgc#4ldqpgc)

A quote from Craig Jenkins included within reads

“The lack of context regarding his [bipolar] diagnosis...in coverage...

which questions the viability of the presidential bid

but never entertains the possibility that the man giving all the

outlandish pull quotes might not be doing so well right now,

illuminate our inability to step back and ponder the ethics

of the internet content mill…”

But is this even TRUE? How is there a lack of context?! I'm not American, I have never heard anything he's done BUT I know he's bipolar and super irresponsible about it.
West's struggles with Bipolar Disorder have been widely reported and discussed. It'd be like adding context that Stevie Wonder is blind - it is a really well-known factor. We all KNOW he's 'not doing so well' but he is deliberately putting himself out there to be seen.
He is also putting himself out there to be ELECTED. The press' ethics must be first and foremost concerned with protecting the public more than Kanye West.

My tweets in bold, copied directly from my feed 29/07/2020.

It's a challenging read but I can't say I fully agree with it. Mercy & compassion have their place but Kanye & HIS ENTIRE TEAM are guilty here of some f*ck*d up sh*t that negatively impacts anyone living with mental health issues.
Kanye West is not an individual, he is a person with EXTENSIVE management and a very famous family of in-laws. It seems that not one of them, let alone all in a unified action, is capable of 'controlling' the situation. Not that I blame Kim for example - but she's begging for understanding after the fact each time. I can understand she loves him... okay, I can't but I get her commitment to her marriage, but I don't understand why she is 'letting him do this' to himself, her, and their children. It's ultimatum time, dearie. Get help, step away from the limelight, or I take the kids and leave.
Most of us would be subjected to an intervention - and probably sectioning under the mental health act. If you had a meltdown at work your boss would (hopefully) send you home cos no way can you be doing this sh*t in front of customers / clients / members of the public / co-workers. But more than this, every negative bit of press Kanye-and-team whip up affects EVERY OTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER. He is perpetuating all the negative stereotypes of mental illness.

I feel it is wrong to blame the media for the media hungry Ye machine. They don't seem to be inaccurately, cruelly, or especially unkindly representing him. And plenty of similar speculation has been applied to Trump's incoherent ramblings. It's par for the presidential course.
The press aren't hunting out these stories - they're attending 'campaign rallies' and interviewing him (probably at invitation) to promote the albums he endlessly fails to deliver.
I have seen lots of articles questioning Trump's sanity, his 'fitness to lead', and speculating as to whether he's had a stroke. Now, whether or not Trump has a diagnosable disorder he is clearly several sandwiches short of a picnic. I am bothered by the stroke speculation as a brain injury does not necessarily make him 'unfit' although if it was covered up in his medical that's a pretty serious business.
Kanye cannot possibly expected to run for POTUS without speculation, analysis and criticism. Saying he should be exempted from such scrutiny on grounds of his well-publicised mental health problems is a really irresponsible stance that could theoretically help him into the White House!
It takes a lot for me to defend the press. But here they are not being intrusive, sensationalist, dishonest, manipulative... which is quite remarkable in and of itself. What they are is standing back and letting West rip himself apart. If you're asking "but should they?" how do you think journalism works?! Reporters don't start or end wars, they write up what is going on. Criticism is fair when they are unfair... but West's rants are his own.
And now he's running (however implausibly) for POTUS his instability becomes a matter of American National Security and needs to be reported as such.

IMHO Kanye risks making people believe that all bipolar people are... wildly unstable, incapable of holding responsibility etc. and that is TERRIBLE. The stigma of mental illness is bad enough without him taking it back DECADES.
The article keeps going on about Kanye's pain and trauma. We all have pain, we all have trauma, not all of us are bipolar but even those who are don't all act out so badly.
Mental health has long been taboo but headway has been made in recent years - so why is Kanye being encouraged / enabled / excused from f*ck*ng over every other person battling their demons?!
I am 'only' struggling with 30 years of depression but this angers me so much. People are mistreated, outcast, shunned, denied housing, denied work - and West, a bloody billionaire, is making their lives harder and causing people to be afraid of people with mental health problems.

What I think Kanye / his team *should* have done is take him down a Kate Bush style path - all the creativity, minimal public appearances. Let him have dignity in mystique. Especially after the first few meltdowns. NOT about hiding but saving him from himself.
At a time when Black Lives Matter is a major headline West is accusing Harriet Tubman of selling out black people, he has previously called slavery a choice. If he were anything but a Black person himself he would have been 'cancelled' by now! He says the most appalling things and is given a pass, time and time again, because of his diagnosis... but is it right to do so? Oddly enough you can be an asshole AND bipolar; the one does not necessarily stem from the other.
Being a creator does not mean you have to be constantly on stage, giving interviews, etc. You can release albums, even play concerts, but you don't need to keep talking shit. If this was his first major incident I would be more forgiving but at this point there have been MANY. You would think that the prior experiences would keep him on his medications and off his soap-box...

How can you treat Kanye as multiple people? Even if he had multiple personality disorder the 'man who knows what he's doing' is the same being who is saying these outrageous things. The same person who admits not taking his meds is running for POTUS. That CANNOT BE IGNORED.
This comment is particularly aimed at the following quote:

"The truth is you have to be rather callous to laugh at the unwell person

in front of you. But you don’t need that callousness

when you imagine it’s the West who knows what he’s doing,

the West who is immensely capable of processing his pain."

Can you actually run for POTUS without knowing what you are doing?! He knows he needs his meds, he knows what happens when he is off them, he knows he has embarrassed himself, humiliated his wife and offended his entire race several times before now... More to the point his extensive support team - managers, agents, assistants of every kind - know what he's doing and they are LETTING HIM. It is the moral equivalent of watching someone neck a bottle of vodka and then take their truck for a drive. THAT IS NOT ON THE PRESS.

Should the media be *accountable* in the articles they write about a misician [sic] having a spectacular and uninhibited public brain fart or should they be responsible and accurately represent a man who is running for the ultimate public office? Literally can't be both.
IF West was JUST promoting another undelivered album... no, even then - cos he's consciously, deliberately seeking promotion. This is not press intruding into Harvey Price's hospital room, unresearched speculation on royal doings, or any other number of invasive examples of sensationalist journalism.

If Kanye was a private individual, or an involuntary public figure like a royal or a WAG, I would totally agree that the media needs to step back... but there's a world of difference when the person you're writing about is actively courting publicity.
As I put a moment ago - royalty never asked for publicity, children and spouses (or other relatives) of celebrities shouldn't be hounded, used or abused for the sake of a story. But Kanye isn't an involuntary celebrity, he's not even a private celebrity - he is a courting publicity, letting it all hang out as publicly as possible celebrity. Even then, if he was a recording artist having a mental breakdown there'd be an argument that they should back off* but he's RUNNING FOR OFFICE.

*In the UK right now Johnny Depp is suing the press for calling him a wife-beater and Prince Harry & Meghan, Duchess of Sussex are also suing the press for unwarranted breaches of privacy. The press, as a whole, are SHIT. They don't back off, they hound people until they break. Then they make a big deal out of the obituaries. Kanye West is not being hounded - he is feeding them.

How exactly is the press supposed to address the negative depiction of someone battling mental illness when this is what they're handed on a plate? I dare say there are lots of positive stories they could write for balance but a lot of people don't want their diagnosis 'outted' [sic].
Again, as I said before, this negatively impacts a lot of people. Lots of people with bipolar disorder and other mental health diagnoses are out there, doing good, being responsible, getting on with their lives but they shouldn't have to put their stories out there JUST to counterbalance West's breakdowns so the public can get a more nuanced view of mental health issues.

I have nothing against Kanye West as a human being. I hope he gets the help he needs. I just have a problem with blaming others for the harm he is doing.

On Ethical Veganism as a Protected Philosophical Belief

On January 3rd 2020 a UK court decided Ethical Veganism can qualify as a philosophical belief protected under law https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Jordi Casamitjana believes he was sacked for being vegan; his former employer cites gross misconduct. Before the case could be heard the status of veganism as a belief system had to be established. 

Some people are purely dietary vegans - they don't eat animal products for health reasons for example - but most are, to some extent, ethical vegans - they don't eat animal products because they believe it is wrong to do so, and avoid animal products in all aspects of their life. To even the more relaxed of ethical vegans it is blinkin' obvious that veganism is a philosophy to live by, not a 'diet' or a 'fad' or a 'cult' http://theconversation.com/veganism-has-always-been-more-about-living-an-ethical-life-than-just-avoiding-meat-and-dairy-129307

Short version:

What makes YOUR belief more important than MINE?! Basically, that mindset is the entire problem with religion.

Full-length version:

Each human being lives their life by some sort of moral code, even the seemingly immoral will (usually) hold some kind of belief that they are entitled to live as they do. For many, the moral code is rooted in religion - even those whose code is founded on the laws of the land and the social norms of their era can trace those fundamentals back to religious doctrine.

I have seen a bunch of deeply unpleasant comments about this but the remarks here, by people who've declared themselves to be deeply spiritual or allied to a certain faith particularly appal me (https://www.themonastery.org/blog/veganism-ruled-protected-class-in-uk-comparable-to-religious-belief?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Agriculture+Shock&utm_campaign=January+8%2C++2020) 

The comment from Annie Macleod begins:

I have no problem with some vegans considering themselves 'ethical vegans'

and having it recognized as a religion.

That is, as long as they don't try to impose their religion on anyone else,

just as Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam etc

should not try to impose their beliefs on others.

Right, let me nit-pick this a moment... All faiths impose their beliefs on others. Religions are, at their core, a set of rules by which to live and why most societies have or had a religion as their foundation. By setting laws we impose one set of core values on others.

Most religions also seek new members - from Sunday schools and Boy Scouts, to evangelism and propaganda - various methods are used to bring in new people. In this way a belief system maintains its hold on a society.

And most of us accept this fairly willingly. This blog will focus on 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - whether we adhere to a faith or not, most people will accept that killing another is fundamentally wrong. We impose this belief on others. Sometimes we might hold a particular view on abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment or war that is at odds with someone else's interpretation of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' - and we will argue our point, often heatedly, regardless of which side of the line we stand. This is an important issue most take exceedingly seriously. Our respect for the right of others to hold their own belief is sorely tried.

One key point of Veganism is that 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' applies to all life, not just humans. Vegans often term this mindset as 'speciesism' and liken it to past times where Christians saw infidels or whites saw blacks or men saw women as 'other' - not entitled to the same rights and privileges. Vegans see all sentient life as fundamentally equal; Vegans see this as no different to telling you not to kill and eat your neighbour. The difference is most people don't even consider eating their neighbour if it's a human...if it's a cow, on the other hand...

Carnists (people who believe it is their right or even obligation to eat animals) often say 'you live by your principles, I'll live by mine' and this 'live and let live' argument is really galling to Vegans. The point is that YOU can live AND let ANIMALS live too.

This one from Daniel Grey is hilariously stupid:

Lolol what a bunch of hogwash! Being vegan is now like a religion in England? 

Are they mad? There is no such thing as a Vegan or Vegetarian and never will be.

It's a medical fact that the area around your face sheds dead skin cells

when you sleep. Now these cells get on your pillow and blankets

and when you move they get stirred up. And you still have to breathe as such you ARE breathing in dead skin cells,

which are considered meat; and your body is digesting them.

So unless you sleep with a vacuum over your face to suck up the skin cells,

then you DO eat meat no matter if you want to acknowledge it or not.

Jeez, dude - how DUMB are you? Who, exactly, considers naturally shed skin cells as 'meat'?! Meat is defined as the flesh of animals, flesh is defined as a soft substance consisting of muscle and fat...not as its individual constituent cells! Whatevz. If you are so stupid as to believe that inhaling your own dead skin cells is equivalent to a cheeseburger then you deserve to be killed and eaten by a peckish neighbour.

A vegan mother might well devour her placenta after giving birth as a means to ward off post-natal depression. This is 'flesh' but no animal has died / been killed to provide it. This is effectively eating your own flesh and has no ethical problem tied to it. In the same way, breastfeeding is vegan because it is your milk to do with as you wish (including wet-nursing / milk donation) but a cow's milk is not yours to take. The whole problem with meat-eating is the taking of a life, the causing of pain & suffering to assuage your own desires.

Some Vegans will even eat meat if it is naturally occurring roadkill or meat that has been thrown away and will otherwise rot. This is because their interpretation of their moral code is that they are not taking a life (directly or by supporting the industry). And before you start - Jews are protected whether or not they keep kosher, Muslims are protected for wearing hijabs despite it being a cultural and not a religious requirement - faith is protected regardless of the individual's interpretation of their faith.

Honestly though, this guy's opinion gets on my tits - how can you possibly suppose that a moral argument against killing something to eat its corpse can ever be nullified by inhaling dead skin cells?! Ludicrous! Just as a vegan is no less vegan if there's a fly in their soup - no one killed that fly, its presence is a tragic accident. The choices and deliberate actions we make are what matter.

You might imagine that religious people would be the most understanding of the rights of others to have their belief systems protected but is seems this is not the case. Many wars have been fought on a 'my-religion-is-better-than-yours' principle but bashing on veganism?! Given that many faiths have dietary restrictions in their texts it seems a bit cheeky to say the very least.

People seem very insulted by the idea of veganism having the same status as a religion...and very much unable to differentiate between faith and philosophy!

Veganism is not a religion, it has pretty much one rule which is virtually the same as the medical profession's 'first do no harm', it does not require you to pray or to build special places to worship vegetables, it is never going to encourage you to go to war with anyone, it doesn't tell you who you can or can't marry...in fact, it doesn't impact how you live your life at all beyond not harming animals to do so.

Jordi Casamitjana, by the sounds of it, is a bit of an extreme vegan - apparently he won't use buses in case bugs die on the windshield. Most vegans use public transport, drive, live perfectly ordinary lives virtually indistinguishable from anyone else's...they choose not to eat meat, dairy and a host of other animal products; they choose not to use wool, silk and leather; they choose kindness over convenience.

Yet people call Veganism a cult because their precious cheeseburgers are threatened?! And the endless asking of "but what about bacon?" like strips of salted smoked pig flesh are godly. Honestly, y'all will believe in some supreme, omnipotent yet curiously absent deity but not that animals have feelings.

People are too damn weird.