BDSM, belief and employment equality laws

On the Guardian website today, a story that gets right to the heart of the stuff I tend to write about: does BDSM, and specifically D/s, constitute a belief system comparable to religion, in the eyes of anti-discrimination laws for employment?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the answer came back that BDSM is still discriminated against in UK law.

The question, however, is an interesting one. It specifically related to a court case in Bradford in which a midwife challenged her dismissal for wearing a silver "slave" collar as being unlawful, as it was an expression of personal philosophical belief. The article's writer was called on as an expert witness to discuss what the significance of a slave collar is in BDSM.

I am not convinced that even a lifestyle, 24/7, D/s or M/s relationship is on a par with any religious belief. I am reminded of the episode of The West Wing in which Josh goes up against the Trekker in the staff pool, and debates with her the rights and wrongs of wearing a Starfleet uniform to work at the White House. But it is at least as much a belief as the significance of a wedding ring. It is also the case that "belief" in this context has a particular kind of meaning within the law that is slightly different from the common understanding.

I am ambivalent about protecting certain philosophical beliefs over others, and at the same time troubled by the implications of some possible applications: for example, a neo-Nazi skinhead and a Hindu both wish to wear a right-hooked cross (swastika) to work - is one protected and the other not? We can argue that the neo-Nazi's beliefs are political rather than philosophical, and perhaps work should not be a place where political views are advocated - but then, what would happen to trades unions, which are inherently political in nature (when they actually work to protect their members, anyway)? And anyway, beliefs that are surely political (such as "the higher purpose of public broadcasting" - it's difficult to see that as anything but political), have already been admitted as protected under the relevant laws.

Here's the main body of what I wrote in comments at the Guardian article (I had a go at some annoying commenters as well, hut that's not so relevant to my basic argument):

The case as put by the sacked employee is that the employer disregarded other types of jewellery being worn, but picked on this type of jewellery as needing to be banned. We are told that the judge accepted that BDSM relationships have most of the qualities needed to identify a belief in the sense of the regulations covering this type of case. The point that seemed to have been at issue was just whether it is, "consistent with modern values".

I think I am right (it's been a while since I read the relevant texts) in saying that for this, we can go right back to Socrates and points he made when arguing against Athenian democracy, and then respond in the way the Athenians did: when I go to the doctor, I will be told what to do with myself. I may be given a prescription and given instructions on how and when to take the medication. This is in order for me to gain some benefit (incidentally, these days it is advised for certain types of people to wear silver bracelets to signify that they suffer from allergies, so that could be directly relevant!) I recognise that the doctor is better-placed to give me that benefit than I am by my own efforts (this was more-or-less the argument Plato placed in Socrates' mouth for accepting the rule of philosopher-kings). The argument that the Athenian democrats made back to Socrates is what distinguishes BDSM "slavehood" from actual slavery: "If I do not like my doctor's advice, I can go to a different doctor, or I can just ignore it". Likewise, a BDSM submissive can at any time withdraw from the relationship, or explain clearly and openly why something is beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable within a relationship.

The songwriter Brian Bedford put it, "If you give your love its freedom, it may stay a while; if it leaves you, it was never yours to own". The "ownership" within BDSM is entirely like this, and even though it may mimic captivity (and through that, give a feeling of comfort and security), on another level it is entirely free, no matter how much control is surrendered within it. A BDSM "slave" is only a slave for as long as zie wishes to be, and therefore could be argued to be not a slave at all.

Just as, these days, it is legally relatively easy to get out of an unhappy marriage (although sometimes spouse-abusers work hard to prevent it, and can make it very hard to achieve). The analogy of the BDSM collar with the wedding ring has already been mentioned, and it is a good one in many ways. Both are a personal affirmation of the importance of a specific other person in their lives, and a constant reminder of the commitment to that person that the wearer has made (as a BDSM Dominant myself, I sometimes wonder what I should wear to show my commitment to a submissive partner, should we decide to go that far).

In general, I think that a collar might be a different type of jewellery, and might conceivably present a different H&S challenge from crucifix pendants, charms, and more common religious/belief symbols that are worn (that would be for other people to determine yes or no). If she were wearing a pendant showing the BDSM triskelion symbol, and that were to be identified as unacceptable, when other symbols of a similar type but showing more traditional images, then I would believe that that did amount to clear discrimination, given that the judge accepted that a BDSM relationship constitutes a belief under the terms of the regulations.

***

I ran out of space in the comments box there. Here's my conclusion, that I left out:

I don't know whether BDSM should count as a belief or not. I do think that, unless the dresscode is applied equally to all types of jewellery (or else, there's a clear health&safety reason why it should be different) then it doesn't matter why someone is wearing it, they should be allowed to do so, regardless of what it is. Of course, I think that hate speech (such as the skinhead wearing a swastika) is a problem, and the current regulations require that a belief that is protected should be one that does, "not conflict with the fundamental rights of others." Neo-Nazism, I hope we can agree, tends to conflict with others' fundamental rights!