Sikhs at risk of being banned from courts

[ProfessorDavey]

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 139, which seems to cover the issue, states:

This seems to me to be open enough to leave the courts to decide on reasonable and fair judgements in most cases. But, it doesn't seem to allow for "non-religious beliefs" at all.

Indeed - what that actually demonstrates is that non-religious belief is not treated equally with religious belief as 5(b) is only religious reasons.

So a person whose firmly held belief that they should be able to carry a knife wasn't religious (akin to the US right to bear arms) would have no defence. By contrast someone with an equally firmly held belief (or indeed a belief that is less firmly held) that is religious in nature would have a defence.

That's seems fundamentally wrong and also runs counter to the Equality Act that where Religion OR BELIEF are protected characteristics. Yet here it would appear that only religion is protected.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suppose that whatever the non-religious belief was, the reason for having the knife would either count as a good reason or not under subsection 4.

But if belief can be justified under the general subsection 4, that would apply equally to religious and non religious beliefs. In which case 5(b) would be completely superfluous.

What is clear is that religious belief is being privileged under the law compared to non-religious belief, which shouldn't be the case under Equality Act legislation - yet it is in this case and in many others, sadly.

[ProfessorDavey]

(4)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(5)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.

There is another element to this:

As I read it under 5(b), all an individual would need to do it to claim 'I'm a Sikh and Sikh's have to carry a knife', as the justification is 'religious reasons'. There wouldn't need to be any assessment of how committed a Sikh and individual was, whether or not they held to other tenets of that religion. Just claiming to be of that religion would be enough.

Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf

Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:

"The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected."

There is also a further inequality - lack of belief is supposed to be protected, yet it is very difficult to see how lack of belief can as easily meet these thresholds as belief (even non-religious let alone religious belief).

So it seems to me that we have ended up with a hierarchy in terms of important and ease by which you can claim protection in law with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief. In a genuinely equal society all three should be equally protected, but they most definitely aren't.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is another element to this:

As I read it under 5(b), all an individual would need to do it to claim 'I'm a Sikh and Sikh's have to carry a knife', as the justification is 'religious reasons'. There wouldn't need to be any assessment of how committed a Sikh and individual was, whether or not they held to other tenets of that religion. Just claiming to be of that religion would be enough.

Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf

Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:

"The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected."

There is also a further inequality - lack of belief is supposed to be protected, yet it is very difficult to see how lack of belief can as easily meet these thresholds as belief (even non-religious let alone religious belief).

So it seems to me that we have ended up with a hierarchy in terms of important and ease by which you can claim protection in law with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief. In a genuinely equal society all three should be equally protected, but they most definitely aren't.

And we can actually bring things round full circle.

Under the Equality Act discrimination is defined as:

'... when someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation ...'

And the guide goes on to indicate that lack of belief should also be protected using the following example:

"It is also direct discrimination if someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation because they lack a particular religion or belief. For example, an atheist employee is always given a lower bonus than Christian colleagues despite performing at least as well as those colleagues."

So let's apply that to the Sikh knife scenario. Not being a Sikh (lack of belief) is also supposed to be protected from discrimination (when someone is treated worse in a similar situation). So is someone who is not a Sikh treated worse than someone who is a Sikh in a similar situation, in this case both are carrying a knife in public. You bet their life they are.

So again we see that in practice lack of belief is not protected in the same manner as belief, and in particular religious belief.

[Outrider]

And we can actually bring things round full circle.

Under the Equality Act discrimination is defined as:

'... when someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation ...'

And the guide goes on to indicate that lack of belief should also be protected using the following example:

"It is also direct discrimination if someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation because they lack a particular religion or belief. For example, an atheist employee is always given a lower bonus than Christian colleagues despite performing at least as well as those colleagues."

So let's apply that to the Sikh knife scenario. Not being a Sikh (lack of belief) is also supposed to be protected from discrimination (when someone is treated worse in a similar situation). So is someone who is not a Sikh treated worse than someone who is a Sikh in a similar situation, in this case both are carrying a knife in public. You bet their life they are.

So again we see that in practice lack of belief is not protected in the same manner as belief, and in particular religious belief.

Except that you're not appreciating the start of the process, which is to reduce as far as practicable the number of knives being carried out and about which could be used for violence. With that in mind the principal is that no-one should be carrying a knife, and then people with an identified need to do so are identified as being exempt from that restriction.

Tradesman, for instance, in the undertaking of their business, are permitted to carry various knives and other sharp implements around. When I was practicing martial arts I was permitted to carry two full-length swords to and from practice without restriction (although it made sense to bundle them up and disguise the outlines). In that circumstance everyone is being treated equally - if you have a case to carry a blade it will be considered, and the majority don't. Whether you think being a Sikh should be sufficient exemption, I'd agree, is up for discussion, but in this instance it's not merely that non-belief is being discriminated against, Catholics wouldn't automatically be permitted to carry a knife, it's a specifically identified 'need'.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except that you're not appreciating the start of the process, which is to reduce as far as practicable the number of knives being carried out and about which could be used for violence. With that in mind the principal is that no-one should be carrying a knife, and then people with an identified need to do so are identified as being exempt from that restriction.

Tradesman, for instance, in the undertaking of their business, are permitted to carry various knives and other sharp implements around. When I was practicing martial arts I was permitted to carry two full-length swords to and from practice without restriction (although it made sense to bundle them up and disguise the outlines). In that circumstance everyone is being treated equally - if you have a case to carry a blade it will be considered, and the majority don't. Whether you think being a Sikh should be sufficient exemption, I'd agree, is up for discussion, but in this instance it's not merely that non-belief is being discriminated against, Catholics wouldn't automatically be permitted to carry a knife, it's a specifically identified 'need'.

O.

Of course I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to carry knives as not to allow them would be discrimination on lack of being Sikh.

All I am doing is pointing out that so-called anti-discrimination opt-outs actually create discrimination elsewhere. Further that there is a clear hierarchy in terms of protection from discrimination with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief.

And there isn't an equivalence between tradespeople, martial arts and Sikhs works. Tradespeople and martial arts practitioners need to carry blades because they will use them at their destination for a legitimate reason. That is entirely different from carrying a blade that you don't need to use because your belief system says you must. Now I'm not saying that the latter isn't reasonable, but if so it must also be opened up (at the least) to others having a similar belief that they should carry a blade, regardless of whether that belief is religious or not. But these examples are not equivalent to someone who is planning to use the blade for a legitimate purpose.

[Outrider]

Of course I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to carry knives as not to allow them would be discrimination on lack of being Sikh.

Every selection, judgement or decision discriminates, the point of the law is to minimise the range and degree of that discriminate, and to create a hierarchy of considerations. In this instances (rightly or wrongly) religious belief as a protected characteristic trumps the public good, and we're fortunate that by and large the Sikh community hasn't taken advantage of that.

All I am doing is pointing out that so-called anti-discrimination opt-outs actually create discrimination elsewhere.

Unfortunately, the legislation and common parlance making use of the term 'discrimination' is problematic, discrimination can't be avoided. The point is to achieve some degree of equity, where as many people as possible are capable of fulfilling their lives to the extent they'd wish, with as few restricted, to as little degree, as possible.

Further that there is a clear hierarchy in terms of protection from discrimination with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief.

In practice there are instances that go both ways, although probably more for particular religions because they have specific requirements and expectations that those without belief don't. It's good that the majority of the exemptions are for religion, because it means there aren't that many situations where the non-religious need exemptions or special treatment - we are, for want of a better word, the norm.

More of an issue is when religion and other protected characteristics collide, and we're starting to see religious requirements there be eased back in favour of equal rights for women, gay people and the disabled.

And there isn't an equivalence between tradespeople, martial arts and Sikhs works. Tradespeople and martial arts practitioners need to carry blades because they will use them at their destination for a legitimate reason. That is entirely different from carrying a blade that you don't need to use because your belief system says you must.

It is to you and I, but presumably to the Sikh community it is as much a requirement as, say, the Christian woman who took up a case to be allowed to wear a crucifix (I think?) whilst serving as an air steward. It seems silly to me to think of that as a requirement, but the point is that they should not be unnecessarily restricted because of our (lack of) belief - if there were a spate of Sikh related knife incidents that might get reviewed, but for the moment it seems to be working as an appropriate level of acceptance of difference.

Now I'm not saying that the latter isn't reasonable, but if so it must also be opened up (at the least) to others having a similar belief that they should carry a blade, regardless of whether that belief is religious or not.

What is the equivalent, though? What is the non-religious version of a tenet of faith? When a religious tenet or practice is, say, FMG or forced marriage we step in because we have a non-religious 'tenet' of liberty and autonomy. When a religious practice is separate schooling we should be stepping in harder than we are, and there are moves afoot to bring that about because we have a non-religious drive towards equal opportunities for all which includes a basic level of broad education (whether those standards are being adequately upheld as widely as they should be or not). What, though, is the non-religious drive that would allow knife carrying that would override the public safety benefits?

But these examples are not equivalent to someone who is planning to use the blade for a legitimate purpose.

There are very few absolutes in this, it's all a balance of rights and beliefs - if it were simple ther wouldn't be the discussion. There are no perfect correlates, but then - as I've suggested - that's part of the issue. Sometimes there just isn't a secular 'equivalent' to a religious tenet, that's why it's a religion in the first place.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

In practice there are instances that go both ways, although probably more for particular religions because they have specific requirements and expectations that those without belief don't. It's good that the majority of the exemptions are for religion, because it means there aren't that many situations where the non-religious need exemptions or special treatment - we are, for want of a better word, the norm.

I disagree - I don't think there are instances that go both ways. And I have no real issue where an exemption is about levelling a playing field, but that doesn't seem to be the case in many instances. It is too often about maintaining a non-level playing field.

So schooling is a good example. We have faith schools and we have non-faith schools, but the playing field is not level. A faith school is permitted to discriminate in favour of those of that particular faith, and in some instances not just of that faith but of other faiths. There is clear (but currently lawful) discrimination against non-religious families. Yet non faith schools are not permitted to discriminate in reverse. So a RCC family (as an example) are given preferential treatment in RCC schools, and likely in other christian denomination schools, but are treated equally to non religious families in non faith schools.

Same on employment. A faith school employing a teaching can (lawfully) select a religious person over a non-religious person in a teaching job even if the subject they teach has absolutely nothing to do with religion. They can, in fact, dismiss a person (lawfully) should they discover that person is atheist even if that person has done nothing to promulgate their atheism in the classroom. If a non faith school tried to discriminate in favour of non religious teachers or against religious ones in the same manner they be in court in an instant.

And these things aren't niche, 'get over it' issues. Nope this about fundamental equitable access to public services and fundamental employment rights.

Just because you are 'the norm' (whatever that means) doesn't mean that you might not suffer discrimination or that you should equally be protected from discrimination compared to those who I presume you consider are not 'the norm'.

[ProfessorDavey]

What is the equivalent, though? What is the non-religious version of a tenet of faith?

Well I used the example of the US right to bear arms, which is of course non-religious but is also a tenet of faith to many held as strongly as a religious conviction.

So were a UK group with a longstanding, genuinely held belief in the right to bear arms - but not any requirement to be using them for any legitimate purpose - would they not be equally expecting of an exemption to the law on carrying knives in public. But currently I doubt they would as the specific exemption is for 'religious' reasons.

[Udayana]

There is another element to this:

As I read it under 5(b), all an individual would need to do it to claim 'I'm a Sikh and Sikh's have to carry a knife', as the justification is 'religious reasons'. There wouldn't need to be any assessment of how committed a Sikh and individual was, whether or not they held to other tenets of that religion. Just claiming to be of that religion would be enough.

It is not clear that would be enough. In any case, the court would have to establish that there was a religious reason for holding the knife. A person, Sikh by religion, could be illegally carrying a knife for non-religious reason.

Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf

Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:
...

The criteria could be read as being applicable to both philosophical and religious beliefs, and a court could use the same or similar criteria when determining if a belief is a religious belief

There is also a further inequality - lack of belief is supposed to be protected, yet it is very difficult to see how lack of belief can as easily meet these thresholds as belief (even non-religious let alone religious belief).

So it seems to me that we have ended up with a hierarchy in terms of important and ease by which you can claim protection in law with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief. In a genuinely equal society all three should be equally protected, but they most definitely aren't.

Yes, that is true. There is an asymmetry built in. Partly this is due to being able to define a "lack of belief" without contrasting against an actual belief but mostly because state institutions have more trust in other institutions, including religious organisations and codes, than in the "random" ideas of individuals.
     

[Udayana]

Well I used the example of the US right to bare arms, which is of course non-religious but is also a tenet of faith to many held as strongly as a religious conviction.

So were a UK group with a longstanding, genuinely held belief in the right to bare arms - but not any requirement to be using them for any legitimate purpose - would they not be equally expecting of an exemption to the law on carrying knives in public. But currently I doubt they would as the specific exemption is for 'religious' reasons.

Ah ... but a belief "in the right to bear arms" is exactly what the law denies. Someone may believe they should have that right but it is not a right and they may not manifest/act on it.

From the Human Rights Act:
 

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah ... but a belief "in the right to bear arms" is exactly what the law denies. Someone may believe they should have that right but it is not a right and they may not manifest/act on it.

Except that is exactly the right that Sikhs claim they require and are granted by the law.

There is a difference between the right to bear arms and the right to use arms.

So if the law denies the right of someone to bear arms, specifically a dagger, knife or sword on the basis of a non-religious belief in the right to bear arms, why should that right be granted on the basis of a religious belief.

[ProfessorDavey]

Same on employment. A faith school employing a teaching can (lawfully) select a religious person over a non-religious person in a teaching job even if the subject they teach has absolutely nothing to do with religion. They can, in fact, dismiss a person (lawfully) should they discover that person is atheist even if that person has done nothing to promulgate their atheism in the classroom. If a non faith school tried to discriminate in favour of non religious teachers or against religious ones in the same manner they be in court in an instant.

And it goes without saying that there is no religious requirement (e.g. in CofE or RCC) that you must be taught maths by a christian or that you cannot be taught computer science by an atheist.

[Udayana]

Except that is exactly the right that Sikhs claim they require and are granted by the law.

There is a difference between the right to bear arms and the right to use arms.

So if the law denies the right of someone to bear arms, specifically a dagger, knife or sword on the basis of a non-religious belief in the right to bear arms, why should that right be granted on the basis of a religious belief.

Presumably the law makers have consulted the oracle and been assured that as long as the knives are carried for religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. But if random people were allowed to ... god forbid, we could end up like America!
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Presumably the law makers have consulted the oracle and been assured that as long as the knives are carried for religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Then why not grant the same right to others as long as the knives are carried for non-religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Noting that the religious reasons are not on the basis that the individual will actually use the knife at their destination, but simply because they feel it important to carry one. So why not grant the same for non religious reasons.

[Udayana]

Then why not grant the same right to others as long as the knives are carried for non-religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Noting that the religious reasons are not on the basis that the individual will actually use the knife at their destination, but simply because they feel it important to carry one. So why not grant the same for non religious reasons.

As I suggested earlier I think it could be because the institutions making the laws just trust religious organisations more than others, or unstructured groups. Religious organisations have similar hierarchical structures, well defined moral codes and objectives and, they assume, will be more likely to adhere to the restrictions - no use as weapons, but symbolically in ceremonies and/or rites - or just to feel important. For the Sikhs the knives are, after all, just to keep the vow they have sworn in the Amrit ceremony - to carry one.

This is less clear for non-religious groups - eg nationalist or community groups that may have harder political goals or objectives, and may be less likely to stick to symbolic use.
 
Or, say, take the Scouts: - good organisation and codes, with objectives only for acceptable uses - but they are children interacting daily with other children or youngsters some of whom are already involved in gangs or susceptible to knife crime - so can't be allowed.
 
Most organisations/groups would not be interested anyway and would not require or request an exception -  given that work purposes are already exempt.

There are lots of examples where state institutions show greater trust in religious organisations and mores than in others. Eg. BJ taking an oath on the Bible before the privileges committee, when he is a known liar and obviously doesn't give a fig for religion. But the Bible is supposed to guarantee that he will be honest and he should be treated as though he has told the truth!

And, as you have shown, in involvement of religious organisations in education, HoL and so on.

[ProfessorDavey]

As I suggested earlier I think it could be because the institutions making the laws just trust religious organisations more than others, or unstructured groups. Religious organisations have similar hierarchical structures, well defined moral codes and objectives and, they assume, will be more likely to adhere to the restrictions - no use as weapons, but symbolically in ceremonies and/or rites - or just to feel important. For the Sikhs the knives are, after all, just to keep the vow they have sworn in the Amrit ceremony - to carry one.

This is less clear for non-religious groups - eg nationalist or community groups that may have harder political goals or objectives, and may be less likely to stick to symbolic use.
 
Or, say, take the Scouts: - good organisation and codes, with objectives only for acceptable uses - but they are children interacting daily with other children or youngsters some of whom are already involved in gangs or susceptible to knife crime - so can't be allowed.
 
Most organisations/groups would not be interested anyway and would not require or request an exception -  given that work purposes are already exempt.

There are lots of examples where state institutions show greater trust in religious organisations and mores than in others. Eg. BJ taking an oath on the Bible before the privileges committee, when he is a known liar and obviously doesn't give a fig for religion. But the Bible is supposed to guarantee that he will be honest and he should be treated as though he has told the truth!

And, as you have shown, in involvement of religious organisations in education, HoL and so on.

Telling that you see equality entirely in terms of organisations and groups.

Equalities legislation protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics that individual may have. It is not about protecting groups or organisations from discrimination.

[ProfessorDavey]

There are lots of examples where state institutions show greater trust in religious organisations and mores than in others. Eg. BJ taking an oath on the Bible before the privileges committee, when he is a known liar and obviously doesn't give a fig for religion. But the Bible is supposed to guarantee that he will be honest and he should be treated as though he has told the truth!

But that is largely historic - individuals can also make an affirmation rather than an oath and a completely non religious affirmation is taken as having the same weight as an oath sworn on a holy text.

And the issue is one of legality - taking an oath or making an affirmation does not make guarantee that the individual will tell the truth - the point is that the affirmation or oath has legal weight and if an individual is later found to have lied under oath or affirmation they can be subject to legal proceedings, such as perjury or contempt of court.

[Udayana]

Telling that you see equality entirely in terms of organisations and groups.

Equalities legislation protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics that individual may have. It is not about protecting groups or organisations from discrimination.

Of-course, equalities legislation is concerned with protection of individual rights. But legislation is drafted and agreed by committees consulting and taking requests and feedback from committees from other organisations with an interest in the areas the legislation covers; in this case "Articles with blades or points and offensive weapons".

And. I believe, such committees veer towards compromises and historical precedents.
 
   

[Udayana]

But that is largely historic - individuals can also make an affirmation rather than an oath and a completely non religious affirmation is taken as having the same weight as an oath sworn on a holy text.

And the issue is one of legality - taking an oath or making an affirmation does not make guarantee that the individual will tell the truth - the point is that the affirmation or oath has legal weight and if an individual is later found to have lied under oath or affirmation they can be subject to legal proceedings, such as perjury or contempt of court.

Nah.. it's just a show. If Johnson had the tiniest sliver of honesty he could have affirmed instead, but just thought it would look better, more impressive to the committee, to swear on the bible.   

[Nearly Sane]

Nah.. it's just a show. If Johnson had the tiniest sliver of honesty he could have affirmed instead, but just thought it would look better, more impressive to the committee, to swear on the bible.

Not unique to Johnson. I suspect a number of politicians might hypocritically take that option.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nah.. it's just a show. If Johnson had the tiniest sliver of honesty he could have affirmed instead, but just thought it would look better, more impressive to the committee, to swear on the bible.

I don't understand your point. Taking an oath or affirmation are exactly the same in terms of their meaning - effectively that you are required to confirm that you will give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

So on a presumption that Johnson is actually lying then it is no less hypocritical to lie having given affirmation than an oath.

And don't forget that in other circumstances Johnson has decided on religious options - e.g. wedding and having children baptised. So I don't doubt that Johnson considers himself to be a christian and therefore that oath is more appropriate. That he is a lying christian is neither here nor there, and being a lying christian is no better, nor worse than being a lying non religious person.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of-course, equalities legislation is concerned with protection of individual rights. But legislation is drafted and agreed by committees consulting and taking requests and feedback from committees from other organisations with an interest in the areas the legislation covers; in this case "Articles with blades or points and offensive weapons".

Have you ever taken part in a government "consultation"?

[jeremyp]

As I suggested earlier I think it could be because the institutions making the laws just trust religious organisations more than others, or unstructured groups.

Religious institutions do not carry knives: individuals do. Why am I, a person of good standing who would never use a knife on anybody, not granted the same rights as a Sikh? I find it quite insulting actually.

[Udayana]

Religious institutions do not carry knives: individuals do. Why am I, a person of good standing who would never use a knife on anybody, not granted the same rights as a Sikh? I find it quite insulting actually.

hmm .. Why? When you have no reason to have the knife?

Why do you think there is an exception for "religious reasons"?