Sikhs at risk of being banned from courts

[Udayana]

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

No - at least not that I recall.

[jeremyp]

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

Neither does a Sikh.

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

I absolutely do not know. I don't see any reason for such an exception other than to make the religionists stop whining about imagined persecution.

[Udayana]

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.

Legally, logically, they are the same. But you don't think Johnson carefully decides what impact he will make on the committee, MPs and the wider public?

What makes him a Christian? Weddings, baptisms and so on are social events (often decided by other family members).

Nevertheless, my point was that arguments made by a member of known and long standing or respected institutions or the institutions themselves have more impact than random individuals with a view (unless they are willing to stage long hunger strikes outside parliaments gates).     

You yourself have commented on how ethnic minority politicians who have risen to leadership roles in the political parties have mostly come up through a path of well known traditional institutions - Eton, Winchester, Oxbridge etc. They have networks if not talent, and the networks are self maintaining/perpetuating.

Requesting consideration because one is a Sikh, or Mormon, or Buddhist or representing some well established/establishment group gives you more clout than standing there with "no religion" but wanting to remove privileges obtained by others. 

[Udayana]

Neither does a Sikh.

They think they have reasons, and, presumably, have made a case that they do.

I absolutely do not know. I don't see any reason for such an exception other than to make the religionists stop whining about imagined persecution.

Yes I see, but why do you feel insulted when it makes no difference to you?

[Outrider]

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.

I guess my background is health and safety, and generally in that it's a case of people being afforded leeway to maintain their religious expression so long as the only person's risk they are increasing is their own.

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.

Faith schools are one of the areas where, I'd agree, the exemption from the Equalities Act shouldn't apply. Even if parents have a particular belief, we shouldn't be presuming their children will share it, and shouldn't be assisting in their indoctrination. Similarly, the religious persuasion of potential teachers should only come into play if it can be shown that it would negatively impact the educational or pastoral outcomes of the children (and not the 'faith' outcomes).

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

In principle they are, but in practice (barring the schools and marriage access) they typically aren't that 'fundamental'. They are typically niche issues - take the Sikh knife question. There are reportedly around 550,000 Sikhs in the UK, and so far as I can see there have been two incidents in the last ten years involving someone being stabbed with a Kirpan. It's serious, especially for the people involved, but it's a niche issue.

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'.

I'm not suggesting that being 'the norm' means that we can't be discriminated against or that such discrimination would be generally acceptable, it was more of a general observation about how far we've come that we can be considered 'the norm'.

O.

[Udayana]

...
Faith schools are one of the areas where, I'd agree, the exemption from the Equalities Act shouldn't apply. Even if parents have a particular belief, we shouldn't be presuming their children will share it, and shouldn't be assisting in their indoctrination. Similarly, the religious persuasion of potential teachers should only come into play if it can be shown that it would negatively impact the educational or pastoral outcomes of the children (and not the 'faith' outcomes).
...

I agree... to my mind legislation has an inbuilt hierarchy with Human Rights and Equality legislation at the top. There is no essential reason a school cannot provide education within the teaching practice and observance of a religion without impinging on the human rights of the individuals potentially attending or employed by the school.

As Prof D said earlier, rights are individual, not defined for religions, organisations or other groups.

However, there is still plenty of potential for conflicts of rights issues to arise.
   

[Outrider]

I agree... to my mind legislation has an inbuilt hierarchy with Human Rights and Equality legislation at the top. There is no essential reason a school cannot provide education within the teaching practice and observance of a religion without impinging on the human rights of the individuals potentially attending or employed by the school.

As Prof D said earlier, rights are individual, not defined for religions, organisations or other groups.

I think, for me, although I don't think that's wrong, I do feel that religion is misplaced in the Equalities Act, inasmuch as it's given the same standing as race, gender and the rest, but it's not an equivalent. Sexuality, gender and the like are traits that you don't choose or express, they are intrinsic parts of who you are. Religion, whilst culturally it might be a constrained choice, is still a choice and is not on the same footing. I'm not saying that religious position doesn't need protection, but staying in a religion and expressing the views of a religion are a choice, but you can't 'opt out' of being black or gay or female.

O.

[Udayana]

I think, for me, although I don't think that's wrong, I do feel that religion is misplaced in the Equalities Act, inasmuch as it's given the same standing as race, gender and the rest, but it's not an equivalent. Sexuality, gender and the like are traits that you don't choose or express, they are intrinsic parts of who you are. Religion, whilst culturally it might be a constrained choice, is still a choice and is not on the same footing. I'm not saying that religious position doesn't need protection, but staying in a religion and expressing the views of a religion are a choice, but you can't 'opt out' of being black or gay or female.

O.

It is true that it is choice rather than a trait, however, well ... courtesy of Google Bard:

Religion is covered by the Equality Act because it is a fundamental part of many people's identities and can have a significant impact on their lives. Discrimination on the grounds of religion can have a devastating impact on people's lives, leading to social isolation, mental health problems, and even violence. The Equality Act helps to protect people from discrimination and ensure that they have equal opportunities in all areas of life.

While religion is often a choice, it is also a deeply personal and important part of many people's lives. For some people, their religion is a source of comfort and strength, while for others it is a way of connecting with their community or heritage. Religion can also play a role in shaping people's values and beliefs.

[ProfessorDavey]

I guess my background is health and safety, and generally in that it's a case of people being afforded leeway to maintain their religious expression so long as the only person's risk they are increasing is their own.

Sure - but firstly equalities legislation isn't necessarily about health & safety, although it may impact. So I know there are restrictions on wearing of necklaces in hospital settings which may trump the wearing of religious symbols. But even to get to that stage you'd need to demonstrate that the wearing of them was a requirement of that religion rather than merely an optional choice.

And in this case there is certainly a safety element - carrying knives in public does pose a risk, even if a small one, that is greater than if they are not carried. And here there is a difference compared to, for example, Sikhs being exempt from wearing a crash helmet. In the latter case the only person likely to be harmed is the individual, but for a knife there are much clearer risks to others - whether directly from the knife carrier or if the knife is taken by others.

But equalities legislation isn't just about risk and is also about individuals (so you shouldn't generalise) - so in the case of a helmets whether it is fair to allow Sikhs not to wear a helmet when everyone else does. And note this isn't a blanket exception for all Sikhs as the individual would need to demonstrate adherence to Sikh doctrine in a broader sense. So in the case of knives is it fair to allow Sikhs to carry a knife while others cannot (except for legitimate reasons of use) - and as this is about the individual it isn't reasonable to claim that Sikhs as a group may be law abiding, because most individuals are, so I would argue that there is no greater or lesser risk of an individual member of the Sikh community carrying a knife in public than there is if I was to carry a knife in public.

[Outrider]

It is true that it is choice rather than a trait, however, well ... courtesy of Google Bard:

As I said, it deserves legal protection - both religious views and non-religious stances in the face of religious views, I just don't think it should be on an equal standing with things like sexuality, age and the other protected characteristics.

O.

[Udayana]

Sure - but firstly equalities legislation isn't necessarily about health & safety, although it may impact. So I know there are restrictions on wearing of necklaces in hospital settings which may trump the wearing of religious symbols. But even to get to that stage you'd need to demonstrate that the wearing of them was a requirement of that religion rather than merely an optional choice.

And in this case there is certainly a safety element - carrying knives in public does pose a risk, even if a small one, that is greater than if they are not carried. And here there is a difference compared to, for example, Sikhs being exempt from wearing a crash helmet. In the latter case the only person likely to be harmed is the individual, but for a knife there are much clearer risks to others - whether directly from the knife carrier or if the knife is taken by others.

But equalities legislation isn't just about risk and is also about individuals (so you shouldn't generalise) - so in the case of a helmets whether it is fair to allow Sikhs not to wear a helmet when everyone else does. And note this isn't a blanket exception for all Sikhs as the individual would need to demonstrate adherence to Sikh doctrine in a broader sense. So in the case of knives is it fair to allow Sikhs to carry a knife while others cannot (except for legitimate reasons of use) - and as this is about the individual it isn't reasonable to claim that Sikhs as a group may be law abiding, because most individuals are, so I would argue that there is no greater or lesser risk of an individual member of the Sikh community carrying a knife in public than there is if I was to carry a knife in public.

It is debateable whether there is a greater or lesser risk (on carrying knives), but even assuming that the risk is the same, surely it must be better to have an exception from the knife law than to have an exception from the Human Rights Act, unless it is absolutely necessary? 

On the exemption from  the motorcycle helmet rules, my opinion is that the requirement for (some) Sikhs is just to keep long hair, not wear a turban, however the exception was made on the grounds that wearing a turban is a Sikh tradition/practice. Actually, I've not seen a turbaned Sikh on a motorbike in the UK since the early 70s - so sensible behaviour may have won out?


 

[ProfessorDavey]

It is true that it is choice rather than a trait, however, well ... courtesy of Google Bard:

"Religion is covered by the Equality Act because it is a fundamental part of many people's identities and can have a significant impact on their lives. Discrimination on the grounds of religion can have a devastating impact on people's lives, leading to social isolation, mental health problems, and even violence. The Equality Act helps to protect people from discrimination and ensure that they have equal opportunities in all areas of life.

While religion is often a choice, it is also a deeply personal and important part of many people's lives. For some people, their religion is a source of comfort and strength, while for others it is a way of connecting with their community or heritage. Religion can also play a role in shaping people's values and beliefs."

But that description doesn't just apply to religion - nope it applies to all sorts of other beliefs and values.

So for example fervent nationalism would also fit into that category.

As would white supremicist beliefs.

As would certain elements of homophobic thinking and belief.

But these are all choices - and we should never allow the manifestation of these beliefs in xenophobic, racist or homophobic actions to cause discrimination again non-nationals, people of other ethnicities or a different sexuality.

So I'm with Outrider that attributes that we have no choice over - sex, sexuality, ethnicity, age etc should take precedence over those which are a choice in the pecking order of equality and human rights.

And actually on religion fundamental human rights are absolutely clear that religion is a choice - that's why we have the right to be religious, not to be religious and to change our religion (including changing from being religious to non-religious and vice versa).

[Udayana]

But that description doesn't just apply to religion - nope it applies to all sorts of other beliefs and values.

So for example fervent nationalism would also fit into that category.

As would white supremicist beliefs.

As would certain elements of homophobic thinking and belief.

But these are all choices - and we should never allow the manifestation of these beliefs in xenophobic, racist or homophobic actions to cause discrimination again non-nationals, people of other ethnicities or a different sexuality.

So I'm with Outrider that attributes that we have no choice over - sex, sexuality, ethnicity, age etc should take precedence over those which are a choice in the pecking order of equality and human rights.

And actually on religion fundamental human rights are absolutely clear that religion is a choice - that's why we have the right to be religious, not to be religious and to change our religion (including changing from being religious to non-religious and vice versa).

Yes, you are right. And, although political and philosophical beliefs are not explicitly listed as protected in the Equalities Act, there is case law, at least concerning employment, such that they are protected.

Obviously, actually manifesting or acting on some of those beliefs will often be directly against the law. In other cases, where an issue comes down to a conflict of rights, it can be decided on a case by case basis, where I would expect involuntary characteristics to be preferred over chosen beliefs or attitudes.
 
Hopefully if it can be seen that issues can be resolved reasonably, people might eventually come round to giving up ridiculous beliefs   But, actually I expect that is being too optimistic.

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes, you are right. And, although political and philosophical beliefs are not explicitly listed as protected in the Equalities Act, there is case law, at least concerning employment, such that they are protected.

Holding philosophical beliefs is very much a protected characteristic under the Equality Act - and indeed is supposed to be completely equivalent to religious beliefs.

I linked to the description of what comprises a 'belief' that is protected previously on this thread. I've given this again here

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."

Whether political beliefs are included is, I guess, up for discussion, but provided the belief fits these criteria then I do not see why it shouldn't be.

[Udayana]

Holding philosophical beliefs is very much a protected characteristic under the Equality Act - and indeed is supposed to be completely equivalent to religious beliefs.

Ah ... thanks, I've corrected my previous post.

I linked to the description of what comprises a 'belief' that is protected previously on this thread. I've given this again here

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 Equalities Act does not address differences between religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs, so why does the guidance you've referenced? It is because religious beliefs are reasonably well understood as they will be from a religion of "sufficient seriousness which has a clear structure and belief system". But philosophical beliefs need clearer definition, coming from a wide open field. This is an example of the "bias" towards organisational support I was trying to describe earlier. 

No doubt the honesty and seriousness of someone claiming a religious belief could be questioned in court if required.

Whether political beliefs are included is, I guess, up for discussion, but provided the belief fits these criteria then I do not see why it shouldn't be.

[jeremyp]

They think they have reasons, and, presumably, have made a case that they do.

What is the case? If people are going to be allowed an exception to a law designed to stop innocent members of the public from getting stabbed, their case for the exception should be made public. As far as I can tell, the only excuse put forward so far is "it's tradition".

Yes I see, but why do you feel insulted when it makes no difference to you?

It'll make a difference to me if a Sikh loses it* and stabs me.

*his temper, not the kirpan.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah ... thanks, I've corrected my previous post.

The Equalities Act does not address differences between religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs, so why does the guidance you've referenced? It is because religious beliefs are reasonably well understood as they will be from a religion of "sufficient seriousness which has a clear structure and belief system". But philosophical beliefs need clearer definition, coming from a wide open field. This is an example of the "bias" towards organisational support I was trying to describe earlier.

Which highlights my basic argument - that non-religious beliefs aren't afforded the same status as religious beliefs. If this is about the individual (which it should be) then there should be no difference. It shouldn't matter whether the belief is linked to an organisation - what should matter is the genuineness to which the individual holds to that belief. Yet I suspect a vegetarian who occasionally succumbs to a bacon sandwich would be treated very differently in terms of the 'seriousness' of their belief than a christian who skips church once in a while and who might not uphold many of the doctrinal beliefs of their religion.

So I suspect that a Sikh with a kirpan would be 'waved on by' by equalities legislation without assessing whether that individual always carried it (which would suggest a genuine belief) or only on high days and holiday, so to speak. 

No doubt the honesty and seriousness of someone claiming a religious belief could be questioned in court if required.

But it would only get to court if the equality opt-out on religious grounds had already been challenged - see above on my two examples. Otherwise the individual would have no need to justify their belief as they'd have already benefited from the opt-out.

[Udayana]

What is the case? If people are going to be allowed an exception to a law designed to stop innocent members of the public from getting stabbed, their case for the exception should be made public. As far as I can tell, the only excuse put forward so far is "it's tradition".
It'll make a difference to me if a Sikh loses it* and stabs me.

*his temper, not the kirpan.

I know some Sikhs who feel they need to carry the kirpan as they have made a personal vow, to. ie. it is a matter of personal integrity. I don't know what, if any, case was made when the Criminal Justice Act was put together in 1988.
 
I should think the risks of being stabbed by a kirpan carrying Sikh losing his/her temper are negligible, especially in comparison to those of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife illegally.
 

[Udayana]

Which highlights my basic argument - that non-religious beliefs aren't afforded the same status as religious beliefs. If this is about the individual (which it should be) then there should be no difference. It shouldn't matter whether the belief is linked to an organisation - what should matter is the genuineness to which the individual holds to that belief. Yet I suspect a vegetarian who occasionally succumbs to a bacon sandwich would be treated very differently in terms of the 'seriousness' of their belief than a christian who skips church once in a while and who might not uphold many of the doctrinal beliefs of their religion.

So I suspect that a Sikh with a kirpan would be 'waved on by' by equalities legislation without assessing whether that individual always carried it (which would suggest a genuine belief) or only on high days and holiday, so to speak. 
But it would only get to court if the equality opt-out on religious grounds had already been challenged - see above on my two examples. Otherwise the individual would have no need to justify their belief as they'd have already benefited from the opt-out.

Well, a belief is a belief ... it need not be adhered to absolutely to be taken seriously. I don't think, in practice, that there would be much difference in your two examples.

I can understand how some bias is introduced in formulating laws, but deciding what some law "should" or "should not" state is beyond me. The best we can hope for is that the courts come to sensible decisions in the cases that that are brought to them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well, a belief is a belief ... it need not be adhered to absolutely to be taken seriously. I don't think, in practice, that there would be much difference in your two examples.

I think there is a massive difference - I don't think a vegetarian taking court action on the basis of discrimination would get off first base if the court was told that the person occasionally ate meat. I doubt very much that the same would happen to a Sikh who occasionally didn't carry their knife.

[ProfessorDavey]

I should think the risks of being stabbed by a kirpan carrying Sikh losing his/her temper are negligible, especially in comparison to those of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife illegally.

False comparison - the comparison should be between a Sikh carrying a knife and someone else carrying it legally.

And negligible isn't zero - and the likelihood of someone being stabbed by someone carrying a knife is rather higher than if they aren't carrying a knife.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/07/01/sikh-who-stabbed-woman-with-ceremonial-dagger-in-neighbour-dispute-is-jailed-for-six-years/
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime/21208098.elderly-sikh-stabbed-drinker-ceremonial-kirpan-dagger-court-hears/

People occasionally lose it - and the consequences are potentially far worse if that person is carrying a knife.

[ProfessorDavey]

The best we can hope for is that the courts come to sensible decisions in the cases that that are brought to them.

But the point is that when individuals are provided with a special privilege, the only way that is likely to come to court is if that special privilege isn't granted and the individual considers that to be wrong. It won't come to court if the individual shouldn't have that special privilege (e.g. if their belief isn't sufficiently genuinely held) but receives it anyway.

So the courts are unlikely to get the chance to nuance or refine the law if there is a default that Sikhs can carry knives, even if the law should only allow Sikhs whose belief is sufficiently genuine to carry them.

[Udayana]

False comparison - the comparison should be between a Sikh carrying a knife and someone else carrying it legally.

Depends on what you need to know. There is no reason to think that a Sikh with a kirpan is any more likely to be involved in a stabbing than anyone else legally carrying a knife. Even if you are suggesting that they are, there is a dearth of relevant data to test this.

On the hand, if you are worried that you might be stabbed there are studies on the demographics of knife crime which highlight other factors - in particular illegal knife carrying.

That is without considering that less than 0.25% of the UK population are Amritdhari Sikhs (ie. might be carrying a kirpan because of belief), compared to the 5-6% of people carrying knives in knife-crime affected areas.   

And negligible isn't zero - and the likelihood of someone being stabbed by someone carrying a knife is rather higher than if they aren't carrying a knife.

https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/07/01/sikh-who-stabbed-woman-with-ceremonial-dagger-in-neighbour-dispute-is-jailed-for-six-years/
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime/21208098.elderly-sikh-stabbed-drinker-ceremonial-kirpan-dagger-court-hears/

People occasionally lose it - and the consequences are potentially far worse if that person is carrying a knife.

Indeed.

[Udayana]

But the point is that when individuals are provided with a special privilege, the only way that is likely to come to court is if that special privilege isn't granted and the individual considers that to be wrong. It won't come to court if the individual shouldn't have that special privilege (e.g. if their belief isn't sufficiently genuinely held) but receives it anyway.

So the courts are unlikely to get the chance to nuance or refine the law if there is a default that Sikhs can carry knives, even if the law should only allow Sikhs whose belief is sufficiently genuine to carry them.

That's convoluted thinking. Once you have put an exclusion from the knife rules in place, it matters not a hoot if those that may carry a knife choose not do so at any time. Of-course, if someone that claims to be allowed to carry a knife uses it illegally, then they are in the same or worse position than anyone else. 

Over time, cultures and traditions change, as also do peoples convictions, feelings and behaviour; laws can be reviewed accordingly.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's convoluted thinking. Once you have put an exclusion from the knife rules in place, it matters not a hoot if those that may carry a knife choose not do so at any time.

Of course it matters - the opt out is on the basis that carrying a knife is a religious requirement. And therefore it is only a justifiable exception if the carrier is able to demonstrate that they, as an individual, demonstrate that they genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement. Clearly if they don't carry a knife most of the time that would demonstrate that they do not genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement. In which case the exception would not be justifies and the carrying of the knife would be unlawful.

However, as I've pointed out, the courts are extremely unlikely to get to judge this matter as the 'default' is that Sikhs can carry knives, while the precision of the law is that Sikhs who genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement to carry a knife are exempt.