[ Home] [ Criminal] [ Discrimination] [ International] [ Reports/Articles] [ My Services] [ Books] [ Links]
Update 13th November 2009
I have added the cases of Blackmore v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 1299 (CanLII) which is an interesting case where it has been suggested by a Court that the Canadian Law prohibiting Polygamy may be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights. Also
CONSPICUOUS RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS (FRANCE) (17 July 2009) BAILII: [2009] ECHR 1142
a compendium decision by the European Court of Human Rights merely confirming the earlier case of Dogru and Mann Singh and accepting the French Ban on the wearing of religious symbols or clothing in schools or in certain other public situations. Also Grainger Plc & Ors v. Nicholson [2009] UKEAT 0219_09_0311 (3 November 2009) where a believer in Man Made Global Warming succeeded in his claim that his beliefs qualifed for protection as a "Philosophical Belief" for the purpose of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 and Catholic Care v Charity Commission (Charity Tribunal 1 June 2009) A case where a Catholic Adoption Agency tried, unsuccesfully, to amend its objects in a way that would allow it not to place children with same sex couples
update 9 May 2009I have added a link to the case of Ghai v Newcastle City Council [2009] EWHC 978 (Admin) Where the High Court rejected a claim by a British Hindu that preventing him from having an open air Cremation infringed his rights to Freedom of Religion under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also the strange case of Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2009] UKPC 17 where the Privy Council agreed with an earlier decision of the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago that a particular award "The Trinity Cross of the Order of Trinity" was discriminatory to Muslims and Hindus under the provisions of sections 4(b), (d) and (h) of the Trinidadian Constitution on the basis that the Cross is a Christian Symbol. The name "Trinidad" is of course itself Christian being the Spanish for "Trinity" and therefore a reference to the Holy Trinity. The case could conceivably have implications for British awards such as the Victoria Cross, George Cross, Military Cross etc. Interestingly both the Trinidadian Court and the Privy Council took a very different approach to that of the US Courts in the case of American Atheists Inc v Utah Highway Patrol Association (US District Court November 20 2007) where an attempt to have memorial crosses declared "unconstitutional" because they represented a Christian Symbol was rejected, the court holding that the cross was not an exclusively religious symbol
update 16 February 2009
In Chondol v Liverpool City Council (EAT) - 11 February 2009 the EAT held that dismissing someone on grounds of inappropriate proselytisation (here, a carer asking a vulnerable service user if he believed in God and went to church) did not amount to unlawful discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. The EAT accepted that there was a distinction between dismissal for possession of religious belief (which would be impermissible), and dismissal for the inappropriate foisting of those beliefs on others. It emphasised, though, that tribunals will still need to ensure that such a reason for dismissal reflects the employer's true reason.
The first anniversary of
the Archbishop of Canterburys speech on Sharia Law in Britain has been marked by
me with a piece in my Religion Law Blog
called "How do you solve a problem like Sharia"
I have also commented on the anniversary for the
Daily Telegraph
update 1st January 2009
The EAT has released its judgement overturning the Employment Tribunal victory won by Christian Registrar Lillian Ladelle (see 11 July 2008). The EAT decision is likely to be appealed to the Court of Appeal
(update 10th December 2008)
I have added the European Court of Human Rights case of Dogru v France BAILII: [2008] ECHR 1579 which may well be the last legal word on the wearing of Islamic Veils in Schools. In Dogru the ECtHR gets the chance to finally consider the French "Hijab Ban" which is, of course, a ban on the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols, such as the Sikh Turban and the Islamic Veil. The case, as it happens, precedes the 2004 law and the history of how the law came to be imposed is helpfully discussed in paras 17 to 32. In overall terms the decision in Dogru is predictable based on the Courts' earlier decisions in Sahin v Turkey and Dahlab v Switzerland.
(update 28th November 2008)
I have added a link to the Employment Appeal Tribunal case of EWEIDA v British Airways BAILII: [2008] UKEAT 0123_08_2011 where a Christian Employee lost her claim to be allowed to wear a visible Cross along with her BA uniform. The case seems very difficult to reconcile with the case of Sakira Singh [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin) where a Sikh School girl won the right to wear a Kara bracelet along with her School uniform Compare para 14 of the EAT case with para 29 of the Sakira case. Most worryingly the EAT judgement makes reference to the Sakira case and then completely misrepresents it, in para 14 the Judge says of Sakira case " the claimant believed that she was required by her religion to wear the Kara" but that is contrary to the findings of the Judge in the Sakira case para 29 "although the claimant is not obliged by her religion to wear a Kara, it is clearly in her case extremely important indication of her faith"
The sad thing is with these two cases is that the obvious difference in treatment will increase the feeling of many Christians that they are being unfairly treated in comparison to members of other religions and those feelings will, ironically, be unfair to the members of other religions. No Sikh, so far as I am aware, would regard the Kara as being more significant to Sikhs than the Cross is to Christians.
And whilst on the subject of Sikhs I have added the case of MANN SINGH v. FRANCE where the European Court of Human Rights rejected a claim under Article 9 brought by a French Sikh who was refused a photographic driving licence because he refused to remove his Turban for the photograph
I have also added SAINI v ALL SAINTS HAQUE CENTRE BAILII: [2008] UKEAT 0227_08_2410 where it was held that harassing someone because of their association with a member of another Religion is unlawful harassment under Reg 5 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
I have also added a link to the, rather strange, case of EM (Lebanon) v Home Secretary [2008] UKHL 64 where the House of Lords refused to allow the deportation of a woman and her son to Lebanon on the basis that Shariah Law as applied in Lebanon would mean that the son would pass to the custody of the Father and his family. In para 6 Lord Hope said "Shari'a law as it is applied in Lebanon was created by and for men in a male dominated society" which does rather make you wonder why the Lord Chief Justice and now the Chairman of the Bar are suggesting that Sharia Law should be introduced into Britain. Either you respect Sharia Law or you don't you can't pick and chose and then claim what remains is really Sharia Law.
.
(update 11th August 2008)
I have added a link to the case of Sakira Singh [2008] EWHC 1865 (Admin) (the Sikh Bracelet case). This case re-opens a, rather predictable, can of worms that most schools thought had been closed by the Begum Playfoot and X v Y School cases. However those cases were argued on Human Rights Article 9, Freedom of Religion grounds and this case was argued under Religious Discrimination law. Under Article 9 there was greater scope for schools to justify their rules than is the case under Anti-discrimination law and that can explain the seeming difference between this case and the three previous cases. In order to examine this distinction I have also added a link to the 1983 case of Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548 where the House of Lords held that it was unlawful discrimination to stop a Sikh schoolboy wearing a Turban
I have also added a link to E v JFS (Jewish Free School) [2008] EWHC 1535/1536 (Admin) which is a case involving the question how you define who is a Jew. Notable for the astonishing fact that one of the Barristers involved relied on the Nazi "Nuremberg Laws" to bolster her case. The judge expressed his "distaste" at even being expected to treat the Nazi laws as "law" let alone be expected to base his decision on them, in the event he found them of no relevance in his decision.
I have also added a link to Gallagher (Valuation Officer) V Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints [2008] UKHL 56 which is an interesting tax decision which relies on the fact that the public are not allowed to enter Mormon Temples and so a Temple is not a place of public worship for the purposes of Tax law
(update 11th July 2008)
I have added details regarding the repeal of the Law of Blasphemy and also the case of Lillian Ladelle v London Borough of Islington which has been widely reported and where the following comment in the judgement is noteworthy "This is a case where there is a direct conflict between the legislative protection afforded to religion and belief and the legislative protection afforded to sexual orientation .... One set of rights cannot overrule the other set of rights),
I have taken the opportunity to add the interesting case of R v TAYLOR [2001] EWCA Crim 2263 which deals with religious rights and the use of illegal drugs and the historically interesting case of REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) which dealt with religious rights and Polygamy.
In view of recent comments by the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning the possible use of Shariah Law in Britain I have added the European Court of Human Rights case of REFAH PARTISI v TURKEY ECtHR 13 February 2003 where the court said "It is difficult to declare one’s respect for democracy and human rights while at the same time supporting a regime based on sharia, which clearly diverges from Convention values".
I have also added KC and NNC -v- CITY OF WESTMINSTER SOCIAL & COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT [2008] EWCA Civ 198
a strange, and sad, case concerning the legal validity of an Islamic marriage ceremony which took place over the phone with the "bride" being in Bangladesh and the "bridegroom" being in England.
(update 6th December 2007)
Some interesting new cases added. Harris v NKL Automotive dealt with a Rastafarian who was not allowed to wear Dreadlocks at work, this was not Religious Discrimination. McClintock v Department for Constitutional Affairs dealt with a Christian Magistrate who did not want to sit on "Gay Adoption" cases, his claim of Religious Discrimination was rejected. The case of American Atheists Inc v Utah Highway Patrol Association dealt with an attempt to have memorial crosses declared "unconstitutional" because they represented a Christian Symbol, the court held that the cross was not an exclusively religious symbol and it depended on the circumstances in which it was used. Green v Westminster Magistrates dealt with an unsuccessful attempt to prosecute the BBC for Blasphemy over its broadcast of Gerry Springer the Opera. Finally I have added a link to an old (1983) but extremely interesting Australian Case, Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax which involves a lengthy discussion as to what exactly is a "Religion" in law.
(update 1st October 2007)
The Crime of Incitement to Religious Hatred comes into force today 1st October 2007. A number of interesting cases have been added to the site. The case of Shambo, a Bullock at a Hindu Shrine in Wales, was dealt with in both the High Court and Court of Appeal, sadly the pleas of the custodians of the shrine were ignored and Shambo was put down. Lydia Playfoot failed to win the right to wear a Purity Ring in School and the High Court in Northern Ireland gave a decision on the NI Sexual Orientation Regulations which is likely to be of importance to GB courts considering the GB Sexual Orientation Regulations. The case of Webb v Philadelphia Police Department (US District Court June 27 2007) is interesting ands involves an American Police Officer who wanted to wear Islamic Dress when in uniform.
(update 30th April 2007)
On the 30th April Part 2 of the Equality Act (Discrimination on grounds of Religion or Belief) comes into force, see the Equality Act 2006 (commencement No 2) Order The procedures to be followed with regard to a potential claim under the act are set out in the Religion or Belief (Questions and Replies) Order 2007 On the same date the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 come into force preventing discrimination on the grounds of Sexual Orientation. Regulation 14 of the regulations gives some, rather limited, exemptions to organisations relating to Religion or Belief. There is more information on these regulations on the Sexual Orientation law page on this site.
(update 3rd April 2007)
The case of Ayesha Azmi v Kirklees MBC [2007] UKEAT 0009/07 has been added to the Civil Cases page. The case dealt with a Muslim Teaching Assistant who wished to wear a Niqab (face veil) when teaching in class
. (update 23rd February 2007)
The case of X v Y School has been added to the Civil Cases page; The case dealt with the desire of a Muslim girl to wear a Niqab (face veil) in school. Relevant to the questions raised by cases such as this are two new reports on Muslims in School and on Muslim Integration which have been added to the Reports page. Also a report from the Theos Think Tank on the role of Religion in society
(update 2nd January 2007)
My Book RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND HATRED LAW has now been published and details are available on the Books page I have added to the Australia Page a link to the Victoria Supreme Court Decision of Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 which overturned a previous, and highly controversial, decision that two Christian Ministers had been guilty of Vilifying Islam; the case now returns to the tribunal for rehearing. In the reports and Articles Section I have added a link to a report on Faith Identity and Belonging by the Interfaith Network of the UK whilst in the Civil Cases page I have added links to News stories concerning the wearing of the Islamic Veil (niqab) by a teaching Assistant and by a lawyer in Court and a similar story concerning the wearing of a Cross by an employee of British Airways.
(update 2nd August 2006)
I have added to the Books page a picture of the cover and details about my new Book RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND HATRED LAW to be published towards the end of 2006 by Routledge-Cavendish. It contains Chapters on ,
What is a Religion ?, Religion and Human Rights, Religious Discrimination in goods and services, in Employment, in Education, Religious Harassment, Religious Crimes, & Religious Hatred
(update 11th July 2006)
This update provides copies of the Hindu Forum and Government Report on British Hindus 2006 and press comment on it also a copy of guidelines published by the National Union of Teachers regarding Islamic Dress and School Uniforms I have provided this guidance with some reservations because it was issued before the House of Lords judgement in the case of Shabina Begum and, in my view, the views expressed by the NUTare based far too much on the earlier judgement of The Court of Appeal which was comprehensively overruled by the House of Lords.
(Update 22nd March 2006)
This update provides a link to the House of Lords Judgement in the case of Muslim Schoolgirl Shabina Begum. She took her School to court because it refused to allow her to wear a Jilbab instead of the School Uniform which included an option for Muslim pupils to wear a Hijab. She lost in the High Court, won in the Court of Appeal and then lost again in the House of Lords.
(Update 7th March 2006)
Following this update the Discrimination section of the site now contains a link to the Equality Act 2006 and the Incitement to Hatred section contains a link to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006. Both of these Acts will be of significant importance in this area of law.
This update contains details of the final wording of the Religious Hatred Offence following the Governments defeat in the House of Commons. I have also included new cases in the International Cases section of the site. In particular I have included links to the two "hijab" cases involving Leyla Sahin in Turkey also a linked case of Dahlab which involves a Swiss Teacher being prohibited from wearing a Hijab whilst working in School.
With these updates I have changed the layout of the "Cases" page so I now have 3 separate pages for Criminal, Civil and International/European cases. I have added to these cases including links to the Copsey case dealing with Sunday working. In the page dealing with Incitement to Religious Hatred I have added information on similar legislation in the Republic of Ireland and Scotland.
The changes in the site are mainly to accommodate events since the General Election. The Equality Bill has been reintroduced by the Government. Amongst other things it proposes outlawing Religious Discrimination in the supply of Goods and services. The highly controversial proposals for an offence of Incitement to Religious Hatred has also been reintroduced this time in a specific Bill. There are some new Documents in the International section relating to UN Declarations on the "Defamation of Religon" and in the Australian Section I have included the Judgement re Penalties in what is becoming the rather infamous "Religious Villification" case brought by a Muslim organisation against a Christian Church. I have also included links to two U S Supreme Court Decisions on displays of the Ten Commandments.
(UPDATE 5th March
2005)
There have been
some significant developments in this area of Law in the last few weeks. I
have added a link to the controversial Court of Appeal Judgement in the case
of Shabina Begum v Denbigh
High School [2005] EWCA Civ 199 which decided (in a rather
roundabout way) that a Muslim Schoolgirl did have the right to demand to wear a
Jilbab at school instead of the School uniform of Hijab and Shalwar
Kameez.
Also a link to the House of Lords case Williamson v Secretary of State for Education [2005] UKHL
15
The Governments proposed Equality Bill has been published and if passed will be a very important piece of legislation in this area. It proposes outlawing Religious Discrimination in the supply of Goods and services
(UPDATE 1st January 2005)
The main change to the site is a new layout which I hope will be liked and easier to follow. Any suggestions for further improvements are welcomed.
The section of the site dealing with Australia has been considerably updated to take account of the Judgement in the case of The Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire Ministries Inc [2004] VCAT 2510 This case is being regularly referred to in our debate in Britain over the Government proposals to create a new offence of Incitement to Religious Hatred. I have also added information on the similar legislation in Queensland
Legal Advice and Representation, Training
and Education
Contact NEIL ADDISON at
Religion Law