Mandla v Dowell-Lee: Difference between revisions
Perhaps more relevent since I guess that may be one reason for the image |
Sikh-history (talk | contribs) Turbans are different. This is what is known as a Patka worn by kids. |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| court = House of Lords |
| court = House of Lords |
||
| image = Two Sikhs.jpg |
| image = Two Sikhs.jpg |
||
| caption = Two Sikhs wearing |
| caption = Two Sikhs wearing patkas |
||
| date decided = |
| date decided = |
||
| full name = |
| full name = |
||
Revision as of 13:13, 25 March 2011
| Mandla v Dowell-Lee | |
|---|---|
 Two Sikhs wearing patkas | |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Citations | [1982] UKHL 7, [1983] 2 AC 548 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action | [1983] QB 1 |
| Keywords | |
| Race discrimination, Sikh, protected characteristic, ethnicity | |
Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976.
Facts
A Sikh boy was refused entry to Park Grove School, Birmingham by the headmaster, because his father refused to make him stop wearing a turban and cut his hair. The boy went to another school, but the father lodged a complaint with the Commission for Racial Equality, which brought the case. Derry Irvine appeared for the Commission for Racial Equality.
Judgment
Court of Appeal
They lost in the Court of Appeal.[1] Lord Denning MR held the following.
The statute in section 3(1) contains a definition of a “racial group”. It means a “group of persons defined by reference to colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins.” That definition is very carefully framed. Most interesting is that it does not include religion or politics or culture. You can discriminate for or against Roman Catholics as much as you like without being in breach of the law. You can discriminate for or against Communists as much as you please, without being in breach of the law. You can discriminate for or against the “hippies” as much as you like, without being in breach of the law. But you must not discriminate against a man because of his colour or of his race or of his nationality, or of “his ethnic or national origins.” You must remember that it is perfectly lawful to discriminate against groups of people to whom you object - so long as they are not a racial group. You can discriminate against the Moonies or the Skinheads or any other group which you dislike or to which you take objection. No matter whether your objection to them is reasonable or unreasonable, you can discriminate against them - without being in breach of the law.’
He held that Sikhs were not a racial or ethnic group.
House of Lords
They won the Appeal to the House of Lords[2]
Richardson J. in setting out criteria for establishing member of a racial group:
“The conditions which appear to me to be essential are these: (1) a long shared history, of which the group is conscious as distinguishing it from other groups, and the memory of which it keeps alive; (2) a cultural tradition of its own, including family and social customs and manners, often but not necessarily associated with religious observance. In addition to those two essential characteristics the following characteristics are, in my opinion, relevant: (3) either a common geographical origin, or descent from a small number of common ancestors; (4) a common language, not necessarily peculiar to the group; (5) a common literature peculiar to the group; (6) a common religion different from that of neighbouring groups or from the general community surrounding it; (7) being a minority or being an oppressed or a dominant group within a larger community, for example a conquered people (say, the inhabitants of England shortly after the Norman conquest) and their conquerors might both be ethnic groups.”
- The Court held:
“[T]hat ‘ethnic origins’ in the context of that provision meant a group which was a segment of the population distinguished from others by a sufficient combination of shared customs, beliefs, traditions and characteristics derived from a common or presumed common past, even 3 if not drawn from what in biological terms was a common racial stock, in that it was that combination which gave them an historically determined social identity in their own eyes and in those outside the group; that Sikhs were in that sense a racial group defined by reference to ethnic origins for the purpose of the Act, although they were not biologically distinguishable
from the other peoples of the Punjab.”
They held that Sikhs were a racial or ethnic group.
Ethno-Religious Definition
The outcome of this case has been that it has led to a legal definition of the term ethno-religious.[3][4]
See also
Notes
- ^ [1983] QB 1
- ^ http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Mandla.pdf
- ^ http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC19940511036
- ^ http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/research_report_48_religion_or_belief_identifying_issues_and_priorities.doc