Friday, 28 November 2008

Updates to www.ReligionLaw.co.uk

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 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 cases is that it will increase the feeling of many Christians that they are being treated unfairly compared 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 claim that the Kara is 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


Finally 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.