Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
There is a major difference between saying • (i) or (ii); and saying • (i) and (ii). However, as has been mentioned above, students often do not read the connectors ‘and’, ‘if’, ‘but’. Now consider the connectors between sections, sub-sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in Figure 5.1, above. The following pattern is obtained: s 1 (1) …if (a) …or (b) …but (i) …and (ii) …and (iii) is… What can be ascertained from this seemingly abstract pattern? • Something in s1(1) will be the case if something in para (a) or (b) is the case. • Paragraph (b) is tied to sub-paras (i), (ii), and (iii) by the connector ‘but’. • Sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) are all tied together by the two connectors ‘and’ which occur at the end of sub-paras (i) and (ii). After the study of s 1, both in terms of connectors and substance, it is appropriate to return to the discussion of the meaning of the words ‘can’ and ‘justifiable’, which were the subject of deliberations in the House of Lords. Recall, we have only been considering the judgment of Lord Fraser. 4.8.4 The meaning of the word ‘can’ in s1(1)(b)(i) The school’s argument was that ‘can’ simply meant that someone could do something physically. So, of course, it is always physically possible to remove a turban. However, the religious, conscientious, cultural, psychological dimensions of behaviour are thereby ignored. If the Race Relations Act is to have any impact, it cannot be the object of such simplistic interpretation. Lord Fraser stated that ‘can’ does not merely mean ‘can physically comply’. ‘Can’ means ‘can comply’ in practice, given the constraints of ethnic origin. If restrictive interpretations were to be placed on a word as seemingly innocent as ‘can’, it would be possible to undermine the entire purpose of the Act. Herein lies the power of the interpreter of language which, at root, will always remain flexible. 4.8.5 The meaning of the word ‘justifiable’ in s1(1)(b)(ii) Sub-paragraph (ii) of sub-s (b) in s 1 maintains that a condition is discriminatory if it cannot be justified on grounds other than race. The school argued that it
DOI link for There is a major difference between saying • (i) or (ii); and saying • (i) and (ii). However, as has been mentioned above, students often do not read the connectors ‘and’, ‘if’, ‘but’. Now consider the connectors between sections, sub-sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in Figure 5.1, above. The following pattern is obtained: s 1 (1) …if (a) …or (b) …but (i) …and (ii) …and (iii) is… What can be ascertained from this seemingly abstract pattern? • Something in s1(1) will be the case if something in para (a) or (b) is the case. • Paragraph (b) is tied to sub-paras (i), (ii), and (iii) by the connector ‘but’. • Sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) are all tied together by the two connectors ‘and’ which occur at the end of sub-paras (i) and (ii). After the study of s 1, both in terms of connectors and substance, it is appropriate to return to the discussion of the meaning of the words ‘can’ and ‘justifiable’, which were the subject of deliberations in the House of Lords. Recall, we have only been considering the judgment of Lord Fraser. 4.8.4 The meaning of the word ‘can’ in s1(1)(b)(i) The school’s argument was that ‘can’ simply meant that someone could do something physically. So, of course, it is always physically possible to remove a turban. However, the religious, conscientious, cultural, psychological dimensions of behaviour are thereby ignored. If the Race Relations Act is to have any impact, it cannot be the object of such simplistic interpretation. Lord Fraser stated that ‘can’ does not merely mean ‘can physically comply’. ‘Can’ means ‘can comply’ in practice, given the constraints of ethnic origin. If restrictive interpretations were to be placed on a word as seemingly innocent as ‘can’, it would be possible to undermine the entire purpose of the Act. Herein lies the power of the interpreter of language which, at root, will always remain flexible. 4.8.5 The meaning of the word ‘justifiable’ in s1(1)(b)(ii) Sub-paragraph (ii) of sub-s (b) in s 1 maintains that a condition is discriminatory if it cannot be justified on grounds other than race. The school argued that it
There is a major difference between saying • (i) or (ii); and saying • (i) and (ii). However, as has been mentioned above, students often do not read the connectors ‘and’, ‘if’, ‘but’. Now consider the connectors between sections, sub-sections, paragraphs and sub-paragraphs in Figure 5.1, above. The following pattern is obtained: s 1 (1) …if (a) …or (b) …but (i) …and (ii) …and (iii) is… What can be ascertained from this seemingly abstract pattern? • Something in s1(1) will be the case if something in para (a) or (b) is the case. • Paragraph (b) is tied to sub-paras (i), (ii), and (iii) by the connector ‘but’. • Sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) are all tied together by the two connectors ‘and’ which occur at the end of sub-paras (i) and (ii). After the study of s 1, both in terms of connectors and substance, it is appropriate to return to the discussion of the meaning of the words ‘can’ and ‘justifiable’, which were the subject of deliberations in the House of Lords. Recall, we have only been considering the judgment of Lord Fraser. 4.8.4 The meaning of the word ‘can’ in s1(1)(b)(i) The school’s argument was that ‘can’ simply meant that someone could do something physically. So, of course, it is always physically possible to remove a turban. However, the religious, conscientious, cultural, psychological dimensions of behaviour are thereby ignored. If the Race Relations Act is to have any impact, it cannot be the object of such simplistic interpretation. Lord Fraser stated that ‘can’ does not merely mean ‘can physically comply’. ‘Can’ means ‘can comply’ in practice, given the constraints of ethnic origin. If restrictive interpretations were to be placed on a word as seemingly innocent as ‘can’, it would be possible to undermine the entire purpose of the Act. Herein lies the power of the interpreter of language which, at root, will always remain flexible. 4.8.5 The meaning of the word ‘justifiable’ in s1(1)(b)(ii) Sub-paragraph (ii) of sub-s (b) in s 1 maintains that a condition is discriminatory if it cannot be justified on grounds other than race. The school argued that it
ABSTRACT
What can be ascertained from this seemingly abstract pattern? • Something in s 1(1) will be the case if something in para (a) or (b) is the case. • Paragraph (b) is tied to sub-paras (i), (ii), and (iii) by the connector ‘but’. • Sub-paragraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) are all tied together by the two connectors ‘and’
which occur at the end of sub-paras (i) and (ii). After the study of s 1, both in terms of connectors and substance, it is appropriate to return to the discussion of the meaning of the words ‘can’ and ‘justifiable’, which were the subject of deliberations in the House of Lords. Recall, we have only been considering the judgment of Lord Fraser.
