Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Having defined ethnic origin, the next task was to apply that definition to Sikhs to consider whether they could be said to be ‘people defined…by reference to… ethnic origins’. Lord Denning launched into a potted and largely inaccurate history of the word ‘Sikh’ and the people who follow the teaching of Guru Nanak. Again, in a subjective and arbitrary manner, Lord Denning decided that: (a) Sikhs can only be distinguished by religion, and therefore (b) they are not defined by ‘ethnic origins’, and therefore (c) they are not a racial group, and therefore (d) it is not illegal to discriminate against Sikhs. Lord Denning’s entire reasoning process rests on dictionary definitions and homespun inaccurate conclusions. He went on to criticise the CRE for bringing the case, stating that schools should not be interfered with when they properly manage their affairs. Oliver LJ in the same court said that the dictionary shows ‘ethnic’ to be a vague word and he doubts whether only the most general assistance can be obtained from dictionaries. Can one discern a community in a loose sense among Sikhs, he asked rhetorically? Without providing evidence, he says no, customs among Sikhs are so disparate they cannot be said to be members of an ethnic group. However, the essence of the discrimination legislation is that the ‘man in the street’ is the one to discriminate. The court concluded that Sikhs were not an ethnic group. The CRE appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal. The House of Lords found that, to be an ethnic group, a group must be regarded by itself and others as a distinct community with, for instance, a shared culture, history, language, common descent or geography, customs, religion. Not all of these factors need be present. The main judgment given was by Lord Fraser. He discussed the views of Lord Denning and Oliver LJ in the Court of Appeal. He dispensed with the dictionary arguments and the suggestion that ethnic denotes race by saying, in favour of a teleological approach:
DOI link for Having defined ethnic origin, the next task was to apply that definition to Sikhs to consider whether they could be said to be ‘people defined…by reference to… ethnic origins’. Lord Denning launched into a potted and largely inaccurate history of the word ‘Sikh’ and the people who follow the teaching of Guru Nanak. Again, in a subjective and arbitrary manner, Lord Denning decided that: (a) Sikhs can only be distinguished by religion, and therefore (b) they are not defined by ‘ethnic origins’, and therefore (c) they are not a racial group, and therefore (d) it is not illegal to discriminate against Sikhs. Lord Denning’s entire reasoning process rests on dictionary definitions and homespun inaccurate conclusions. He went on to criticise the CRE for bringing the case, stating that schools should not be interfered with when they properly manage their affairs. Oliver LJ in the same court said that the dictionary shows ‘ethnic’ to be a vague word and he doubts whether only the most general assistance can be obtained from dictionaries. Can one discern a community in a loose sense among Sikhs, he asked rhetorically? Without providing evidence, he says no, customs among Sikhs are so disparate they cannot be said to be members of an ethnic group. However, the essence of the discrimination legislation is that the ‘man in the street’ is the one to discriminate. The court concluded that Sikhs were not an ethnic group. The CRE appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal. The House of Lords found that, to be an ethnic group, a group must be regarded by itself and others as a distinct community with, for instance, a shared culture, history, language, common descent or geography, customs, religion. Not all of these factors need be present. The main judgment given was by Lord Fraser. He discussed the views of Lord Denning and Oliver LJ in the Court of Appeal. He dispensed with the dictionary arguments and the suggestion that ethnic denotes race by saying, in favour of a teleological approach:
Having defined ethnic origin, the next task was to apply that definition to Sikhs to consider whether they could be said to be ‘people defined…by reference to… ethnic origins’. Lord Denning launched into a potted and largely inaccurate history of the word ‘Sikh’ and the people who follow the teaching of Guru Nanak. Again, in a subjective and arbitrary manner, Lord Denning decided that: (a) Sikhs can only be distinguished by religion, and therefore (b) they are not defined by ‘ethnic origins’, and therefore (c) they are not a racial group, and therefore (d) it is not illegal to discriminate against Sikhs. Lord Denning’s entire reasoning process rests on dictionary definitions and homespun inaccurate conclusions. He went on to criticise the CRE for bringing the case, stating that schools should not be interfered with when they properly manage their affairs. Oliver LJ in the same court said that the dictionary shows ‘ethnic’ to be a vague word and he doubts whether only the most general assistance can be obtained from dictionaries. Can one discern a community in a loose sense among Sikhs, he asked rhetorically? Without providing evidence, he says no, customs among Sikhs are so disparate they cannot be said to be members of an ethnic group. However, the essence of the discrimination legislation is that the ‘man in the street’ is the one to discriminate. The court concluded that Sikhs were not an ethnic group. The CRE appealed to the House of Lords. The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal. The House of Lords found that, to be an ethnic group, a group must be regarded by itself and others as a distinct community with, for instance, a shared culture, history, language, common descent or geography, customs, religion. Not all of these factors need be present. The main judgment given was by Lord Fraser. He discussed the views of Lord Denning and Oliver LJ in the Court of Appeal. He dispensed with the dictionary arguments and the suggestion that ethnic denotes race by saying, in favour of a teleological approach:
ABSTRACT
Having defined ethnic origin, the next task was to apply that definition to Sikhs to consider whether they could be said to be ‘people defined…by reference to… ethnic origins’.
Lord Denning launched into a potted and largely inaccurate history of the word ‘Sikh’ and the people who follow the teaching of Guru Nanak. Again, in a subjective and arbitrary manner, Lord Denning decided that:
(a) Sikhs can only be distinguished by religion, and therefore (b) they are not defined by ‘ethnic origins’, and therefore (c) they are not a racial group, and therefore (d) it is not illegal to discriminate against Sikhs.
