Development of Anti-Religious/Belief Discrimination Policy in the UK - Essay Example

Development of Anti-Religious/Belief Discrimination Policy in United Kingdom United Kingdom has been showing its commitment to adhere to the tenets of equality among men regardless of gender, religion, belief, age, race, and disability. In recent years, it became a platform of legislations aimed towards propagating anti-discrimination in the treatment of individuals at work, in schools, and in all other places where the government wants anti-discrimination heeded. With emphasis to religion or belief, United Kingdom sought the promulgation of laws intended to guard individuals and the denominations to which they are associated with, against disparaging, derogatory and other discriminatory treatments. So vast was the intent to uphold individuals’ religion or belief that it covered even those who do not subscribe to any at all as provided for by Section 44 (c and d), of the Equality Act of 2006. Similar to all other legislations, anti-religious/belief discrimination laws in United Kingdom still have a long route to follow when it comes to implementation and perfection of the provisions to ensure that these will afford enough protection to the intended subjects. United Kingdom, for about two centuries now, has been trying to address religious hate crimes. The Catholics’ fight for freedom from discrimination and civil restrictions culminated in the enactment of the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 (The Victorian Web, 2002). In 1976, Harold Wilson’s Labour government came up with a Race Relations Act which informally addressed discrimination on the ground of religion. The earlier Race Relations Act of 1965 and 1968 were both concerned with discrimination on racial grounds: the first, in public places and the second, in employment, housing and the provision of commercial and other services but without reference to a religious group as a racial group. Under the Race Relations Act of 1976, two forms of racial discrimination were provided, direct and indirect. There is direct racial discrimination when a person treats another person less favourably on racial grounds than he treats or would treat someone else. In this form of discrimination, the nature and effect of the action are to be considered instead of looking into the intention expressed by perpetrator. The indirect form of discrimination considered treatment which may be described as equal in a formal sense as between different racial groups although in effect one particular racial group is prejudiced (Fiddick, J & Hicks, J, 2000:7-8). The indirect form of discrimination was invoked in dealing with cases of religious discrimination although with proof of element of racial discrimination and that there was indeed intention on the part of the accused to discriminate (Thomson, 1999: 1). Under this law, courts held that the Jews and Sikhs are covered by the Act because they were viewed as racial groups (CIPD, 2003: 14). In the case of Mandla v. Dowell Lee (1983), the House of Lords overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal which refused to admit Sikhs as a racial group that falls under the coverage of the law. The case of a Sikh boy of school age whose father wanted to enrol him at Park Grove School without having to forego the Sikh custom of wearing a turban, the boy was refused admittance on a prima facie discriminatory ground that it was an outward manifestation of non-Christian faith in a Christian school that accepts pupils of all religions and races. In this case, the Sikhs were accepted as a distinctive and self-conscious community that has history dating back to the fifteenth century and may thus be defined by reference to ethnic origins for the purpose of the 1976 Act, although they are not biologically distinguishable from the other peoples living in the Punjab. On the other hand, under this law, the courts also held that Muslims and Rastafarians do not pass as ethnic groups (CIPD, 2003: 14). In the case of Azam vs. J.H. Walker Ltd (1995), the case for direct discrimination against the company for refusal to allow them to take a leave for the Eid, a Muslim religious holiday, was not established because it was decided that “the true nature of Islam is not within the Race Relation Act 1976." In that case, it was emphasized that it was not possible to treat Muslims both as a religious group and as an ethnic group although the indirect case of discrimination was upheld favouring the racial group originating from the Indian sub-continent, almost all of whom are Muslims. With the enactment of the Human Rights Act of 1998 by the European Convention on Human Rights and the subsequent promulgation of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 in United Kingdom, in adherence to equality directives of the European Union, religious discrimination became directly unlawful in UK. Although there were concerns regarding the real definition of “religion or belief”, which under the law is simply defined as any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief, Employment Equality Regulations 2003 is still a great leap towards equality in United Kingdom. It provided for four types of religious discrimination as compared to just two in the Race Relations Act. The forms of discrimination are direct, indirect, victimisation, and harassment. Discrimination is direct when on grounds of religion or belief, A treats B less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons. It is indirect, when on grounds of religion or belief, A applies to B a provision, criterion or practice which would disadvantage such person or other person. There is victimisation when on grounds of religion, A discriminates against another person if he treats B less favourably than other persons because the latter has taken action or assisting someone who has taken action under the regulations. Lastly, harassment is committed when on grounds of religion, A subjects another person B to harassment for the purpose or effect of  violating Bs dignity; or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. Unlike before when claims for religious or belief discrimination had to be filed under the guise of indirect racial discrimination which required proof of intent to discriminate and which may in turn be granted or not granted according to the court’s determination of whether a particular group can be considered a racial or ethnic group, claims for discrimination can be directly filed and proven easier by well-founded evidence that the acts complained of squarely falls within the ambit of Employment Equality Regulations 2003. In the case of St Matthias Church Of England School v Crizzle [1992], the claimant had to use discrimination against her racial group as basis for the complaint when it was, in fact, a religious discrimination case when she was excluded from the shortlist of applicants for the position because she was not a committed communicant Christian, or a practising one albeit she is a Roman Catholic. Today, the complainant only has to prove that he/she subscribes to a certain religious or philosophical belief to make his/her case worthy of attention as religious or belief discrimination. The Equality Act of 2006, Section 44, in fact, included in the definition of “religion,” any religion and “belief,” any religious or philosophical belief. The same provision emphasized that a reference to religion includes a reference to lack of religion, while a reference to belief includes a reference to lack of belief, thus, extending the coverage to almost all kinds of religious, non-religious, philosophical, and non-philosophical principle or conviction. The cases of Grainger vs. Nicholson (2009), and Power vs. Greater Manchester Police (2009) showed the recent revolution on the recognition of people’s right to religion or belief. The Appeal Tribunal sustained Mr. Nicholson when it decided that his belief on man-made climate change and the resulting moral imperatives is capable of protection under the Employment Equality Regulations of 2003. The case won by Mr. Power who claimed that he was dismissed because he believes that ghosts communicate with him and assist him in the conduct of criminal investigations was also another interpretation of the meaning of belief. While this may lead to the influx of cases of discrimination against people’s diverse beliefs, the courts are not without criteria in settling whether or not the belief is protected under the 2003 Regulations. Just the same, without a clear-cut definition of what religion or belief is, employers will be confused on which belief system is protected and not protected under the law. They will have to conduct in-depth investigation on how one’s belief affects his/her way of life, which in the end, still creates a positive outcome because employers will have no choice but to be vigilant in their respect for each and everyone’s religion or belief. Especially that section 22 of the Regulations 2003 provides that “anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of these Regulations as done by his employer as well as by him, whether or not it was done with the employers knowledge or approval,” employers are without recourse but to ensure that the working environment is friendly and respectful of each and everyone’s conviction. On the other hand, the absence of clear-cut definition on religion and religious belief resulted to outcries on decisions regarding Christians who were disallowed to wear crucifix at work because the same is not considered a required practice by Christian churches. This happened with the cases of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was disallowed to wear a cross outside her uniform, a practice which she had followed for the last 30 years and Nadia Eweida (Eweida v. British Airways 2009), who worked part-time for British Airways and was disallowed to wear the cross visibly, although both lost in the tribunals but with much media mileage which in fact made British airways amend its policy on the matter. This is in contrast with the Bushra Noah (Noah v Sarah Desrosier) case where the salon owner, who insisted that it is a basic requirement for clients to see the stylist’s hair, lost for refusing to hire a Muslim hairdresser who cannot take her headscarf off. With continuous clamour for the establishment of an advisory body to assess and accommodate each religious practice, customs and traditions, Employment Equality Regulations 2003 still prove commendable for stirring people’s awareness on their right to respect for their religion or belief. Individuals have become more confident when it comes to raising concerns regarding acts which they think offend their religious orientations although not without repercussions. Their unyielding stance to abide by what they believe are inconsistent with their religious views created adverse effects on their employment in the cases of Azmi v. Kirlees Metropolitan Borough Council (2009), Islington v. Ladele (2008) and McClintock v. Department of Constitutional Affairs (2007) but they stood firm. Azmi, despite several discussions and observations conducted to validate her claim that wearing her veil would not affect the efficiency of her literacy lessons stayed with her belief regarding discrimination. Ladele’s and McClintock’s claims were both rejected by the Employment Tribunal and the Appeal Tribunal which ruled that they are bound by their duties to perform their obligations as registrar and Justice of the Peace, respectively. Yearly statistics from the Tribunals Service from 2004 to 2009 showed a steady increase in the number of complaints on the ground of religion or belief, a result that is parallel to the aim of the regulations. The coverage of the Regulations from hiring up to post-employment has also provided a great deal of protection to workers. With this development, employees are protected even after the end of their employer-empoyee relationship such as the provision of references either written or verbal. A complaint under this law may be presented to an employment tribunal within 3 months following the commission of the unlawful act complained of. The burden of proof regarding the complaint shall pass on to the respondent once the complaint is proved to be well-founded. If a tribunal upholds a claim, it can 1) make a declaration regarding the rights of the complainant and respondent with respect to the unlawful discrimination; 2) award compensation amounting to damages which could have been awarded by county or sheriff if the case falls under their jurisdiction; and 3) recommend that an employer undertake practical steps to prevent or reduce the effects of the discriminatory act complained of (Section 30). Awareness of the employee regarding what constitutes discriminatory act will definitely have an effect regarding how fast a complaint regarding discrimination will be lodged before a tribunal. Employers are not without defence under Employment Equality Regulations of 2003. There are exemptions for the regulations using the “genuine occupational requirements.” They can prove that being from a particular religion is a basic requirement for the job. In addition, employers are provided opportunities to explain that the sanctions they administered on employees were valid and legitimate other than being purely religiously discriminatory in character. An example is the case of Stephen Copsey (2004) who was dismissed for obstinate refusal to work on Sundays despite the growing demands of the company. He was offered alternative positions and extended accommodations on this regard but he rejected the offers. When he was dismissed for refusal to accept the alternative accommodations being extended to him and his adamant stance in not working on Sundays, he filed a complaint under the new law and lost. With laws in place to protect workers from various forms of discrimination, a climate of an impressive friendly labour market will attract greater number of talented, intelligent and efficient workers of different orientations and nationalities to United Kingdom. While strict implementation of anti-discrimination laws could possibly have negative effects on investments whose investors almost always aim for savings on costs, procedures, and complications, on the other hand, this should serve as an impetus to the government to prove to investors that it’s increasingly becoming a bastion of an equal society has more advantages to offer them. With the recent enactment of Equality Act of 2010, it is hoped that clamours regarding the lack of unity of equality legislations in UK will be addressed. The government will just have to ensure that all laws are properly implemented so that individuals will imbibe the government’s sincerity into addressing discrimination problems. As in every problem, the will to change has to come from everyone concerned and should not be left alone for the government to tackle. WORKS CITED Ahmad Thomson, Religious Discrimination and the Law December 9, 1999. p 1. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, The Change Agenda, June 2003. pp. 5-6, 14. Employment Tribunals Service, Annual Reports 2004-2009. Jane Fiddick and Jose Hicks, The Race Relations Amendment Bill (A Research Paper) March 8, 2000. pp 7-8. The Victorian Web 2002. Catholic Emancipation. Available at [accessed April 28, 2010]. Unison Bargaining Support Group, Religious Discrimination April 2006, pp 1-2. BIBLIOGRAPHY Civil Rights Movement 2000-2010. Religious Discrimination. Available at [accessed Apil 29, 2010]. Paul Weller, Alice Feldman and Kingsley Purdam, Religious discrimination in England and Wales, February 2001. Read More