Another Example Of British Legal System Working Against Sikhs

[West London Singh]

Dr Inderjit Singh does have a point in that case that you highlighted. If handling meat as and when required if it stated on the job duties spec when he signed the contract for employment then he was in the wrong. Handling meat is based upon his own religious and moral grounds not on Sikhi's views as this issue is not clear cut. Gurbani gives philosophical advice and guidance whether one should eat meat or not. So its a personal choice what a Sikh does in regards to meat. A Sikh being different to a Khalsa (amritdhari Sikh). So when the complexities are all added together we can see why the judges are coming to conclusion on things out of their remit, they are not scholars of theology so should be advised to stay out of such matters.

I agree genie...he does have a point as such but......I would have hoped he was intelligent enough to know the far reaching consequences of his views in that case. You see, the thing about Employment Law...and our place as Sikhs within it...is that it does not look at what the actual religious requirements of Sikhs are. In law it simply boils down to whether or not a significant number of sikhs do so or not. Thus....the precedence that Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council has set is that even if an Amritdhari Sikh is disciplined at work for not joining in with the staff party down the pub, he will lose because "a significant section of sikhs" do go to pubs and do drink. Dr Inderjit's testimony in this case has set a very very dangerous precedent. I don't think UK Sikhs actually realise how dangerous it is. Let me put in another way : If you, an amritdhari sikh find yourself bringing an employment law case you need to know that you will not be judged on what you, or Sant Bhindrawale, or any other amritdhari sikh should and could do. Instead, you will be judged on what Jazzy B, Sonia Deol or Harpsy from Heston does. If they and their lifestyles are the common lifestyles of sikhs up and down the country......you will be ajudged to be able to follow that lifestyle too....thus it would not be deemed unreasonable for the employer to force you to do so. This is very dangerous territory as far as true sikh values are concerned, in the eyes of the law.

[gurdssingh]

This is going off topic, but WSL the case you highlighted is regards to touching dead animal products NOT consuming. I'm sure it's ok to touch dead animals as many amritdharis wear leather shoes or other garments / wallet/ handbag and sit on leather chairs also just look at musical instruments such as tabla. The person should have known his duties before signing the contract. If changes were made he could have refused and it would not have gone to court.

A friend of mine manages a warehouse for a large supermarket, recently a load of muslims refused to touch alcoholic products, however, they were made aware this was part off their duties prior to them starting and signing their contracts. They made a big deal about it and refused. When they were told they were aware of their duties and had no problem with it when they started and then all of a sudden they think they can't, well the option is to do it or you can leave the job, as in cases were it can be avoided they will accomadated but theres no guarantee. They changed their tune once they knew if they don't want to then they will lose their jobs. As they were asked before starting if there is anything they cant do or touch.

Also what is meant by cleaning other staff's meat products in the fridge. Surely they are in pack lunch boxes, the meat doesn't need to cleaned? It must be empting the fridge and cleaning it and putting the stuff back right? Or is it raw meat that needs to cleaned and washed, it makes no sense?

[genie]

How is this case (highlighted in the 1st post) different to this recent one where a grandmother who died did not want her grand daughter getting a penny after she died.

http://www.telegraph...ing-in-sin.html

i dont understand how the greedy daughter was allowed to over rule the will of her late father when it was his will and testimony for his estate to go to his sons

[singher23]

If i had daughters I would give the equal share too however if they got married and alot of money was spent on their dowry and wedding you have to take and bear that in mind when you making a will. Raising a daughter until she works for herself far exceeds to that of raising a son of similar condition, especially in the western world where you have issues of jewellery, menstruation pads, makeup, beauty products/ treatments, fashion, etc

Your sons are going to carry on your surname and your genes your daughter will be married off to anothers familiy who have a duty to treat her as their own daughter and give her what she requires.

You show a lack of understanding not only about Sikhi, but genetics.

The whole reason Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave women the last name "Kaur" was so that they would not be considered "part of her husband", but her own person. So she would not have to take on the last name. Family names mean nothing in Sikhi. We are all family.

Secondly, you did not get all your genes from your father. Half is from your dad and half from your mom. So the son doesn't pass on the fathers genes alone. It is equal

[genie]

You show a lack of understanding not only about Sikhi, but genetics.

The whole reason Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji gave women the last name "Kaur" was so that they would not be considered "part of her husband", but her own person. So she would not have to take on the last name. Family names mean nothing in Sikhi. We are all family.

Secondly, you did not get all your genes from your father. Half is from your dad and half from your mom. So the son doesn't pass on the fathers genes alone. It is equal

I think you havent read the thread or understood my post properly. If your a Khalsa then yes that applies what you said if your not then when your daughter is married off to another family your lineage and surname ends there. However your sons will carry on your surname and lineage to the next generation when they marry and have kids with their wives.

Any how i'm not interested that line of debate i'm interested in how the British justice system is able to overrule the wishes of a deceased person's will that his/her inheritance goes to specific people and not to another.

[singh135]

I agree genie...he does have a point as such but......I would have hoped he was intelligent enough to know the far reaching consequences of his views in that case. You see, the thing about Employment Law...and our place as Sikhs within it...is that it does not look at what the actual religious requirements of Sikhs are. In law it simply boils down to whether or not a significant number of sikhs do so or not. Thus....the precedence that Chatwal v Wandsworth Borough Council has set is that even if an Amritdhari Sikh is disciplined at work for not joining in with the staff party down the pub, he will lose because "a significant section of sikhs" do go to pubs and do drink. Dr Inderjit's testimony in this case has set a very very dangerous precedent. I don't think UK Sikhs actually realise how dangerous it is. Let me put in another way : If you, an amritdhari sikh find yourself bringing an employment law case you need to know that you will not be judged on what you, or Sant Bhindrawale, or any other amritdhari sikh should and could do. Instead, you will be judged on what Jazzy B, Sonia Deol or Harpsy from Heston does. If they and their lifestyles are the common lifestyles of sikhs up and down the country......you will be ajudged to be able to follow that lifestyle too....thus it would not be deemed unreasonable for the employer to force you to do so. This is very dangerous territory as far as true sikh values are concerned, in the eyes of the law.

well said

[Harpal]

Just to let you know, handling of meat/cleaning the fridge was introduced over 4 years of his employment..... it was not in his contract nor mentioned to him at his interview. He worked in an Office of a local council and not in Tesco's or a butcher hence the need to touch/handle meat would come into question...

Lord (Dr) Inderjit Singh, after the initial court case, did go and give Mr Chatwal a hug and stated he wasnt aware of what happened to Mr Chatwal and being a Singh affected him at work he was apologetic

Now, the court hearing is set for the first week of April in Central London, let see what happens here.

How do I know all of this stuff.... I am Mr Chatwal

[West London Singh]

Just to let you know, handling of meat/cleaning the fridge was introduced over 4 years of his employment..... it was not in his contract nor mentioned to him at his interview. He worked in an Office of a local council and not in Tesco's or a butcher hence the need to touch/handle meat would come into question...

Lord (Dr) Inderjit Singh, after the initial court case, did go and give Mr Chatwal a hug and stated he wasnt aware of what happened to Mr Chatwal and being a Singh affected him at work he was apologetic

Now, the court hearing is set for the first week of April in Central London, let see what happens here.

How do I know all of this stuff.... I am Mr Chatwal

Mr Chatwal himself. Welcome to this forum brother. Regarding your first paragraph, I was well aware of the facts after reading the entire judgment via westlaw, hence what I stated in my earlier posts.

Regarding your second paragraph, one could say I have been proved right (and this was even before Inderjit Singh was given the title of 'Lord' by queenie). As I stated in my post a long long time ago, Inderjit Singh, who makes a damn good living as the resident 'expert' to be called into court for all things 'sikh' related.....should have been savvy enough, and streetwide enough, and possessed enough common sense knowledge of labour law to know where the line of questioing at the employment tribunal was heading.

Regarding your third paragraph, I had no idea your (our) case was going to the Appeal. At this point you haven't made it clear whether its going to the EAT or the Court of Appeal but either way I hope you have enough funding and not only do I salute you for continuing with the fight that you're fighting on behalf of us all but I wish you all the best.

Regarding your last and final paragraph.... :wow: I am sorry Sardar Chatwal. Unfortunately you are on the sikhsangat forum. This forum is on its last legs. I tried my best to educate my brothers and sisters here as to how important your case was on behalf of us all. As you can see from this thread, it drew no response. Sant Bhindranwale tried so hard and suceeded in bringing jago to the sleeping sikh masses. I'm no bhindrawale....i'm not ven worthy to tie the laces on his uncles best friends shoes....but, as you can see on this thread, I tried my best, to no avail. The irony of course, is that during the time that my messages on the importance of your case have been ignored in this thread, your case has been the subject of undergraduate Law students in Holland, France etc and equal opportunity academics from Aukland to Canberra. Landmark case, as far as Sikhi is concerned, in the same vein as 'Mandla'. Don't feel offended bruvs, but the average sikh here ain't even heard of mandla so there is little chance they would have any understanding of your case and the significance to them and their children.

I did what I could. i'm sorry it was hardly enough. God speed on the appeal brother. God speed.