HINDU COMMUNITIES SHOCKED BY JUDGES RULING
(6 August 2004)

The Hindu community in the UK were shocked to learn from three of the most senior judges last week that a Hindu could not be offended if their actions were compared to punishment in the Islamic Shariah law, even if such comparison was made in a derogatory tone. In the long standing dispute between the Law Society and its former Vice President Kamlesh Bahl, Lord Justices Gibson, Latham and Kay of the Court of Appeal on 30th July 2004 decried that Dr Bahl could not be offended by an earlier statement by Mrs Betts that the Employment Tribunal had found to be racist.

While describing an altercation between Dr Bahl and a member of staff, Russell Wallman, Betts described Dr Bahl's behaviour as if "it was confrontational and it felt as if there was a culprit going to be found and blame was going to be apportioned and hands were going to be chopped off."

The Court ruled that this did 'not indicate racism or display racial overtones in relation to a black Asian Hindu'. The Court ignored the comments of Dr Bahl's barrister that racists do not distinguish between Hindus and Muslims when they call all Asians by the denigrating term, 'Paki'.

Sarosh Zaiwalla Chairman of BOPIO said "The Court of Appeal decision has sent shock waves in the ethnic minority communities and is a setback for race relations in the UK".

Anil Bhanot, General Secretary of the Hindu Council UK said " We cannot understand how the second highest law court could issue such an edict in contradiction to the very concept of good race relations in the UK. Particular racial comments have been interpreted through a narrow band of intellectual context rather than by reference to the real world, i.e., to twist the facts to what would suit the decision required. This novel approach means that we need not one law for all but a different one for each individual. It is sad that such eminent judges who found themselves in some embarrassing situation had to resort to such tactics. The argument, put simply, does not hold water, even on intellectual grounds and seems a shoddy attempt to save one's face."

Commenting on the absurdity of the ruling, Ishwer Tailor MBE, President of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said, "It is very clear that any statement referring to the chopping of hands would be related in some way to Shariah Law. We find it incredible that this could not be construed as offensive to a Hindu, even if it was made out of context. This clearly demonstrates the immediate need for targeted education and diversity training for the judiciary in understanding and appreciating cultural and religious diversity. Institutionalised racism in its many forms, cannot be accepted nor tolerated by anyone in modern day Britain."

Dr Indarjit Singh, Director Network of Sikh Organisations said, " I am astounded and appalled that the Court of Appeal found nothing racist in a remark made by a white person that when confronting a woman of Asian origin, she felt ' blame was to be apportioned and 'hands chopped off'. Racists do not make a fine study of religion and culture before using racist language or indulging in often violent racist behaviour. The trigger for racist behaviour is colour and appearance.

When people call Sikhs 'Paki', they do so to offend on a racist way. It is absurd to say that one should not take offence because one does not come from Pakistan. It is deeply disturbing that such an attitude that defies common sense should come from those that are supposed to protect society from racist behaviour. Are we to assume after this judgment, that calling Sikhs 'Bin Laden', does not constitute racist behaviour? Are we to assume that there was no racist motivation in the murder of Sikhs in the USA following 9/11 ?"

The Court of Appeal refused Dr Bahl's appeal to have her original Employment Tribunal decision reinstated. The original decision of the Watford Tribunal had upheld her charges of race and sex discrimination against the former President of the Law Society Robert Sayer and the former Secretary General Jane Betts. The Society had been found to be vicariously culpable.

Appeals by both sides to the Employment Appeal Tribunal last year saw the original decision quashed with no findings upheld against the two individuals or the Law Society.

In making the large award the three Court of Appeal judges had heard earlier from Dr Bahl and her Counsel Satvinder Juss that she had no paid employment and had earlier been hospitalised because of depression. Despite this the court in its decision for the payment of £137,500 to be made within 28 days referred to the sum as "modest."

In a further blow to Bahl the Court of Appeal refused her permission to appeal to the House of Lords. In making the award against her the court had been told by Bahl's counsel that the award was likely to "cripple" her ability to seek further justice and be punitive.

The judgement goes in the face of the award to Kamlesh Bahl who had been voted Asian Woman of the Year by the Asian Guild last month and presented with the honour at the Guilds annual ceremony in the presence of successful business people, politicians and community leaders.

At the Awards ceremony, Lord Dholakia said, "Kamlesh's fight is the whole community's fight. The Award recognises her strength and courage in this battle and shows that the whole community supports her in her fight".

Top