An interesting case arose recently in Canada Av Singh, a British Sikh, was fired from a Canadian company because his beard raised safety concerns relating to the proper use of a required gas mask.
Removing the beard is against his religious beliefs, so Singh refused the razor and instead hired a human-rights lawyer. [link]
The point that has raised controversy is the length of his beard- about 5 mm (pictured on the right). The objection has been raised by some that he isn’t entitled to protection, becuase he doesn’t keep a full beard.
Now, if this guy is just using religion as an excuse because it’s convenient, then this case is not so hard- religious protection for convenience de-legitimizes real cases of religious discrimination for people that are truly trying to follow and practice the faith. Maybe it won’t be too hard to figure out whether this guy is sincere or not (but maybe it will). But my concern, and the tension, in my eyes, is - where do we draw the line?
I don’t want to underestimate the importance of the physical appearance of a Sikh. But is anyone who doesn’t completely follow the Rehat undeserving of religious protection? Under that definition, there are few real Sikhs in the world, and many that are trying to follow the path want protection against discrimination at airports and on the streets. Why should protection for physical appearance be given over internal belief- just because it’s easier to discern?
The relevant Canadian standard was set forth in Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem which says (as quoted in the Multani case (kid fighting for right to wear a kirpan to school in Montreal)):
“The fact that different people practise the same religion in different ways does not affect the validity of the case of a person alleging that his or her freedom of religion has been infringed. What an individual must do is show that he or she sincerely believes that a certain belief or practice is required by his or her religion. The religious belief must be asserted in good faith and must not be fictitious, capricious or an artifice (Amselem, at para. 52). In assessing the sincerity of the belief, a court must take into account, inter alia, the credibility of the testimony of the person asserting the particular belief and the consistency of the belief with his or her other current religious practices (Amselem, at para. 53).†(Thanks P. Singh!)
An American case that might be on point:
“…litigated in New York City during the 1970’s or 1980’s 2001 concerning a Muslim waiter at a high end hotel. The hotel’s employees were required to dress in uniform, be well groomed, and be clean shaven. Upon his hiring, the waiter complied with these rules. But when he refused to regularly shave, sometimes coming in with stubble, sometimes not, he was fired. He sued, claiming religious discrimination. During the course of the litigation, he shaved once again. Islam is a widely recognized religion, so that wasn’t at issue. Rather, the court was tasked with the delicate proposition of determining whether the waiter was exercising genuinely held religious beliefs, and thus warranting protection from religious discrimination. Ultimately, it rejected his claims, relying in part on his lack of consistency in practicing Islam as it relates to maintaining a beard. He chose when he would shave and when he wouldn’t and cited religion when he was challenged.†(source: sizzle)
Now some might think, as sizzle does, that “the only guiding principle for the courts are the tenants of Sikhi, which mandate unshorn hair, unshorn beard and the turban. Even a more lenient standard would require a semblance of the symbols, a turban and a genuine, consistently maintained trimmed beard.â€
But why these tenets and not others? If someone keeps the physical appearance, but drinks, what makes him/her more entitled to protection than someone who doesn’t keep his/her hair, but wants to one day and follows other internal tenets more closely than many keshdaris?
TheLangarHall.com - Posted by Reema | Thursday, July 10, 2008