Jatinder Singh, from Smethwick, was summoned to serve as a juror at Birmingham Crown Court on Monday
But, he said, a security guard refused him entry at the court over his kirpan, the sword carried by all Sikhs.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said Mr Singh was released from his duties as there was a surplus of required jurors.
Meanwhile, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has apologised to Mr Singh.
Khalsa Sikhs carry the five Ks with them at all times, as a symbol of their faith.
These include Kesh or uncut hair; Kara which is a a steel bracelet; the Kanga, a wooden comb; Kacca or cotton underwear and the Kirpan
Mr Singh, who has served as president at Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Smethwick and as secretary general of the Sikh Council UK, said this was the second time he has been summoned for jury service, the first passing with no issue.
On this occasion, he entered the morning session with no problems, but when he tried to return to the court after lunch was pulled aside by a security guard and told he could not go in.
“The security guard said I could take [my kirpan] off and leave it with him and collect it at the end of the day,” he said.
"I felt like a child who has gone to school and taken something they shouldn’t and had it confiscated.
“To have that happen to me, I felt embarrassed, I felt discriminated against, I didn’t expect it to happen to me.”
He called for the (MoJ) to work with Sikh and other religious organisations to create easily accessible guidelines that can be provided to staff.
Dabinderjit Singh, the principal adviser to the Sikh Federation UK said it had written to Justice Minister Alex Chalk asking him to condemn the treatment of Mr Singh.
The MoJ said members of the Sikh community wishing to enter a court building could bring in a Kirpan which was not more than six inches long (15cm) and with a blade no more than five inches (12cm) in length - which Mr Singh said his was.
A spokesperson for HMCTS added: “We have apologised to Mr Singh for any distress caused and have reminded our contracted security officers of the correct steps to take to prevent this incident from happening again.”
“This is my emotional support sword”
I mean Sikhs have a special dispensation in law explicitly to carry the kirpan to court. It does suck for someone to have a specific law saying “you can definitely do this in this place” and have a rent-a-cop claim his personal decision is more important than the law of the country and a lifetime of religion and culture.
Especially as most kids learn about the 5 K of Sikhism in school.
I’ve been out of education (both as a student and educator) for nearly a decade now, but a quick Google tells me that NATRE, AREIAC, AULRE, SACRE and the REC all recommend education on Christianity, Baha’iism, Hinduism, Jainism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and Humanism but YMMV by teacher, school, LEA, your personal attendance etc.
Where do kids learn about Sikhism in school? Definitely not here in the states.
It’s actually an important part of their religious and cultural practices, and according to the article it appears that this man did follow the restrictions placed on these ceremonial blades by the court, so he should not have been denied entry.
It’s actually an important part of their religious and cultural practices
that should -imho- never be relevant. Religions shouldn’t have any more legal meaning than a book club. but here we are.
I tend to agree, but the place to start isn’t by targeting minority religions.
I thought it was pretyt well understood that Sikhs carry these. I’m surprised the security guard hadn’t been properly briefed.
Maybe in the UK, as an American I didn’t even know Sikhs existed until I was 20 and met one while trying to move to a city. I didn’t even know about the 5 Ks until today at 30, I thought the turban and suit/vest thing they wear were then major religious adornments. Then again the only Sikh I see regularly is the Canadian politician Jagmeet Singh
This is an interesting problem. On the one hand, the rules were clearly defined and he followed them. On the other, I feel that religious exemptions are a slippery slope that could enable poor behavior. Though his behavior was not poor, others could use that as an opportunity to act poorly.
Ideally I’d love a policy that meets our needs when applied uniformly, but in this case I don’t see an alternative to individual review of religious exemption requests. But who reviews the reviewers? It is a laborious bootstrap problem and would ultimately need a certifying body like we have NIST for measurement standards.
MFW Americans realise this is how they get to carry guns into schools.
The Mandalorians are going to have a field day with this one
