Is marriage rejection on the basis of caste a criminal offence? I am a Brahmin and my girlfriend is Schedule caste, and my parents are denying our marriage because of caste. Will it be considered a criminal offence under Indian caste discrimination law, if any?
The applicable law of India is The Scheduled Castes And the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 plus the 2015 amendment. There are various prohibited acts, the majority of which are already crimes, such as numerous kinds of assault, trespass, unlawful eviction, also including knowingly making obscene gestures at a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. It also includes social and economic boycotts, to some extent (as a means of preventing such a person from voting). Parents can freely refuse to sanction / support the marriage of whoever they chose, but they cannot forcibly interfere, for instance by kidnapping one of the participants.
england-and-wales Q: Is it an offence if the target of racism only appears to be of/from a different race, colour or national or ethnic origin? Yes Q: If someone carries out an alleged act of racial discrimination / intimidation / abuse (verbal or physical) against someone they believe to be a target person, would it be a defence (or would it not be an offence), if it turns out that the other party was not actually a target person, but just gave the appearance of being a target person? No Short answer: The victim's actual, or perceived, race is not important in this context - it's the actions and intent of the offender that creates the various offences which carry a higher sentence due to the racist element being an &quot;Aggravating Factor&quot; Long answer: (Just in the context of race-related &quot;hate crimes&quot;) DISCRIMINATION falls within the Equality Act 2010 which primarily relates to unlawful discrimination within employment, or the provision of goods or services on the grounds of a person's protected characteristics defined by s.4: The following characteristics are protected characteristics — ... race ... s.13 creates the offence: (1) A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others. ... (5) If the protected characteristic is race, less favourable treatment includes segregating B from others ... s.26 of the 2010 Act also creates an offence of harrassment (although it is primarily concerned with unwanted and unwarranted sexual advances it is not exclusively so): (1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if — (a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and (b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of— (i) violating B's dignity, or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B. ... (5) The relevant protected characteristics are — ... race RACIALLY AGGRAVATED OFFENCES are created by s.28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and carry are greater maximum sentence than the equivalent non-aggravated offences: An offence is racially ... aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if — (a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial ... group ... s.29 relates to certain assaults under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.30 relates to certain offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971 s.31 relates certain to offences under the Public Order Act 1986 s.32 relates to certain offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 OTHER OFFENCES fall within s.145 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which captures those not dealt with by the 1998 Act and requires the court to, for example, impose a sentence greater than it would for a comparable offence that lacks a racist element: (1) This section applies where a court is considering the seriousness of an offence other than one under sections 29 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ... (2) If the offence was racially or religiously aggravated, the court— (a) must treat that fact as an aggravating factor ...
The relevant bit of legislation — Human Rights Act 1993 s22 — protects applicants and employees: Where an applicant for employment or an employee is qualified for work of any description, it shall be unlawful .. to refuse ... offer .. terminate ... retire ... by reason of any of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. So, if you never advertise but always invite people (i.e. offer them job straight away) then there are no applicants (as at no point does anybody apply for the job), and hence no employment discrimination. If you invite them for a "non-discriminatory screening interview" then there is no discrimination by definition of "non-discriminatory" :) behavioural / relational / mental / spiritual I'm pretty sure these criteria would be discriminatory in a advertised position. None of those criteria are prohibited grounds of discrimination (s21). However, it would be a good idea to clearly define them as "a genuine occupational qualification for the position" by drafting a job description and explaining why those traits are crucial for the business.
The answer is a clear maybe. See https://www.gov.uk/discrimination-your-rights/types-of-discrimination Discriminating on the basis of sex is illegal, however, applying different rules on uniforms is probably not discrimination under the law. To be discriminatory it must put the class of person at an unfair disadvantage, be harassment or victimisation. You would have to demonstrate that refusing to allow females to wear trousers puts them at an unfair disadvantage (and vice versa because these are separate discriminations) - victimisation is not an issue here, harassment might be but it would have to be actually happening. You should look at things like comfort, practicality, sports, play etc.; the problem is that the better your argument for girls the worse it is for boys.&#128531; The steps you can take are spelled out in the link, starting with communicating with the organisation. So marshal your arguments and write them a letter and then move on to mediation. At the very least you should get an insight into why they oppose your position. If you deal constructively with their concerns you may get what you want.
Article 8 is pretty clear. The fact that it is recommended to extend the draft to women indicates that there is a conflict needing resolution. A relevant case before the European Court of Human Rights ruled on this and found the law to violate articles 14 and 8 of the ECHR. They identify an exoneration from the tax under the Military-Service Exemption Tax Act sect. 4. Reading the judgment could be helpful (maybe you know the case). What I get from it is that there are a bunch of situation-specific details that could be applied (e.g. you have to first complain formally in-country before going to ECHR), and issues of disability level and the distinction between disability and illness. This gives a model for anyone to attempt to resist the tax, but only a change in the law will get rid of it.
canada You have tagged this 'criminal law', so I will stick to that, and avoid non-criminal anti-discrimination regimes. Criminal Code, s. 319 makes it an offence to wilfully incite or promote hatred against an identifiable group. It does not matter whether the person that is being communicated to is a member of the identifiable group (meaning &quot;any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin&quot;). What matters is a strict mens rea requirement that the communication was done with the intent of promoting or inciting hatred against such a group. If the accused holds such intent, it is no defence that they mistook the person they were communicating with as not being a member of such a group. See generally, R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 SCR 697. Hypothetical laws If instead you are asking about what a hypothetical law could require (since you ask, &quot;If a law for example criminalises intimidating or assaulting someone who suffers from dwarfism...&quot;), then as a matter of statutory interpretation, the law could be written in a way that makes the mistake you describe a defence or it could be written in a way that does not allow that defence. E.g. &quot;Any person who assaults another, knowing that the other person is X, commits an offence...&quot; This phrasing of the law clearly would require the accused to know that the person they have assaulted is in the category X in order for the assault to fall within this specific variant of assault. E.g. &quot;Any person who assaults a person that is X, regardless of whether they know the other person to be X, commits an offence...&quot; Under this phrasing of the law, knowledge of the status of the target of the assault clearly does not matter. However, Canadian law has constitutional minimum mens rea requirements for elements of crimes that bring risk of imprisonment. If the offence is punishable by imprisonment, then the variant that essentially removes the mens rea from the element relating to the target's status would be unconstitutional.
Yes. The charge in that case is solicitation of assault. Usually, solicitation of a crime carries the same punishment as the underlying crime. On the other hand, if a daughter tells her father what you did to her and he unilaterally decides to assault you, out of defense of his family's honor and outrage, the daughter has not committed a crime.
The law does not criminalize "having more than 1 legal spouse", it criminalizes specific behavior. The polygamy statute is here. It says Every one who (a) practises or enters into or in any manner agrees or consents to practise or enter into (i) any form of polygamy, or (ii) any kind of conjugal union with more than one person at the same time, whether or not it is by law recognized as a binding form of marriage, or (b) celebrates, assists or is a party to a rite, ceremony, contract or consent that purports to sanction a relationship mentioned in subparagraph (a)(i) or (ii), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. That is, if you behave like you're married to multiple women, you've committed a crime.