Birmingham council first to recognise Sikh and Jewish identity
Birmingham City Council is to become the first in England to recognise Sikh and Jewish identities when collecting data from residents.A motion tabled by Birmingham Labour group to change the way the information is collected in the future was carried at a full council meeting.Birmingham City Council questionnaires do not currently include the categories, despite the city having more than 30,000 Sikh residents and a 2,000-strong Jewish community.The Labour group said the historic move would help the council understand its communities better and tackle discrimination.
It added that while Sikhs and Jews had been legally recognised as ethnic groups for more than 40 years, data was not routinely collected by public bodies.The group argued Jewish and Sikh people were "rendered invisible" to policymakers by the omission.
The motion was brought by councillor Jamie Tennant and seconded by councillor Rinkal Shergill.Tennant said it showed Birmingham was "leading the country as a diverse and welcoming city" and he would lobby colleagues in other authorities to follow suit.Describing herself as "a proud Sikh woman who lived in Birmingham the last 34 years", Shergill said the change marked an important step forward.She pointed out the NHS did not classify Sikh and Jewish communities either, despite them being disproportionately affected by particular diseases and during the pandemic.
The motion was backed by Edgbaston MP Preet Gill, who previously raised the issue in Parliament."It is absurd that most public bodies don't include these groups in the equalities data they collect," she said. "I am delighted Birmingham City Council is taking action to put this right."It has also been supported by the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Sikh Federation (UK) and local gurdwaras, Tennant told the chamber.
This news was gathered by the Local Democracy Reporting Service, which covers councils and other public service organisations.
Follow BBC Birmingham on BBC Sounds, Facebook, X and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill risks unravelling Windsor Framework
As a former Solicitor General and Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, I am no stranger to the legal complexities that arise when Westminster legislation intersects with our post-Brexit arrangements in Northern Ireland. Yet even by those standards, the Tobacco and Vapes Bill now before Parliament represents an extraordinary and avoidable collision course with the law. Ministers have sheepishly suggested that the Bill does not affect trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. That is a surprising conclusion, and, in my view, a legally indefensible one. As someone who helped oversee the legal machinery of government, I can say this plainly: legislation that purports to apply across the UK but cannot lawfully operate in Northern Ireland is both constitutionally and legally incoherent. The problem is relatively straightforward. Under the Windsor Framework, Northern Ireland continues to follow key parts of EU law to maintain access to the EU Single Market for goods. One such law is the 2014 EU Tobacco Products Directive, which mandates that tobacco can be legally sold to adults aged 18 and over. The UK Bill proposes a generational ban, effectively criminalising the sale of tobacco to anyone born after 2008. The contradiction is obvious. If the Bill applies UK-wide, Northern Ireland will be out of step with EU law. If the Bill is not enforceable in Northern Ireland, then the UK's internal market will be fragmented. Either outcome exposes the UK to legal challenge and breaches the treaty obligations we signed only last year. The Windsor Framework is not merely political scaffolding; it is now part of an international treaty that carries direct effect in UK law. As I saw time and again during my tenure as Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, the unique legal position of Northern Ireland requires careful and nuanced handling. Blunt instruments like this Bill risk unravelling the hard-won gains of recent years. The legal risk is not hypothetical. The courts in Northern Ireland – in cases such as Dillon v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, have confirmed their power to dis-apply UK legislation that contravenes the Framework. The relevant test, long established, would be easily met here. The right to purchase legal goods, like tobacco, is an economic right protected under the Framework and the Good Friday Agreement. To remove that right in Northern Ireland, by domestic legislation that conflicts with EU law, would be a direct breach of both. It is simply inconceivable that such a law could stand in Northern Ireland without falling foul of the courts. I say this not as a political opponent of the Bill's objectives, (I actually voted in favour of the Bill in principle under the last government) but as a KC who has spent years navigating the legal thickets of post-Brexit Britain. The law matters. International obligations matter. Our constitutional order depends on Parliament respecting both. I have been greatly disappointed by the level of forensic legal rigour applied to the Bill that is required for it to get muscular enough to be considered remotely workable. The choice now before Parliament is not whether to press ahead with the generational ban. It is whether to press ahead lawfully. That cannot be done until the UK secures agreement through the UK–EU Joint Committee or expressly exempts Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Until then, the Government must pause this legislation. Anything less risks breaching international law, undermining the internal market, and inviting yet another avoidable constitutional crisis.
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Blow for Starmer as five EU countries oppose ‘one in, one out' migrant deal with France
Five EU countries have criticised a proposed 'one in, one out' migration deal between France and Britain, saying it could see asylum seekers returned to their shores instead. Sir Keir Starmer and French president Emmanuel Macron are working on an agreement that would reportedly see Britain return small boat migrants to France in exchange for asylum seekers with families ties in the UK. The precise terms of the deal are still being worked out but Italy, Spain, Greece, Malta and Cyprus have already sounded the alarm on the proposed plans. The Financial Times reported that the five nations have sent a letter to the European Commission objecting to the 'one in one out' policy. The letter reads: 'We take note - with a degree of surprise - of the reported intention of France to sign a bilateral readmission arrangement. If confirmed, such an initiative raises serious concerns for us, both procedurally and in terms of potential implications for other member states, particularly those of first entry'. The five nations have objected to the UK and France working on a deal separately to a whole EU-UK reset deal. Italy, Spain, Greece, Malta and Cyprus are often the first European countries that migrants who travel by irregular routes arrive at. They are reportedly concerned that France could use existing EU rules, which allow asylum seekers to be returned to the first country of entry, to pass on asylum seekers accepted from Britain. The letter continued: 'We believe it is essential to clarify whether the agreement may produce any direct or indirect consequences for other member states'. Mr Macron is due to visit London in early July and the UK-France deal was due to be unveiled at the summit.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Lord Hermer's denial of two-tier justice is a disgrace
This week, Lord Hermer was asked by the BBC about two-tier justice, the idea that the British state treats ethnic minorities more favourably than the white working class. This perception, so corrosive to faith in the rule of law, has become widespread since the crackdown on the Southport unrest last summer. Never one to read the public or political mood, Starmer's lawyer ally simply issued a blunt and contemptuous denial. Such claims are 'frankly disgusting', he said, and indeed 'offensive' to police, prosecutors and courts. He added that instead of criticising the British justice system, politicians 'need to get behind it, not seek to undermine it'. (Perhaps he should have a word with the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who earlier this year had to intervene to block sentencing guidelines which she herself labelled 'two-tier'.) It's a woefully tone-deaf performance, suggesting that Hermer doesn't even understand why the Government's response to the Southport unrest gave rise to charges of unfairness. He argued that people were wrong to compare the policing of London Gaza marches, often awash with anti-Semitism but 'not producing violence', with the Southport unrest, since this saw attacks against police officers. No one would say violent rioters shouldn't be treated robustly. But what Hermer ignores is the way the state dealt fiercely with white, working-class Southport rioters in a way it never does with more favoured groups. Just weeks before, when rioters in ultra-diverse Harehills, Leeds, overturned a police car and set a bus on fire, the police reportedly ran away. Meanwhile, days into the Southport unrest, when armed Muslim mobs formed supposedly in order to protect their local communities, the police let them have free rein. In Birmingham on August 5, the result was a pub being attacked, with a man outside it suffering a lacerated liver, amid other disorder. Even more than this double-standard though, it is the punitive crackdown on online speech that has caused there were many who found themselves charged and remanded in custody for social media posts, the most high-profile is Lucy Connolly, imprisoned for 31 months for a single nasty tweet (which she later deleted) on the night of the Southport murders. As the Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, Lord Hermer personally approved the prosecution of Mrs Connolly for stirring up racial hatred, despite having the constitutional power not to. Hermer has also declined to seek to review lenient sentences for gang grooming offenders – but in his political judgement, it was in the public interest for Connolly to face up to seven years in prison over one nasty tweet. Former Attorney General Suella Braverman says she would not have consented to the charge. 'We don't have a two-tiered justice system', insists Hermer. We have an 'independent justice system'. But can anyone really look at the state response to Southport and claim it 'independent' from politics? Sir Keir Starmer politicised the justice system the moment he claimed all of those involved were 'far-Right thugs', who had come from out of town to cause chaos. In reality, subsequent analysis of the arrest data along with a recent report by the police inspectorate have poured cold water on those claims. Politicians were also swiftly claiming that online speech was a principal cause, with Hermer himself crowing that 'you cannot hide behind your keyboard'. This narrative was no less dubious – no one needed to be told by social media to be angry about the horrific murders of three children. Yet both became reasons for the police, the CPS and the courts to throw the book at people like Connolly over tweets. '[T]heir intention was always to hammer me', as Lucy told the Telegraph earlier this year. Lucy's two-tier treatment continues to this day. First, she was denied release on temporary license to care for her daughter and sick husband. This is a privilege which even murderers are sometimes granted, and which has been granted to others at Lucy's prison. Now she says she's being cruelly mistreated in prison. Does Hermer seriously think it's 'disgusting' to see this as unfair? Hermer can deny two-tier justice all he likes, but the more the public hears about cases like Connolly, the more the charge rings true. A recent YouGov poll found public confidence in the judicial system at an all-time low, with the proportion expressing 'no confidence at all' rising four per cent since last June. Berating people who feel these concerns will not make them go away.
