The United Kingdom has no formal constitution
The United Kingdom has no formal constitution, and as such, socially accepted values fall under universal application, and they need to be deduced from statutory provisions or specific judicial statements. This practically means that the law favors personal freedom by allowing them to do as they wish provided that it is permitted (Hill and Sandberg, 2006). It further means that people can dress as they please with the exception that it is within certain contexts, such as a workplace or schools where uniform policies can be imposed. However, in the last forty years, parliament has supplemented the common laws to provide additional obligations, rights, and duties. Also, parliament has passed bills that recognize religious traditions as well as cultural diversity by outlawing legal significance to religious or ethnic traditions.
About the issue of minority groups in the United Kingdom, this is how the courts handled the cases of Mandla v Dowell Lee and the Shabina Begum case. In the Mandla v Dowell Lee case, judges in the Court of Appeal considered the Sikhs as a religious group, and as such, the adherents of religion were not as those of a racial group failing under the 1976 Act (Minority Rights, 1983). This ruling meant that discrimination concerning religious background was not unlawful. However, the boy appealed to the House of Lords, where the appeal was upheld on the basis that the term ‘ethnic’ has a broad historical and cultural sense (Minority Rights, 1983). The House of Lords held that the rulling was biased since even though the school had a policy on turbans that applied to all racial groups the population of Sikhs in the school compared to other racial groups who could comply was smaller. The House of Lords argued that even if the Sikhs compiled, the rule would constantly differ with their cultural traditions as well as customs. As a result, the ‘no turban rule’ was not justifiable under the 1976 Act, According to Lord Fraser, the only justifications under the act would be those based on public health. Consequently, the Mandla v Dowell Lee case showed us that there is a distinction between the forms of dressing worn to show one’s group membership or cultural identity with those worn simply due to show a persons’ preferred taste (Minority Rights, 1983).