Posted on 03/22/2006 5:58:59 PM PST by blam
Law lords back school over ban on Islamic gown
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
(Filed: 23/03/2006)
A schoolgirl who was refused permission to wear a full-length Islamic gown in class was not deprived of the right to manifest her religion, five law lords ruled yesterday.
The House of Lords allowed an appeal by Denbigh High School, in Luton, against a unanimous ruling by the Court of Appeal last March in favour of Shabina Begum, 17.
Shabina Begum: 'Quite happy that it's all over'
Lord Bingham said it would be "irresponsible" for any court to overrule the school's judgment "on a matter as sensitive as this".
The power to devise a school uniform had been given to the school staff and governors for the "compelling reason" that they were best placed to exercise it, the senior law lord said, and he saw no reason to disturb their decision.
School rules permitted the shalwar kameez, loose trousers under a smock-like dress worn by some Muslim, Hindu and Sikh girls.
But Shabina was sent home when, aged 13, she arrived wearing a jilbab, a long coat-like garment that "concealed, to a greater extent than the shalwar kameez, the contours of the female body".
The school "had taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy that respected Muslim beliefs but did so in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way," Lord Bingham continued. "The rules laid down were as far from being mindless as uniform rules could ever be. The school had enjoyed a period of harmony and success to which the uniform policy was thought to contribute."
Cherie Booth, QC, for Shabina, had argued that the school's actions had deprived the girl of the right to manifest her religion under Article Nine of the Human Rights Convention.
But, Lord Hoffmann said yesterday: "Article Nine does not require that one should be allowed to manifest one's religion at any time and place of one's own choosing. Common civility also has a place in the religious life."
Shabina could have changed schools when she discovered that the uniform she had worn for the past two years created a problem for her. "That might not have been entirely convenient for her, particularly when her sister was remaining at Denbigh High, but people sometimes have to suffer some inconvenience for their beliefs," Lord Hoffmann said.
"Instead, she and her brother decided that it was the school's problem. They sought a confrontation and claimed that she had a right to attend the school of her own choosing in the clothes she chose to wear."
Lady Hale pointed out that the school had respected cultural and religious diversity by allowing girls to wear a skirt, trousers, or the shalwar kameez, with or without a headscarf. This was a "thoughtful and proportionate response", as shown by the fact that girls were worried that they would come under pressure to wear the jilbab if it had been permitted.
The law lords also dismissed the second of Miss Booth's arguments - that Shabina had been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article Two of the first protocol, or supplement, to the Human Rights Convention.
"That article confers no right to go to any particular school," said Lord Hoffmann. "It is infringed only if the claimant is unable to obtain education from the system as a whole."
The law lords agreed that the two-year interruption in Shabina's education was the result of "her failure to secure prompt admission to another school where her religious convictions could be accommodated".
And in a related case taken by Miss Booth on behalf of the Children's Legal Centre, the law lords decided that Abdul Ali, now 18, had not been deprived of his right to education either. As a 13-year-old he had been excluded from Lord Grey School in Bletchley after being questioned by the police about a suspected arson incident - although charges were later dropped.
Speaking in the House of Lords lobby immediately after the ruling, Shabina said: "I am upset about the judgment, but I'm quite glad that I can move on now, and that I did make a stand and speak out against this. I am quite happy that it's all over."
She said she felt that at least she had made a lot of people question the issues. The loss of schooling was not her fault, as there were no places available in alternative schools.
Give some people a shalwar kameez, and they'll take a jilbab
Well, enjoy saying "would you like fries with that"...
It's not the society's responsibility to accomodate people. Everyone's responsible for themselves. It *is* a choice.
Is that muslim loaded?
"Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion1
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm
Badly though it's been misused give me the First Amendment anyday- a statement of rights by the people, not the rulers.
. It *is* a choice
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is it a "choice" for this 13 year old to refuse to go to her government school, or will the British Bobbies be at her door if she doesn't show up?
Not so cute alread and that veil makes her even uglier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.