Court of Appeal reverses ruling over Muslim dress

[nichomach]

segregation in PE seems in this case something which is decided through religion which therefore means that someone elses belief is enforced on someone else. I didnt say that the other way around is not imposing your beliefs on someone, dont put words into my mouth to support your reasoning.

But I didn't; you were arguing that mixed PE lessons were some sort of requirement. However, if by segregation, you mean that this girl and others like her would be free to have PE lessons which were single-sex, and thus didn't breach the modesty requirement, how is that imposing their beliefs on anyone else?

I still think she would have been better off at a muslim school if she feels that strongly
about it.

But she disagrees; she doesn't wish to isolate herself from society, she wishes to engage with society merely asking that her faith is respected and given equal allowance as is effectively already made for other faiths.

The assumption that it has no effect is wrong i think, it could have potential effects on others indirectly. Having 100's of differing uniforms is ok by you?

As many as it takes, but the idea that there would be hundreds of different uniforms is a chimaera; at most a few easily recognisable ones.

just because its in school colours doesnt mean it counts as a uniform to me.

That's your opinion; personally, I would say that if the school in question officially adopted a jilbab as a variant of the uniform then that would be a uniform.

If you accept that someone can wear anything which meets their cultural beliefs, that means you have to accept if someone who wants to wear a loin cloth, they can.

No, since under article 9 that might count as endangering public morals for instance:

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 the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Reductio ad absurdum is always a fun argument, but one which generally bears little relation to reality, however.

[nichomach]

RVF, I agree with your post; and you can see the same sort of attempt to provoke a fear reaction on both sides in this debate, be it from the Muslim extremist end or the "the fabric of our society is in mortal danger!" end. Add a leavening of vested interest and some financing, and leave to simmer, occasionally stirring vigorously .

[Kumagoro]

I didnt say or imply that its a requirement to have mixed sex p.e lessons, dont tell me what i was trying to say. Having to seperate girls based on this requirement is an effect. Always saying it doesnt cost any more or have any implications doesnt make it true.

But she disagrees; she doesn't wish to isolate herself from society, she wishes to engage with society merely asking that her faith is respected and given equal allowance as is effectively already made for other faiths.

That implies going to a faith based school is isolating yourself from society and is highly offensive.

Like i said before maybe to you continuity in uniform isnt important, but from what i can tell, to the schools where i live it is. considering how many faiths and sects in those faiths there are its not that improbable that many different uniforms would be necessary. Thats not even inculding cultural things outside of religion. Having many shades of the school colours isnt very uniform is it. saying it is a uniform as its been decided its a uniform is like saying BB nadia is a woman.

I think this isnt about laws its about your own sense of whats acceptable which is what this discussion is about isnt it? not about whether it is legal in law. So if you dont agree that this person cant wear a loin cloth you are putting one persons beliefs over another.

[Rave]

saying it is a uniform as its been decided its a uniform is like saying BB nadia is a woman.

That's it, nail your colours to the mast. I won't be dignifying any more of your posts with a response.

[nichomach]

I didnt say or imply that its a requirement to have mixed sex p.e lessons, dont tell me what i was trying to say.

Then why raise it as an objection? If you weren't saying that it was a requirement then it was an utterly irrelevant and meaningless distraction.

Having to seperate girls based on this requirement is an effect. Always saying it doesnt cost any more or have any implications doesnt make it true.

And I've never said that it wouldn't cost any more, and nor have I argued that there are no implications; but then you've produced no facts regarding additional costs, so I might conversely say "always banging on about prohibitive costs when you have no evidence behind the assertion doesn't make it true". In fact, school uniforms already incorporate variations anyway. One - or a few - more is hardly going to bring the world to an end.

Saying that going to a faith based school is isolating yourself from society is highly offensive.

Actually, I never said that; I pointed out that Shabina Begum's desire to go to a non-faith-based school was evidence of a desire to integrate and interact with society. On the other hand, given that your option is to force her into abandoning her faith or being forced into going to a faith-based school, I'd say that you favour her isolation from society, by denying her access to a public service freely accessible to people of a different (or of no) faith.

Like i said before maybe to you continuity in uniform isnt important, but from what i can tell, to the schools where i live it is.

And expanding a uniform code to include a uniform jilbab would preserve that.

considering how many faiths and sects in those faiths there are its not that improbable that many different uniforms would be necessary.

I note that we're backing away rather sharply from the nonsensical "hundreds".

Thats not even inculding cultural things outside of religion. Having many shades of the school colours isnt very uniform is it.

And no-one's suggested it, especially since, as noted, there is no specific colour requirement for a jilbab; but Article 9 doesn't protect "cultural things" anyway. It guarantees freedom of faith, belief and conscience.

I think this isnt about laws its about your own sense of whats acceptable which is what this discussion is about isnt it?

Actually, it's very much about law; it is also about whether one agrees with the law or not, but the root of this discussion is a determination of the law by the Court of Appeal. As it happens, their decision, which has been continuously misrepresented in this thread as a license to wear what you like, is one with which I agree. That is to say, the school may set a uniform code, but must have regard to the faith or belief of its pupils when they do.

So if you dont agree that this person cant wear a loin cloth you are putting one persons beliefs over another.

No, I'm not; I'm pointing out that it's arguable that there are grounds that Article 9 would not protect that practice. That said, please point to this mysterious faith which requires that you wear nothing but a loincloth. Oh, there isn't one.

[Kumagoro]

I said it because someone elses wishes are being impinged upon buy someone elses wishes. Its an example plain and simple..... well i thought it was pretty simple. Its utterly irrelevant because you say so? I dont think it is because it highlights that you cannot have a system which suits everybody, which you seem to think is possible.

Saying that what she wears affects no one I thought meant there are no implications. The difference between what i say and what you say about costs is that i suggest that it might not be that cheap and you dont know for sure that it isnt. Where as you say it is, not that it might be, so its up to you to provide these absolutes not me. The fact is you cant prove realistically either way that its practically cost effective or not.

creating uniforms on an individual basis i dont think is acceptable to everyone
and shouldnt be imposed on schools.

evidence of a desite to intergrate and interact with society? well not being funny that easily sounds like it implies faith based schools are not a part of society. I will take you word thats not what you meant.

I didnt back track track on anything as it wasnt stated as a fact and was just used to emphasise that its not just a few uniform changes that would be possible.

I dont know where you have got it in your head that anyone think that a jilbab has to be of a certain colour. the point about shades of school colours that if they are individual they will not be the same colour unless they are mass produced. So saying that shes just one is the moot point.

To you maybe its about the law but i dont remember anyone saying its against the law that she got her way. Faith in my opinion and it seems also like this to many others doesnt deserve special treatment and shouldnt be put above everything else. which is why i draw a comparison to cultural requirements.

So you originally wanted it to be a discussion about the determination of the law, it generally didnt go that way though did it and moved on.
Misrepresented as a licence to wear what you like? I dont think so, more like the the unequality it represents and holding faith above other non faith based beliefs. Which has been my stand point from the start.

I think that my view point isnt that far off yours I just think there are limits on what should be done, whats practical and how it affects others rights. I dont agree that you can have everything all ways to suit everyone. I accept that her wearing this jilbab doesnt effect the other students much but I do think in someways it does and therefore disagree when someone says it has no affect.

heres a link to a faith which requires you to only wear a loin cloth.

http://www.ijustmadethisnakedreligio...sago.weirdo.us

[nichomach]

I said it because someone elses wishes are being impinged upon buy someone elses wishes. Its an example plain and simple..... well i thought it was pretty simple. Its utterly irrelevant because you say so? I dont think it is because it highlights that you cannot have a system which suits everybody, which you seem to think is possible.

So an example of absolutely nothing relevant to the discussion then. In fact if some girls have segregated PE lessons it impinges upon no-one but them, and as has already been noted, if that proves impossible the option remains to withdraw those girls from PE lessons or transport them to a facility which does cater to them; and as I further noted, that's something which already happens. Now, no system is perfect, and it's unlikely that any system will suit every last person in the world; unlike you, however, I tend to believe that the system should try to be as inclusive as possible.

Saying that what she wears affects no one I thought meant there are no implications.

The only implications are ones that affect her.

The difference between what i say and what you say about costs is that i suggest that it might not be that cheap and you dont know for sure that it isnt.

Well, actually I DO know that jilbabs are fairly inexpensive, since they can be bought online for about £20 and up; now if you're suggesting that making them in a school uniform colour is magically going to send the price into Chanel country, I'd dearly love to know which crack pipe that idea came out of.

Where as you say it is, not that it might be, so its up to you to provide these absolutes not me. The fact is you cant prove realistically either way that its practically cost effective or not.

Just did, old boy, just did - whereas you've been whingeing about supposedly prohibitive costs without a shred, a scintilla, an iota of ANY evidence for quite a few posts now. I suggest that if you're going to keep doing that you put up some evidence or drop it.

creating uniforms on an individual basis i dont think is acceptable to everyone
and shouldnt be imposed on schools.

That's your opinion, nothing more, although it's noteable that in fact quite a lot of Muslim women feel that the jilbab is a requirement, so I'd have said that the appeal might be broader than one individual.

evidence of a desite to intergrate and interact with society? well not being funny that easily sounds like it implies faith based schools are not a part of society. I will take you word thats not what you meant.

Yes, please do stop fabricating statements that I never made. And I would say that it's perfectly possible to say that a desire to attend a mainstream school is evidence of a desire to integrate and interact with mainstream society withoutstating that faith-based schools do not interact with mainstream society.

I didnt back track track on anything as it wasnt stated as a fact and was just used to emphasise that its not just a few uniform changes that would be possible.

Except that you know that there are only a few major faiths in the UK, and most of those don't require alteration to the uniform code, and in the case of Islam, which may, there are only two likely options, the shalwar kameez or the jilbab. Actually, backtracking would be wise.

I dont know where you have got it in your head that anyone think that a jilbab has to be of a certain colour. the point about shades of school colours that if they are individual they will not be the same colour unless they are mass produced.

Why would there need to be different shades of a school colour? You're simply not making sense. Although if you mean that across the UK there are many different school colours...yes and no. Sorry, but the manufacturers of school uniforms don't produce a special colour for every school; there are just quite a few colours which appear at different schools across the UK. There are schools here for instance which wear exactly the same shade of green as was worn by a local school in London where I grew up, for instance, and others which wear the same shade of maroon/deep red. The manufacturers actually have quite a limited colour palette, which is why shops like Littlewoods seem to do OK selling uniform garments online nationally. So given that in fact there AREN'T actually that many colours, I foresee a useful business opportunity for a nationwide jilbab dealership.

To you maybe its about the law but i dont remember anyone saying its against the law that she got her way. Faith in my opinion and it seems also like this to many others doesnt deserve special treatment and shouldnt be put above everything else. which is why i draw a comparison to cultural requirements.

Well, that's your opinion; but then faith doesn't actually GET special treatment under Article 9. It protects faith or belief or conscience, and so provides an equal shield for a person of faith who wishes to adhere to it, or to an atheist or agnostic who doesn't wish to be forced into religious observance. And given that the thread (and I should bloody know because I started it) began with the report of the Court of Appeal's judgement, it IS in part at least about the law.

So you originally wanted it to be a discussion about the determination of the law, it generally didnt go that way though did it and moved on.

Stating that the law has nothing to do with it is plain thick. Sorry, but it just is, since it would be the force of law preventing her from wearing the jilbab if the decision had gone against her, and it is the force of law which shields her right to wear the jilbab given that the decision has gone for her. On that basis the law remains at the heart of the issue. Strikes me that YOU want to ignore the law, since the law actually doesn't support your "special treatment" argument.

Misrepresented as a licence to wear what you like? I dont think so, more like the the unequality it represents and holding faith above other non faith based beliefs. Which has been my stand point from the start.

Bingo. See? The law actually supports equality, but that's inconvenient from the point of view of the argument (unsupported by the facts) that you wish to make. So you want to ignore the law.

heres a link to a faith which requires you to only wear a loin cloth.
http://www.ijustmadethisnakedreligio...sago.weirdo.us

Exactly; you cannot find ONE real world example to back your "loincloth" argument.

[Kumagoro]

Uniforms,

Shades of colour would occur if there was no available standard uniform
I mentioned this to show why you saying its ok to have non standard uniform,
could be unacceptable to many schools. As simple as that.

This doesnt mean that i agree with this kind of policy.

So a jilbab can be had for £20 that doesnt mean that producing one for a uniform would be the same. Taking into consideration market research advertising etc the first one would be expensive if priced including costs. You are assuming that many will be sold making them economically viable. You dont know this for sure do you.
Therefore having many different uniforms isnt trivial. Especially if you have to do it everytime someone says they believe this or that.

Which leads me on to the loin cloth example. If i made up a religion today saying you always have to go about wearing a loin cloth why shouldnt i have a nice loin cloth uniform?
Not to allow me to do this would then be a breach of that article 9 thing reqarding freedom to express my faith, right?
Just because i didnt bother to try and look for an exact example of this doesnt mean that other religious or cultural requirements in dress dont exist.

You say there are only two possibilities shalwar kameez or the jilbab but what about a yashmak. what if someone wanted to wear one of those which only shows the eyes.... and then someone else says i want one which you cant see the eyes. It doesnt matter that there are only a few major religions in this country if you allow one person to practice their faith then everyone has to be allowed to, of course as long as it doesnt affect anyone else.

Again the whole point of the PE example is to show that you cant have it everyway possible to suit everyone. There are limits which means the "as far as needs be" type attitude is impractical. Or as it seems to be now just try.

one implication on others could be pressure from others to wear a jilbab.
in other schools they have to create segregated Pe lessons to be inclusive
"as far as needs be"

The law is the law is the law is it? well in my opinion they can be wrong and biased and this sets a precedent for this kind of thing, it opens it up for other more spurious reasons. So its not about ignoring the law its about whether it is any good or not. This isnt just about her and how it affects other but the affect on other schools and unifrom policy.

[nichomach]

Uniforms,
Shades of colour would occur if there was no available standard uniform
...

Except that there would be a standard uniform colour if the uniform code allowed for it. And that would be one of a relatively small number of colours.

So a jilbab can be had for £20 that doesnt mean that producing one for a uniform would be the same....

Blah blah blah...I've produced a cost, and yet again, you've produced...nothing. And the difference in cost would be...clothes dye. As far as advertising is concerned, don't you think that as soon as the service became available, then the Islamic community would take care of the advertsing themselves?

Which leads me on to the loin cloth example. If i made up a religion today saying you always have to go about wearing a loin cloth why shouldnt i have a nice loin cloth uniform?

You might be; that said, you would have to demonstrate that your "I made this up to be an awkward sod, don't believe in any such faith and am just trying it on" religion was a matter of faith, belief or conscience to the satisfaction of the courts to qualify for Article 9 protection. Good luck to you; if you can get them to buy it, then I've got this really good deal on Tower Bridge that they might be interested in. And even then, the court would determine if it was prejudicial to public health, safety or morals.

Not to allow me to do this would then be a breach of that article 9 thing reqarding freedom to express my faith, right?

If you could persuade the courts as a matter of fact that it WAS a matter of faith, belief or conscience, as noted above.

Just because i didnt bother to try and look for an exact example of this doesnt mean that other religious or cultural requirements in dress dont exist.

Well, if you're going to throw a fairly loopy example in as an objection, you might at least try to back it up.

You say there are only two possibilities shalwar kameez or the jilbab but what about a yashmak. what if someone wanted to wear one of those which only shows the eyes.... and then someone else says i want one which you cant see the eyes.

Well, for a start the basic robe would be the same anyway; as far as allowing the face to be covered, it isn't allowed for things like passports etc, and there could well be very good public safety/public order objections to it. For instance, given that teachers are responsible for the children in their care it's entirely possible to argue that not being able to easily visually identify them is prejudicial to their safety.

It doesnt matter that there are only a few major religions in this country if you allow one person to practice their faith then everyone has to be allowed to, of course as long as it doesnt affect anyone else.

Well, yes, that's what Article 9 says, with exceptions for public health, safety or morals; but then I don't have a problem with that.

Again the whole point of the PE example is to show that you cant have it everyway possible to suit everyone. There are limits which means the "as far as needs be" type attitude is impractical. Or as it seems to be now just try.

Except that it isn't, as we've already seen; segregated PE already happens, and pupils are transported between schools for specific lessons anyway, and it is also possible to withdraw a child from PE, so your example doesn't actually make sense.

one implication on others could be pressure from others to wear a jilbab.

That is true, and I've already acknowledged that quite a few pages ago; my response then as now is that it is unjustifiable to strip someone of their liberties purely on the basis that other people with whom they have no association and over whom they have no control might abuse those liberties.

in other schools they have to create segregated Pe lessons to be inclusive "as far as needs be"

Yes; it's hardly as though this has never happened before. It's a good long while back now, but PE lessons and games lessons in my school were single-sex.

The law is the law is the law is it? well in my opinion they can be wrong and biased

The law most certainly IS the law, but that doesn't mean that I believe the law is always right, or should never be argued against. Actually, I fully support your right to disagree with the law if you wish, but you've demonstrated severe misunderstanding of what that law actually IS (for instance assuming that it acts solely to protect people of faith). In fact, the law is very UN-biased.

and this sets a precedent for this kind of thing, it opens it up for other more spurious reasons.

Ah, the "slippery slope" argument; I wondered when we'd get to that. Given that the law is restricted in its application to matters of faith, belief or conscience, spurious reasons would get excluded pretty swiftly. Like I said, good luck with the loincloth thing, send us a photo, but the courts deal with people trying it on all the time...

So its not about ignoring the law its about whether it is any good or not.

Debating the merit of the law is certainly very valid; I happen to believe that the law is correct, and you don't. You really ARE mistaken about whether it's biased or not, though.

This isnt just about her and how it affects other but the affect on other schools and unifrom policy.

Yes, all schools will have to have regard to Article 9, and that will protect Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, atheists, agnostics... Personally, I think that's a good thing.

[Kumagoro]

You assume i dont think its a good thing, but my view point is that just because one school can accomodate something doesnt mean they all can.

When i went to school we had mixed sex P.E lessons. Not all of them were but some were, like hockey, the school also isnt designed to section off the girls and boys absolutely and to make it like that would costs a huge amount in building costs. In this case the girl would have no choice but to not do PE and as such would be better off at another school which can accomodate her. This doesnt have to be a muslim school just one which would suit her better..... infact isnt this girl now at a school which does allow jilbabs as a uniform.

Im still not sure if you understand what i mean about shades of colour, if the school has a set colour and people went out and bought a jumper of that colour they would nearly all be different.... fine if the uniform policy is like that, but like i said where i live many of the schools operate a strict uniform and not a wear any jumper you like in the schools colour. What you are suggesting sounds like that all school must have a slacker policy by force and then it will be ok, but if they wanted it like that it would be like that in the first place. So at these places there would need to be a fixed uniform.
Producing one offs is impractical as they are likely not to be the same.

blah blah blah all you like, posting a link to a £20 dress doesnt make for an accurate costing and market viablity does it now.

There are things like wicca and the like which although to me sound silly some people seem to really believe in it. How can you say that what they believe is wrong and just silly, that would suppose that a particular religion is more real than another.

Just because the is a phrase which goes with that kind of reasoning doesnt make it wrong. The fact is that if you always allow for someone religious beliefs you have to allow for anyones beliefs of any kind which could be anything. Or would someone who thinks that dressing up like a bear is necessary be crazy? any more crazy than doing what a book tells them? How do you decide whats ok or not?

I have to finish work now, so cant complete what i want to say.

[nichomach]

You assume i dont think its a good thing, but my view point is that just because one school can accomodate something doesnt mean they all can.

But they should make every effort to.

In this case the girl would have no choice but to not do PE and as such would be better off at another school which can accomodate her.

That's a value judgement for her and her family; for instance, one school might require that she doesn't do PE, but be a great deal better academically. In that case, determining that PE isn't as important as academic qualifications would be a reasonable decision, wouldn't it?

This doesnt have to be a muslim school just one which would suit her better..... infact isnt this girl now at a school which does allow jilbabs as a uniform.

But was excluded from her school of choice, a school which in fact already can accomodate Muslim girls requirement for modesty in PE and suchlike.

Im still not sure if you understand what i mean about shades of colour, if the school has a set colour and people went out and bought a jumper of that colour they would nearly all be different....

I understand very well, but in practice that already happens; a navy V-neck for instance is a navy V-neck, be it made by Littlewoods, M&S, Tootal, whatever. They ARE different, but acceptably so. So where's the issue?

What you are suggesting sounds like that all school must have a slacker policy by force and then it will be ok, but if they wanted it like that it would be like that in the first place.

No, not at all, I am suggesting that to go along with existing set patterns of school uniform there be the option of a jilbab in the school colours.

So at these places there would need to be a fixed uniform.
Producing one offs is impractical as they are likely not to be the same.

And as I noted, given that school uniforms are actually very similar (even down to exact shades of given colours), across the country, then one-offs wouldn't be necessary.

blah blah blah all you like, posting a link to a £20 dress doesnt make for an accurate costing and market viablity does it now.

Well, I've shown what the cost of a jilbab is, and noted that the only difference would be clothes dye. You've actually shown nothing at all, and unless and until you do, you really don't have anything more to say on this point aside from repeating the same utterly unfounded assertions.

There are things like wicca...

I don't say that Wiccans are silly, and I wouldn't exclude their faith from Article 9 protection either.

Just because the is a phrase which goes with that kind of reasoning doesnt make it wrong...

No, it's wrong for the reasons that I gave, which you don't address at all.