House of Lords denies girl the right to wear jilbab in school [Archive]

Ugg

Mar 22, 2006, 11:51 PM

The French and the Dutch have come under fire for their banning of religious garb and parahpenalia, now, (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1737482,00.html) the Brits have taken a shot across the bows of religious dress in public schools.

The House of Lords yesterday overturned an appeal court ruling that a Muslim teenager's human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing a head-to-toe Islamic dress to school.
The unanimous ruling by five law lords was greeted with relief by teachers' bodies and the Department for Education and Skills, which feared that upholding the ruling would throw schools' policies on uniforms into chaos.

Shabina Begum, 17, argued that banning her from wearing the jilbab at Denbigh high school in Luton, Bedfordshire, breached her rights to education and to manifest her religion, as guaranteed by the European convention on human rights. She lost two years' schooling before moving to a school which allowed her to wear the religious garb.

But the law lords said there was no right to be educated at a particular school, and she could have moved earlier to a single-sex school where the garment would be unnecessary or to a school where it was permitted.

Shabina had worn the shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) for her first two years at the school, but when she was nearly 13 she went to school in a jilbab. Shabina, who was represented on legal aid by Cherie Booth QC and the Children's Legal Centre, said after the judgment: "Obviously I am saddened and disappointed about this, but I am quite glad it is all over and I can move on now. Even though I lost, I have made a stand."

She said she would be discussing with her lawyers whether to take the case to the European court of human rights.

Emphasis mine. Are there single-sex public shools in England? I'm all for banning religious garb especially when it's used to repress women but am concerned that such statements could lead to schools where young girls are treated not as Britons would be but as Muslim girls oftentimes are in their home countries.

OutThere

Mar 23, 2006, 12:01 AM

Religious debates involving 'public' and 'private' schools and the UK are far too complicated for our petty human brains. :p

I still don't know what's what there.

In the U.S:

Public - State run, free for everyone, subject to state rules.
Private - Separated from state, privately owned and operated, subject to own rules.

Anyone care to clarify UK wording?

Ugg

Mar 23, 2006, 12:11 AM

leekohler

Mar 23, 2006, 01:20 AM

Public Schools in the UK used to mean they were very exclusive, mostly male, and cost a fortune. Now the meaning is the same as in the USA.

Don't they also have uniforms?

Ugg

Mar 23, 2006, 01:48 AM

Don't they also have uniforms?

I think so. When I was in Cambridge last fall I remember seeing a bunch of kids at the Fitzwilliam Museum (http://www.fitzmuseum.cam.ac.uk/)and they all had on uniforms. Whether they were from public or private schools, I don't know.

skunk

Mar 23, 2006, 04:53 AM

Public Schools in the UK used to mean they were very exclusive, mostly male, and cost a fortune. Now the meaning is the same as in the USA.You are 100% wrong there. Public schools in the UK are called public because they were the poor person's alternative to private tuition. Eton College, for instance, was founded for the benefit of "seventy poor scholars". They are expensive, exclusive and mainly single sex, but not just male. At most Public Schools, there is a uniform, although some "progressive" ones do not have one, like Bedales, a co-educational Public School in Hampshire.

In the UK, US "Public Schools" would translate as "State Schools".

skunk

Mar 23, 2006, 05:20 AM

Whether they were from public or private schools, I don't know.You should have been listening to their accents...

The plummy-sounding ones who swear a lot are from Public School.

Applespider

Mar 23, 2006, 05:31 AM

In England, you go for private schooling at a public school. In Scotland, public schools (feepaying) are known as private schools. The schools themselves tend to class themselves as independent schools since they are independent of government funding.

Non-feepaying schools are state schools.

Both tend to enforce uniforms these days. The fee-paying schools for tradition's sake - and they are the ones which may have shorts for boys or hats/kilts/cravats.

The state schools often have a uniform of a sweatshirt with the school logo. The uniforms here are designed to stop kids competing to have the latest gear and the right logos.

skunk

Mar 23, 2006, 05:34 AM

Both tend to enforce uniforms these days. The fee-paying schools for tradition's sake - and they are the ones which may have shorts for boys or hats/kilts/cravats.Obviously a Scottish slant there: I had to make do with a tail suit, gown and stiff white collar.

student_trap

Mar 23, 2006, 05:39 AM

as has been said, US private is UK Public. Most Schools seem to have uniform over here though, public or state, although most of the time sixth form college is more relaxed with either no uniform or 'smart' rules.

With gender, there are singe sex and co-ed public schools here for both boys and girls, just as there are singe sex and co-ed state schools, although I believe that there aren't many single sex state schools

DerChef

Mar 23, 2006, 09:11 AM

Basically this silly little girl has heaped even more stress on Muslims who are being even more marginalised in the UK.

The School was 70% Muslim , had a Muslim Head Teacher (a woman), consulted the local Imams in the Mosques and the community.

School said they rejected the Jilbab on the grounds of safety.

They came up with a uniform policy similar to what most of the girls traditionally wear tunic and trousers (most are from Pakistan).

Basically this girl does not want to dress like a PAKISTANI , that is what she is saying.

What this shows is that Hijab for Muslim women IS Cultural and has nothing to do with religious doctrine.

I wonder would she and her backers support a girl coming to the school with a Pentagram rounds her neck and A.nti C.hrist D.evils C.hild scratched on her face.

or even a girl who is told to wear Islamic dress by her family wanting to wear normal school uniform in class.:p

toontra

Mar 23, 2006, 09:33 AM

The girl in question more or less admitted that she was taking legal action to see how the legal process worked - almost as an educational exercise.

I wonder if she received legal aid?

Edit: Yes, she did. This really pisses me off. This case will have cost the legal aid fund tens of thousands of pounds at a time when legal aid is being refused to many facing criminal charges.

blackfox

Mar 23, 2006, 12:55 PM

Obviously a Scottish slant there: I had to make do with a tail suit, gown and stiff white collar.
odd. As I remember, "state" schools had a uniform consisting of slacks/shorts, long/short sleeve button-up shirt and school tie. In my dad's day (way back during Wartime) it was the same. Gowns never entered the picture.

I went to a boarding school (as a day student), which had a uniform of grey slacks, grey shirt, school tie, school jumper, and blazer with school insignia.

To most Americans, picture something quite a bit like Harry Potter, except with no magic, no gowns and only boys. I remember it fondly...

skunk

Mar 23, 2006, 01:03 PM

odd. As I remember, "state" schools had a uniform consisting of slacks/shorts, long/short sleeve button-up shirt and school tie. In my dad's day (way back during Wartime) it was the same. Gowns never entered the picture.Who said anything about state schools? I might be in this picture:

XNine

Mar 23, 2006, 01:12 PM

I wonder would she and her backers support a girl coming to the school with a Pentagram rounds her neck and A.nti C.hrist D.evils C.hild scratched on her face.

For the record I'd like to point out that the band AC/DC's name does not mean ANTI-CHRIST/DEVIL CHILD (or any other silly acronym made by Christians) but infact the true meaning: Alternating Current/Direct Current.

vniow

Mar 23, 2006, 01:14 PM

For the record I'd like to point out that the band AC/DC's name does not mean ANTI-CHRIST/DEVIL CHILD (or any other silly acronym made by Christians) but infact the true meaning: Alternating Current/Direct Current.

I thought it meant you were bi? :confused:

skunk

Mar 23, 2006, 01:15 PM

I thought it meant you were bi? :confused:Either that, or you've got a dodgy electrician.

XNine

Mar 23, 2006, 01:17 PM

I thought it meant you were bi? :confused:

Funny you should mention that, that is another meaning for the phrase among the gay/bi culture, but not the actual meaning of the term, for which the band chose which is the original meaning.

I bet Wiki has something on this... ah, yes, it does (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACDC)

iGav

Mar 24, 2006, 09:54 AM

Edit: Yes, she did.

Unbelievable isn't it.

What's the betting on her trying an appeal? stupid little girl.

Uma888

Mar 24, 2006, 10:05 AM

I'm all for banning religious garb especially when it's used to repress women

Isnt she wearing it out of choice?

Whats wrong with chosing what you want to wear?

Chundles

Mar 24, 2006, 10:36 AM

Here in Aus, Private school = expensive. Public = no fees. Both types have uniforms, you'd be hard pressed to find a school here that doesn't have some type of uniform.

Religious head-ware was fine. I went to a catholic school and we had a couple of muslim kids who wore the hijab and at least one sikh with the beginnings of his turban. The school kept roughly 10% non-catholic to qualify for government assistance despite the fact that it was a private school and pretty damned expensive. Especially the uniform, the blazer alone was over $150.

It's funny, public schools are nearly totally government funded but more money goes into the private schools....strange.

Ugg

Mar 24, 2006, 01:04 PM

Isnt she wearing it out of choice?

Whats wrong with chosing what you want to wear?

A lot of schools take a very dim view of wearing gang apparel and the reason for wearing uniforms is to provide a sense of unity not separateness. Just because someone supposedly chooses to wear something doesn't mean they have the right to, especially in publicly funded schools.

When it comes to the wearing of religious garb it would be pretty easy to make a case that she didn't choose to wear it but might possibly have been brainwashed into believing she needed to wear it.

Why would any young woman voluntarily choose to wear clothing that is used to suppress women and their rights?

In a perfect world it wouldn't be necessary to ban anything but in a world riven by extremist religious idealogy, sometimes it's better to level the playing field early on.

katchow

Mar 24, 2006, 01:19 PM

Why would any young woman voluntarily choose to wear clothing that is used to suppress women and their rights?

are u familiar w/ Britney Spears? Midriffs and butt cleavage. She's convinced a whole generation of girls that objectifying themselves=girl power.

skunk

Mar 24, 2006, 02:18 PM

When it comes to the wearing of religious garb it would be pretty easy to make a case that she didn't choose to wear it but might possibly have been brainwashed into believing she needed to wear it.But that would be a bit of a specious argument, wouldn't it? "It's for your own good. You must be possessed/stupid/crazy to want something I don't understand".

Why would any young woman voluntarily choose to wear clothing that is used to suppress women and their rights?It's also used for modesty and piety. Anything wrong with that?

Ugg

Mar 24, 2006, 02:31 PM

But that would be a bit of a specious argument, wouldn't it? "It's for your own good. You must be possessed/stupid/crazy to want something I don't understand".

It's also used for modesty and piety. Anything wrong with that?

Seatbelts are also for our own good and most people willingly comply with rules stating they must be worn while in a moving vehicle. I'll admit there is a fine line which government must not cross but in multi-ethnic societies like England it's important that everyone be treated equally.

Student uniforms are also a form of promoting modesty and equality, where's the outrage against them? They are for the individual good aren't they?

As far as piety is concerned, are public schools obligated to provide for it? I don't think so. An argument could be made for public support of piety in mono-religion states but England hardly qualifies for that. Secular states should not be obligated to make exceptions in order to accomodate religious garb that is a potent symbol of the oppression of women.

Ugg

Mar 24, 2006, 02:33 PM

are u familiar w/ Britney Spears? Midriffs and butt cleavage. She's convinced a whole generation of girls that objectifying themselves=girl power.

Not being a follower of pop culture and not owning a tv means that I'm spared the worst of the excesses of youth :D

skunk

Mar 24, 2006, 02:36 PM

Secular states should not be obligated to make exceptions in order to accomodate religious garb that is a potent symbol of the oppression of women.I'm arguing with your description, not necessarily with the law. The garb is a potent symbol of adherence to a creed, not necessarily of oppression. Have you actually asked any Mohammedan woman what she thinks?

Ugg

Mar 24, 2006, 02:55 PM

I'm arguing with your description, not necessarily with the law. The garb is a potent symbol of adherence to a creed, not necessarily of oppression. Have you actually asked any Mohammedan woman what she thinks?

The only muslim woman I've known well was opposed to headscarves. She was born and raised in Turkey until she was 11, when her family moved to Germany. She is no longer a practicing muslim so of course her view is one-sided but she believed that headscarves were a sign of submission to men. Much of my position on the matter stems from my conversations with her.

She had the utmost contempt for anyone who allowed themselves to be treated as a second class citizen. As far as the upper class women who truly were able to choose to wear headscarves, she felt they were turning their back on women't rights, much as Betty Frieden derided housewives in the 60s.

IF headscarves werent' used to suppress substantial numbers of women around the world, I would personally be less opposed to them. But, the fact remains that in a secular state with no state mandated religion, equality must come first. Here in the US we've seen only too well what happens when religion is used to guide public policy and it's almost always disastrous.

Applespider

Mar 24, 2006, 03:02 PM

I work across the road from a school which has a high number of ethnic pupils.

Some of them wear 'normal' school uniform. None wear the full jilbab but several wear shalwar kameez - interestingly with school skirts over the top. Several of their mothers are in jilbab though.

I wonder if any predominately Muslin schools have a jilbab included in their uniform options.

katchow

Mar 24, 2006, 03:10 PM

The only muslim woman I've known well was opposed to headscarves. She was born and raised in Turkey until she was 11, when her family moved to Germany. She is no longer a practicing muslim so of course her view is one-sided but she believed that headscarves were a sign of submission to men. Much of my position on the matter stems from my conversations with her.

She had the utmost contempt for anyone who allowed themselves to be treated as a second class citizen. As far as the upper class women who truly were able to choose to wear headscarves, she felt they were turning their back on women't rights, much as Betty Frieden derided housewives in the 60s.

IF headscarves werent' used to suppress substantial numbers of women around the world, I would personally be less opposed to them. But, the fact remains that in a secular state with no state mandated religion, equality must come first. Here in the US we've seen only too well what happens when religion is used to guide public policy and it's almost always disastrous.

the point i was trying to make is that there are many ways to demean yourself with the clothing you choose to wear most of which are not even related to religion.

Shall we start the bra burning mandate? ;)

Ugg

Mar 24, 2006, 03:21 PM

the point i was trying to make is that there are many ways to demean yourself with the clothing you choose to wear most of which are not even related to religion.

Shall we start the bra burning mandate? ;)

I agree with you to a point but the fact remains that religious garb is often forced upon women in many parts of the world. Dressing like Britney Spears can be demeaning to women and it can be a sign of sexual objectification but it is not a symbol of denying women basic human rights. There is a substantial difference there.

katchow

Mar 24, 2006, 03:34 PM

I agree with you to a point but the fact remains that religious garb is often forced upon women in many parts of the world. Dressing like Britney Spears can be demeaning to women and it can be a sign of sexual objectification but it is not a symbol of denying women basic human rights. There is a substantial difference there.

i know what you mean, but isn't it somehow the same if you force a women to wear religious garb, or if you force them to not wear religious garb?

You are afterall making the decision for someone else. Shouldn't it be their right?

Ugg

Mar 24, 2006, 03:59 PM

i know what you mean, but isn't it somehow the same if you force a women to wear religious garb, or if you force them to not wear religious garb?

You are afterall making the decision for someone else. Shouldn't it be their right?

IMO, no it's not the same in this case. Nobody is forcing that girl to not wear religious clothing. The House of Lords simply said that the school is not required to accomodate her wishes because other schools allow the wearing of religious garb. She evidently changed schools during the lawsuit and was able to do as she wished. If there hadn't been any options in her area, maybe the outcome would have been different.

The school my nephew attends is forced to hire a teacher simply to babysit a student who has severe learning disabilities and is very disruptive in class. The school's computers are ancient, the playground equipment has been torn down because they can't afford to fix it or replace it in part because of the expense of the extra teacher.

Here in the US, if parents want a student to be "mainstreamed" they can force a school to do so even when the costs are unreasonable. The reason for this is that Congress passed a law but failed to provide any funding for it. This is a very grey area as it has definitely helped some students who might have been shunted aside but the costs end up impairing some schools' ability to teach and in the case of disruptive students the ability of students to learn.

This is somewhat different than wearing of religious garb, but in this multi-cultural age, reason and common sense needs to come first. The individual's needs and rights need to be respected but not at the expense of the other students. Also, once you cross into that grey area, where and when do you draw the line? Sometimes I think the situation can become so muddled that in the end everyone loses. It's better to have clear and concise rules regarding school dress rather than rules that try to accomodate everyone's individual desires.

I'm getting long winded, but there was a case in Canada where a Sikh student was allowed to wear his ceremonial sword to school. Some countries simply are better able to accomodate differences, Canada is one of them, the US and the UK are not.

skunk

Mar 24, 2006, 04:49 PM

Some countries simply are better able to accomodate differences, Canada is one of them, the US and the UK are not.You do us a disservice. I remember the artful compromise arrived at for Sikh motorcyclists after the UK passed helmet laws: eventually, they were allowed to wear turbans over their helmets.

blackfox

Mar 24, 2006, 04:58 PM

You do us a disservice. I remember the artful compromise arrived at for Sikh motorcyclists after the UK passed helmet laws: eventually, they were allowed to wear turbans over their helmets.
No need to get so big-headed about it...

skunk

Mar 24, 2006, 05:00 PM

No need to get so big-headed about it...I didn't know you punned.

:D

toontra

Mar 27, 2006, 06:35 AM

mpw

Mar 27, 2006, 07:11 AM

It's the waste of public money in this case that sickens me.

The school has a uniform, therefore as a pupil she should wear the uniform or choose another school. Case closed.

That what she wanted to wear was some form of religious garb just makes me more angry, religion has no place in school other than impartial education into as many religions time in the curriculam will allow.

It pisses me off that some some children (or some parents of children) insist on special treatment because of their religion. I think that if those providing education did so without any religious angle then no child should recieve special treatment.

IMO governments should be divorced entirely from religion, set the rules based on what's best for all people and then those that choose religion can choose to live within those rules or opt out at their expense.

toontra

Mar 27, 2006, 10:24 AM

In this case both the school (70% muslim) and the education authority had bent over backwards to accommodate muslim wishes regarding clothing, including speaking to local religious leaders. Everyone, apart from this one child (or her parents/"supporters") were entirely happy with the uniforms chosen.

It has nothing to do with religious observation - apparently there is no requirement to wear a jilbab. That was entirely a personal "style" choice of this child.

I sense mischief afoot - I wonder who really pushed this case. It astonishes me that this case wasn't weeded out as being frivolous at an early stage. There is something badly wrong with the law (and legal aid system) that this went to the Lords at such expense.