Why the Sikh girl / kara case was right
My latest article on CIF has generated a good debate there. This is part of what I said:
Put aside your prejudice for or against religion for a second. The question is: do we not want a legal and political system that is flexible enough to accommodate differences in certain cases? Don’t we want to live in a liberal, pluralistic society that accepts difference and in some cases makes exceptions (whether that be for atheists who don’t want to sing hymns or the faithful who want to adorn themselves with some symbols)? Your answer may still be no.
But consider this. The most interesting aspect to this whole case was the fact that the judge took advice on whether the kara was a central tenet to the Sikh faith (it is). And while some might find that potentially dangerous and bizarre, I believe this to be a good development. It means that while people do have some leeway on religious matters, they have to be in proportion. In other words, you can’t take the piss and claim your religion sanctions it. For this reason I believe rejecting the claims by Shabina Begum and Lydia Playfoot were the right decisions to make. The line has to be drawn somewhere and religious people cannot get away with anything just on the basis of belief.
The second important point to note in these cases is that the law is a very blunt instrument. The case went to court but I’m glad there isn’t a specific law that bans or fully allows such symbols. It’s a very British position to take, admittedly, but these decisions must be devolved to local authorities and schools. For example, if the kara was being used as a weapon by Sikh gangs (as used to be the case in West London), then I’d fully support the decision by a school to ban it locally. The local context is important.
Update: David Semple was persuaded by me, though for different reasons.
The only problem is that it is difficult to identify the central tenet of any faith. What if a different leader came forward and said the kara wasn’t relevant?
Secondly,how do we identify who is a legitimate leader of the faith?
In my view, there should either be an exception for bracelets or there should be a total ban which applies to all.
What if ??
Find one and then we’ll discuss it.
‘The only problem is that it is difficult to identify the central tenet of any faith.’
This is fair enough, but…
‘What if a different leader came forward and said the kara wasn’t relevant?’
That would be highly unlikely, since the kara is considered as necessary as, say, appreciating the sacrifice of Christ at Christmas is for Christians. It’s something unconditionally stated within the religion.
Nice one, Sunny! Much more concise and clear-headed than some of your recent offerings.
Gege @ 1 ” The only problem is that it is difficult to identify the central tenet of any faith. What if a different leader came forward and said the kara wasn’t relevant?”
” Secondly,how do we identify who is a legitimate leader of the faith?”
I see your point. Especialy since the prophet who introduced the kara was over c100 years after the death of the original founding prophet
In seeking to understand the stance of the article I have a few queries:
1. ” Perhaps the most bizarre circumstances were the ones imposed … by her school:”
Agreed they are bizarre but then putting children in isolated detention for breaking other rules is equally non productive - but hey its the rules. The case (as far as I am aware) was about the wearing of the kara not the schools treatment.
2. ” The most interesting aspect to this whole case was the fact that the judge took advice on whether the kara was a central tenet to the Sikh faith (it is).”
Depends upon whose interpretation & who gets to choose anyway?
3. “The local context is important.”
What local context is important in Wales?
4. ” Even critics of this outcome should recognise that the law already differentiates between different contexts in any case” and ” do we not want a legal and political system that is flexible enough to accommodate differences in certain cases”
See my response to 2. It didn’t differentiate to those who believe differently to the person the Judge consulted
5. Should the English legal system even sit on cases relating to application of religion as application can vary so much?
Yes in an ideal, conceptual world. In reality no, because of the points in 2 and 4
here we go again persephone
what part of Guru Gobind Singh Ji being the guru just as Guru Nanak Dev Ji do you not get?
What your harping on about is more akin to people who reject the gurus who militarised the faith, that is NOT sikhi.
If you want to suggest that Guru Gobind Singh ji is in contradiction to the original teachings of Guru Nanak Dev Ji, again that is not sikhi.
Guru Gobind Singh Ji was the final seal of the sikhism path, no sikh can deny him.
#4: moron(s).
at least the judge sought elemental advice; it suffices.
@ 6 because you have dictated it so it must be so
@ 7 not worth answering - name calling is poor communication
lol, just me? Who are you trying to kid? You can twist it all you like to satisfy your own thought, but no sikh can deny Guru Gobind Singh ji.
By any means, create your OWN misguided interpretation of the gurus if you want, but all you need to do is read some sikh sources from closer to the time to understand that sikhs consider all sikh gurus of the same light. Just read Bhai Gurdas vaaran who was in the darbar some of the gurus at the actual time of their existance and how he describes the oneness of them.
#8: answer you did, nevertheless, with a feebly constructed string to stand in for what any reader is meant to infer.
Moreover, although ‘moron’ was apposite whislt taking this thread at face value, reading the recent related thread since then renders you as willfully ignorant, obstreperously pursuant of an agenda;
- more effectively communicated as ‘twat’.
Reading this blog, I can see that logic needs to be taught in schools.
First, symbols can be helpful in reminding people to behave in a certain way, especially in times of stress. I myself, have set my computer to flash a symbol every 2 hours to remind me to drink water! So, logically I cannot deny that symbols can be useful.
Second, this point about allowing Sarika to where a Kara being unfair on other people seems to suffer from logical flaws too. Suppose, for example that the EU decided to ban the German language, it would be a law that applies to everyone equally. So what would be wrong with such a law? Well, of course it would affect Germans, Austrians and some Swiss much more than others. So, Ravi Naik and Persephone, how do you respond to that? In light of this example, your arguments about having the same laws for everyone being fair don’t seem to make sense.
Basically, I think people are quite happy to ban all sorts of things (for all sorts of stupid reasons) as long as it does not affect them personally.
Oh and my last point, why the hell do we worry about uniforms when we have such an awful state-based education system?
Dears Sunny,
An interesting article.
Nice to see your blog.
Persephone
@#4
Why O why? There you go again. What’s the matter? Is the tenth Guru a bit too virile and robust for you or something?
Anyway. What’s really shocked me over the last few days is the ignorant hate filled Internet rantings of many indigenous (not all mind you) morons. You would think food is being removed from their mouths through the wearing of a kara. What the hell is that all about?
I understand your point, Harry. But if you want to apply your example properly in this context, in my view, it would be akin for the school to ban the use of German language (and all other foreign languages) inside an English school, but obviously, you would be free to speak it outside the school premises.
I am not against the ruling at all - and I congratulate Sarika for fighting for her rights, but the school must now allow all students to wear bracelets with no exceptions. That to me is inconsequential, unlike the ruling which allows people with turbans to weave the use of helmets when riding a motorbike or in construction sites. That to me is a rather irresponsible ruling for those who fought for it, those who agreed with it, and those who made it into a law.
#14: Your application of a hypothetical example renders it pointless - you are, at best, bliaring: self-professing sincerity at variance with the facts.
-and a better erxample was raised earlier, of vegetarians; by your ‘logic’, they may desist from eating meat away from school.
-it’s not a bracelet in the form of jewelry, it is categorically different, just as diiferent rules apply for medical grounds.
As for turbans, it is indeed good for all -including you- that you are not the arbiter for any such thing.
Turbans were acceptable in the army, in desert and jungle; why must they cut/plait their hair to ride a bike?
#13 [..+ #11 ?]:
-well done for spending the time trying elsewhere - but at a certain point.. well, conclusions may be drawn.
To waive, not weave.
Lovely paragraph.
No. By my logic, everyone should be able to have vegetarian food regardless of faith. That’s a rather literal alignment to “I am not against the ruling at all - and I congratulate Sarika for fighting for her rights, but the school must now allow all students to wear bracelets with no exceptions.
So, why should anyone else, for that matter? Why should the government force others to use a helmet when riding a bike or in construction sites? Because you have to be a real moron not to. The government should not have relented to pressure, and people who feel that wearing a helmet is a problem, should not engage in such activities.
#17: the reference to veg.ns was not of faith but in the context you sought to modify the proscription of the german language.
Yes I see you are happy with this ruling but it is both contradictory -as is anything predicated on ‘rights’, for in that case they need never be fought for, let alone that such fighting is/can only be undertaken by those beyond a certain level in society-
and unsatisfactory for you persist in regarding it as an exception to be granted or tolerated.
As for turbans, you again fail to address what is more important fro the sake of your pseudo-principleism.
For one thing, are people simply exempted the from helmets, or are turbans worn in their stead?
MOre importantly, if millions have served in the army with long hair, the original reason for which was to forego the option of assuming and shedding values according to whether they were convenient, and such that many who were too [suitable nounphrase(s)] were thereby safeguarded,
then, whether by minimal shame or pragmatism, it is elementally clear why provision is made for them.
ps - i’ve wasted enough time on this; your reasoning allows for anyone to wear rollerskates because one fought fo rtheir ‘right’ to have a wheelchair.
Indeed you have. I have no idea what you are arguing about.
#19:
yes, having spelled it out for you so that all you needed was to apply your brain (albeit sincerely rather than purportedly), I anticipated it not happening.
What’s more, what does it require to fail to understand the analogy in the ‘ps’?
I did understand, I just think it is rubbish… the right to use a wheelchair? Sounds awfully like a Seinfeld sketch with George in it.
Its as simple as this, only amritdharis should wear and be allowed to wear all the ks as they are given to them when they receive amrit. This would stop any confusion. Would Sarika fight as hard for a Sikh to wear his Kirpan? Why does she only wear the kara and not the other ks? These kind of cases could/will cause problems in the future.
#21: yes, rubbish it is and that’s what you’ve come out with. Spare me the seinfeld crap in favour of thinking about its aplication in this context, where you term the ‘kara’ a bracelet;
I now desist.
#22
So all those of guys with kesh (the majority), who have no intention of taking amrit, should cut their hair then according to your logic.
Jagjeet, what are you trying to do? Make the panth the smallest group on the planet?
Ravi,
Do you think it should be lawful for a UK school to be able to ban the use of German? I think that should be against the law. The point of my example was to demonstrate that a certain habit, such as language or dress code may be very important to Group X, but not Group Y. Thus banning this`habit’ will affect Group X, but not Group Y. Hence, a law which seems fair is in fact deeply unfair.
I would like to have your opinion on an even stronger (and quite crazy!) example, which relates to the idea that outward signs of difference cause tension (which I think is close to some of the reasoning we see from people who support the headscarf ban in France). Suppose there is racial tension in a school between brown-skinned and white-skinned children. As a result, the school imposes racial uniformity in the class room, by forcing the white children to get deep sun tans, dye their hair black and wear brown contact lenses (of course only during school time!).
My point is that banning things which are important to people is an awful thing to do and our school teachers should find better ways of spending their time.
Furthermore, if outward signs of difference lead to tension, then forcibly removing those outwards signs of difference is not the way to go. Rather we should try hard to find ways to encourage people to accept and be happy with other people and their different appearance.
Alas, many Europeans couldn’t even deal with having Jews and Gypsies around. I wonder how they will end up dealing with the current situation. The French seem to have started by banning religious symbols worn by non-white people (and they have done this in a very underhand way by appealing to secularism…I don’t believe for one second that secularism is the underlying motivation! The French state funds Christian and Jewish religious schools, which tells you how important secularism really is down there).
What is the next step? Banning non-white people? In my opinion, we are moving in a very ominous direction.
Dalbir ji, Sikhis never been about numbers, amrit comes to very fortunate people. Guru Sahib has made this path most difficult and has always looked for quality not quantity. I believe Anand Sahib states this path is finer than a hair and sharper than a knife. Another shabad to back my opinion up would be “if you want to play this game of love, bring your palm on your and do not pay any attention to public opinion” and finally “leave the desire of life, become the dust of everyones feet and then come to me”.
Jagjeet ji
Don’t discount the numerous observations of Sikhs from Moghuls and Europeans that show the rank and file of the Khalsa were not all “holier than thou” and included all manner of people including those that drank, those that took bhang as well as the vociferous anti Musalman i.e. people who did things and held views that are considered major no nos today.
Yes there is a heavily spiritual aspect of Sikhi as you have highlighted but don’t discount the political and military aspect in amongst all of that. Having a diminished minuscule community was never part of the plan. Accept the wider panth instead of promoting a closed off sectarian group approach.
Dalbir,
I’m just chiming in with a name to back up what you’re saying.
MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH.
I know (now) that religion is often mostly about whitewashing the past to make it look more appealing than the present (because it’s easier that way!), but… JAYZUSS. When I looked him up for myself, I was actually laughing with the ‘They-didn’t-print-THAT-in-the story-books!’ shock.
Don’t get me wrong folks. I fully understand that the whole basis of Sikhism is routed in discipline.
Be this from the earliest stages where it encompassed rigorous spiritual and physical discipline through meditation and other altruistic practices. Through to the later evolution which explicitly incorporated military discipline and political activism into the sphere of the Sikh existence.
The sant-sipahi model is the ideal and one demonstrated by the tenth Guru with his own life. But that doesn’t detract from the ground reality that with swelling numbers in the panth many fell short of the ideal. The description of the path as “fine as hair and as sharp as the edge of a khanda” is so true because achieving that balance is/was difficult.
My point is that we shouldn’t just discard or exclude people if they fail to achieve this. This however needs to be contextualised with the other obvious point that it is easy to justify undisciplined behaviour with references to SOME of our ancestors actions. Many do this but this doesn’t make it right.
All I’m saying is that insaaniyat or humanity needs to be exercised and this exclusive approach is, in my opinion, detrimental. Sikhs are now a global community. The sectarian impulse needs to be crushed otherwise you only end up with a fractured community full of pockets of people who are not integrated with each other.
Anyway - It’s late. I’m knackered. Let me end with something a very smart man once told me in Panjabi. He was talking about families at the time but I think the point is very valid.
“Anyone can break or divide, it takes special effort to heal, unite and fix what is broken”
Good night.
Is it fair for a Chinese boy who speaks perfect Mandarin and little English to be forced to speak English in an English school? It isn’t - but then again, it was the choice of his parents, and probably the whole point of him being there.
As I said before, I am against exceptions specially when it comes to religion. Given this ruling, the school must adopt the position of allowing all children to wear bracelets. It does not need to open an exception for this particular religion or the other.
I am glad you decided to go for crazy, and not all the way crazy. I mean, the latter would involve the school forcing every student to go for plastic surgery so they all look alike. Oh authoritarian schools, what can’t you do!?
Ravi
I think you missed my point about someone being banned from speaking a particular language in school. Suppose there are two Mandarin speakers in an English school. They speak English perfectly and use that language when communicating with teachers and other students. But amongst themselves they use Mandarin. Do you think they should be forbidden from doing so?
Why are you so pro-rules Ravi? What scientific evidence is there that suggests having strict uniform rules, for example, helps young people in getting an education? Perhaps it just a custom of this country, which was useful when you needed to produce cannon-fodder for armies, but is no longer necessary.
Sunny,
Could you please clarify why you support the outcome in this case but not Shabina Begum’s right to wear the Jilbab? I would have thought your position was inconsistent. Both Sarika and Shabina no doubt sincerely believed their claims to be integral to practicing their beliefs. The line you draw (the right to wear religious jewellery vs. religious attire) seems to be an arbitary one.
Sunny -
Reading the media coverage of this I have a faint suspicion that this case was about rather more than a piece of metal on her wrist and I would be interested if anyone knows the wider story.
This said though, I think that you are glossing over legitimate concerns about this case’s outcome. The stark reality is that this case IS a piss-taker’s and attention-seeker’s charter masquerading as faux religious tolerance and deep down I think you know that. Whether that was the girl’s motive or not is beside the point.
The pertinent point is that she was NOT banned from wearing the bracelet and that can not be emphasised enough. The coverage (which I can’t for the life of me find now) made clear that the school had offered reasonable alternatives to accommodate religious beliefs, such as wearing the bangle, I believe so it was not openly on display.
The school offered an alternative which was rejected by the girl (or at least her parents) and followed by court, backed I believe by a human rights pressure group.
All this, of course, is before questions about whether she could have gone to a school that accommodated her religious demands/wishes [delete as appropriate].
You say, ‘Don’t we want to live in a liberal, pluralistic society that accepts difference and in some cases makes exceptions.’ It is a legitimate point to make, but in this case that is surely a decision for the school to take in line with uniform policy. The school, as I read the coverage, offered flexibility and the girl (or her parents) were the ones digging in heels.
The outcome to my mind was wrong.
The local context is important, and for the right decisions to be made in that context it is essential that the difference between accommodation and exception is understood.
Why should only atheists be let off singing religious hymns? What about the deist who believes in god, but doesn’t believe it requires worship? What about he believer who thinks god hates singing?
The solution lies in accommodation - make hymn singing optional for everyone. It is always very difficult to justify exceptionalism.
Once the difference between accommodation and exception is understood, it helps clarify decision making. Accommodation was clearly possible in Sakira’s case - everyone could wear a bangle without causing inconvenience or disruption to anyone else. In the niqab case, you’d have to ask whether it was a good idea to allow everyone to mask their face, and make your decision accordingly.
DavidMWW (34) - ‘Accommodation was clearly possible in Sakira’s case.’
How so?
As I understand it the school was accommodating and she was the one that rejected it and was litigious and in no mood to compromise. This outcome actively works against accommodation as it essentially says that individuals are free to run to court as and when they do not like accommodation.
The outcome of this case is very clear, the solution is in court - after this, no one has any incentive at all to be accommodating.
I don’t really agree with the school asking the girl to hide her kara. Why should she? What exactly was their problem with the bracelet? I think schools need to have a consistent approach to this issue and pick and choose their battles. If she wore a turban, would they have asked her to hide that?
As for the jilbab issue, again, some muslims say loose clothing is good enough, hence muslim girls are able to wear a loose top and long skirt. Others say an outer garment should be worn. Are we saying then, that we should go with minimum requirements agreed by the majority of muslims? What would these be? These issues aren’t going to go away and there needs to be open and honest debate around them. This isn’t just a question of religious symbols, rather, integral parts of peoples’ religions.
Maid Marian
Only in Britain could a simple thing, like wearing a kara, be made into a hysterical event that foreshadows the downfall of western society.
Thank God the judge made the right decision. The moaning whining brigade can f##k off. If they weren’t crying about this, they would find something else to upset themselves over.
Like there are public campaigns to try and deter people from drink driving, I think we need a campaign to deter the indigenous from wallowing in a sea of nonsensical self pity, where every and any act of cultural retention by Johnny Foreigner is seen as a blow against them and their culture. Who would of thought, the people who once ruled so much of the world, would turn into such cry babies in so short a time…..tut tut tut
[looks wistfully into the sky.......]
Maid Marian (35), you’re probably right. The Sakira case isn’t great example as neither side appears to have acted reasonably. I was just using it as an excuse to ride my accommodation/exception hobby horse around the block one more time.
Sofia (36) - ‘I don’t really agree with the school asking the girl to hide her kara. Why should she?’ To accommodate others perhaps? To adhere to the uniform policy that she (or at least her parents) knowingly signed up to?
Dalbir (37) - Do you feel better for getting all that off your chest?
David MWW (38) - I agree. Reading around this I get a sense that the school went OTT and the girl (or at least her parents) were just spoiling for a fight. I think that your exception/accommodation idea is right.
That said, the courts got this wrong. Had the girl not been offered a perfectly reasonable accommodation then I would have put my shoulder to the wheel no problem. The reality is though that there was no ban and she was accommodated. Like I said, I get a sense that there is more to this underneath the surface, but on the face of it, the girl has been rewarded for not being uncompromising. The judge was wrong.
so it would have been right for a school to ban a girl from wearing a turban? or a hijab?
do you agree with the French approach to this issue where you ban all religious symbols in state schools?
Sofia (40) - What part of, ‘there was no ban,’ do you not understand?
Sofia (41) - Yes.
I didn’t say there was a ban on the kara…i was asking your opinion on the banning of a turban?
so in your opinion what is the difference between a religious symbol and dress that is an integral part of someone’s faith?
Sofia (43) - Without wanting to prolong this.
There is a fine line between piety and faith.
That’s not the point, I believe that the state should be secular.
Watch out for these people Sofia. One minute it’s cool for you to wear your symbols, as in join our army and risk life and limb for us. Then the next minute, the symbols are, for want of a better word “wrong” somehow.
How wearing the kara was stopping her wearing her uniform is beyond me and points at pettiness. I believe these people are to dense or really couldn’t give a crap about what these things mean to us.
Over the last few weeks there have been so many twists in the tale. One minute she was a stubborn rebel, the next a prefect model student. Then she was being frog marched around and isolated by the school. Now they are saying she was offered accommodation. The kara went from being a religious symbol, to jewellery and then metamorphed into an ostentatious display of wealth (and finally a weapon for West End boys - thanks Sunny!)
I mean, I can’t help asking. Can we believe a single word from British media these days? I said it before. Judging by the reaction of some people to this case, you would think that wearing the kara was a grave insult to their culture and existence…..
Are these people mad? And are we clearly seeing what many ground level indigs really feel about our cultures and idiosyncrasies? Will some twat ask me to take off or hide my kara one day?
And I know I shouldn’t start sentences with and, but…you know….what the heck, you only live once!
For this reason I believe rejecting the claims by Shabina Begum and Lydia Playfoot were the right decisions to make. The line has to be drawn somewhere and religious people cannot get away with anything just on the basis of belief.
This is a farcical statement Sunny.
On what basis can a secular judge decide whether Sarika was, in your words, taking the piss and that Shabina was not? Or vice versa?
Some Sikhs here have already made clear that if her kara was such an important symbol to her Sikhness, why was she not observing the other Ks? One can argue that she too was a nuisance creator.
Conversely, one can argue that Shabina Begum’s claim can have no basis in religious law because there is no Quranic injunction which says that women should be in a hijab. Her’s was a personal interpretation of a religious obligation.
But like Sarika, she decided to *make* it a singular, non-negotiable tenet of her faith.
And who are you, or secular judges for that matter, to argue? What religious basis, because this after all a religious article of faith, do you have to decide what is and what isn’t?
This is why I think the school should not have lost this case. And supporting Sarika’s cause is another potential problem that is going to come back and bite the cause of a liberal secular consensus.
Keep it simple: Keep religious symbols out of schools.
I know there is a big difference between piety and faith. I have no problem with the state being secular as long as it allows me to practice the basic and fundamental tenets of my religion. I believe the french approach is discrimantory and a totally reactive ‘policy’. I don’t care if someone else chooses to be secular or not, and I am glad I don’t live in France anymore because they have taken away choice and freedom of expression.
Dalbir (45) - Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular case, a respect for diversity does not mean that the collective knee has to be bent before every taboo.
But the state is not secular.
The Queen is the head of the Church of England and taxpayer’s money bankroles said Church.
Sinai (49) - Yes and an immediate stop should be put to that.
MaidMarian(48)
How about perspective? Even if religions seem ridiculous to you (which I could understand), how does wearing the kara realistically make a single indigenous British person’s life any worse?
“a respect for diversity does not mean that the collective knee has to be bent before every taboo”
Who is blowing things out of proportion here? Besides I could equally say from the Sikh side. Our tolerant ways doesn’t mean we succumb to every anally retentive request made. I see this case as ridiculous as asking a white man to remove his tie because……[insert your own piece of nonsense here]
Dalbir (51) - ‘Who is blowing things out of proportion here?’
In this case, I would argue the girl (or at least her parents). They presumably understood and signed up to the school uniform policy, they rejected accommodation and they went to court (though I would be interested to know how far they were egged on by the pressure group).
I fully recognise that the school may have been OTT, but the girl and parents lost perspective here. No question. I only hope that the court indulging them does not lead to the worst.
“I only hope that the court indulging them does not lead to the worst.”
This is exactly what I mean. Mad apocalyptic statements about the possible end of British society as we know it, because some Sikhs insists on wearing their kara.
This seems quite mad to me.
I mean, you at least put it eloquently. When I visited some other sites, people were making hate filled rants that even shocked this man of the world.
Are Brits losing the plot about what battles to fight and what to let slide?
Dalbir (53) - ‘Are Brits losing the plot about what battles to fight and what to let slide?’
No - we are just ever more confusing internet froth and bile with debate and that is giving the impression that said plot is being lost. The internet is giving us a terrible mix of strident and lazy politics. Not good.
Rant over. Best of luck to you.
Sinai (49) - Yes and an immediate stop should be put to that.
But until it does, people should stop referring to the British state as a secular one.
The pertinent point is that she was NOT banned from wearing the bracelet and that can not be emphasised enough. The coverage (which I can’t for the life of me find now) made clear that the school had offered reasonable alternatives to accommodate religious beliefs, such as wearing the bangle, I believe so it was not openly on display.
Not sure if I buy this, because the statement by the schoool contradicts a lot of stuff that eventually came out in the court. They said they’d made accomodation, but why then to court documents show that not to be the case?
asking to ‘hide’ the kara is ridiculous…as ridiculous as asking a sikh woman who wears a turban to ‘hide’ it too
Judging by some of the comments here (see Sid and MaidMarian), we live in a society where not everyone is that liberal.
Why this fascination with forcing other people to obey your rules? Some people want our state to be secular, which to them means forcing OTHER people to dress in a certain why? Can you PROVE this is benefical? Or is this aspect of some people’s `secularism’ just another irrational belief?
Are secularists inventing a new religion, with lots of strange beliefs concerning what you should not wear, but without the god bit?
Sadly, some secularists are no different from some religious people. They believe they have found a life style that will make the world a better place and would like to use the law to FORCE the rest of us to comply.
What right do you have to FORCE other people to dress according to YOUR wishes?
Harry,
Can you be sure that the responsibility of judgement of religious obligation, or in other words making judges deem which symbols are good in schools and which are not, will result in free and fair judgement 100% of the time?
Or, to be precise, do you think it is correct to say that a muslim should not wear her hijab to school, but a sikh girl can wear her kara, or a buddhist boy can’t wear his saffron robe or a Bonbibi worshipper can carry a spear to school will be efficacious *all* the time?
(OK, I made the last two incidences up but you get the picture).
There’s only one way to handle these discrepencies and its not by judging who is “taking the piss” and who is not - as the the Sarika case has set a precedent for.
It is by removing the obligation of religious symbols in schools. This is not secularism, this is common sense.
On this, Nick Cohen has got it spot on.
The way out of the mess is for the state to commit itself to secularism; to offer full religious freedom, while striving to keep religion out of the public sphere. Leaving all considerations of principle aside, secularism is the only ideology that can make a multifaith society work. The alternative is a future of competitive religious grievance and unremitting vexatious litigation.
I’m in two minds on this. Initially I took the same stance as Sunny - most of the time this doesn’t become an issue because people find a way to get along without getting confontational. It really doesn’t matter to most people what religious symbols others choose to wear. These cases get in the news because they are actually quite unusual and when conflict does arise it is usually because someone wants to make a point. When local conditions mean that it is an issue, then the school should consult carefully, make sensible rulings and be prepared to back them up.
But I am persuaded by Sid’s point. Inevitably there will be cases that mean asking legal authorities to make judgements on religious doctrine and personal sincerity. Item x is a required religious symbol, item y is bling. Person a holds a sincere belief, person b is taking the piss. That isn’t their place and they aren’t qualified to do it.
So we either accept that any school rule is subordinate to religious belief, which IMO is unfeasible, or declare state schools to be secular space. That would mean removing the hangover from the state takeover of CofE schools which left in the requirement for a broadly christian assembly. In favour of that, if I never hear ‘Shine, Jesus, Shine’ again it will be too soon.
Of course, that would mean a lot of people choosing to move their children to religious schools, or to home schooling, which just re-arranges the problem.
I’m in favour of schools accomodating modest clothing as that is not religion-specific, but I think - and I’m open to persuasion - that the default position should be no open display of religious, political or ethnic affiliation.
Sid,
Personally, I think any symbol can be worn as long as it is not more dangerous than other objects that are already found in schools. So hijabs are fine. People might not like the look of them, but too bad. Not every schoolgirl is going to be nice to look at. Kirpans should be small, blunt and fastened into their sheaths, so they are no more dangerous than the cutlery children eat with. The spear should be similarly modified. Orange robes may look weird to many, but they pose no harm whatsoever, so they should be allowed. Just because they look odd to some people, there is no reason to ban them. Black people used to look odd to some people! They wanted to ban them too–by deporting them!
Your last post (60) leads to the following point.
Some secularists think they have found a way to make the world better, and we must all obey their rules. This is just like the Muslim fundamentalists, who think the world’s problems can be sorted out, provided we all obey Islamic laws.
Just read that line again from Cohen: `secularism is the only ideology that can make a multifaith society work.’ Good grief, sounds like something straight from a fundamentalist’s mouth. The only ideology? Really?
Why the hell should you have the right to force other humans to do things they do not want to do? Oh of course, it’s because the world will be a better place!
What evidence do you have for the premise that forcing secularism on people by banning them from dressing in a certain way is beneficial?
What evidence do you have for the premise that forcing secularism on people by banning them from dressing in a certain way is beneficial?
Because soon your one and only criterion for judging religious symbols to be worn in schools - safety - will be washed away in a sea of over-litigious religious court cases and godly people who will insist that their particular item of religious clothing has to be observed in spite of the the rules of the school. And they won’t be “taking the piss” either.
Harry,
Schools do ban people from dressing in a certain way, that’s what a uniform policy is. I have personally sent home students who have shown up dressed like LA street hookers or wearing swastika symbols.
You say, very reasonably, that Kirpans should be small, blunt and fastened into their sheaths, so they are no more dangerous than the cutlery children eat with. That’s how we did things in the schools I have known, and I was always fine with that.
But what of the student who insists that his faith requires the real deal, ten inches or so of sharp blade? How do you judge on that? You are also accepting that restrictions should be in place. The question is where?
Exactly Don, I was formulating that exact point in my mind and was about to post it, but you have done it better than I could.
Harry,
You seem indignant when secularism imposes laws but see no problem with being extremely prescriptive about the size and shape of a kirpan. Some sects might insist that your definition of a correctly sized kirpan should be trumped by their particular obligations. Then what?
The only way out of this mess is for the government to dictate what can and cannot be done in the public sphere!?
Advocating politicisation to avoid ‘competitive religious grievance and unremitting vexatious litigation’ is laughable; if MPs decide to arbitarily ban something the first recourse is the courts - why would litigation decrease? and all the people that are alienated by this centrally administered secularism would turn to political parties with more religious dimensions; unless you also ban religious political parties from the public sphere. I’m curious how far Cohen is willing to go, after all a vast percentage of names are derived from religious ideologies; shall the state decide what names are or are not acceptable?
The continent has been particularly bad at misunderstanding the fact that secularism does not mean sympathy to authoritarianism; we should not follow their path.
Regarding this particular case I’d have no problem with the school refusing to teach that girl provided her parents were reimbursed the portion of their taxes that contributed towards her education.
Why would this decrease litigation (which is hardly numerous at the moment)?
Even if all schools were declared ’secular public spaces’ there would still be disagreement on whether a particular piece of clothing, a tattoo, a name or any number of other things constituted a religious belief - there would still be litigation.
You may advocate the banning of something you disagree with, but unless you want to actually ban the act of disagreement you’ll still need a civil process of settlement.
I once again assert that the likes of Dalbir have it right here, along with Harry’s grasp.
Against that is some odious reactionism, some willful.
Sid[this being written after post #59] - your position is by no means a simple + ultimate one, it is far weaker than you think.
It would be simpler still to not have schooling; yet simpler to have no one living at all: that would be the ultimate in being correctly fair.
-If religion is allowed, then it can be dealt with and judgements will be being made.
and btw: prohibition is not feasible.
There is a pathetic strain arguing that this is a charter to floodgates opening: bollox; the poxy shool was out of order for being gratuitous, so do not attempt to blame the messenger;
re judging, yes it’s less clear the longer ago a religion was: was he a prophet? No- he was the son of GOD .. or was he a charlaton..?
-But in this case, of the youngest major religion, it was EASY to establish the value of the kara.. it’s around the same time as the French revolution(!); it’s practically an enactment of historical materialism whereby its proponents endured torture iincluding being boiled alive on behalf of others’ freedom [propoganda notwithstanding], and now some poxy fucking school is to proscribe it?
And lest you -as I was bound to consider- regard this as a case of reverting to type in supprt of ‘my’ side, remember me scorning the twats seeking to shut down ‘besthi’ while you defendedd them
But nor am i surprised to read some thinking this was a girl digging her heels in egged on by a pressure group..: because people find/assert what suits them.
MORE importantly ie beyond this issue, it seems a lot of people are systemically ignorant in advocating rules. There was a movement called ‘logical positivism’, it was the sincere and ‘correct’ attempt for its time, yet found wanting, about a 100 years ago. Moreover, educate yourselves on say Chomsky to see how grammatical rules in natural languages apply: not literally but by means his genius termed ‘governing’, ‘binding’..
-and that is why,loathed as he is by so many, he is effectively untouchable to any one sincere, including the reactionary ones.
Furthermore, as just alluded, I wanted to examine the ‘justification’ for being called ’singh/kaur…’:
is that ostentation within some petty institution’s remit to sanction or proscribe? -I’d say, ‘get the fuck out of my face’.
And which beacon of democracy that seperates church from state [clue: it used 2 atomic bombs gratuitously] indoctrinates its young by swearing allegiance to a flag? How enlightened.
Kulvinder,
I appreciate that litigation is not common at the moment, in fact I made that point in #61.
I’d have no problem with the school refusing to teach that girl provided her parents were reimbursed the portion of their taxes that contributed towards her education.
By the same token, would you be in favour of a sikh who chose not to wear a crash helmet paying a surcharge to the NHS when he has a skid and fractures his skull?
Indrak,
Yes. We are all big fans of that. How is that remotely relevant?
Gotta go. Dawkins is doing Darwin. I’m sure this will still be going in an hour.
Don:
Picking on the Hindus eh Don? Typical.
#71: assuming you refer to the last bit in #69, it’s along the lines of being careful about what is wished for; out of the frying pan –>fire,
-fro those seeking ’simple’ rules.
You’re paying for the use of the NHS; you’re not given any money back for not using it. Its analogous to asking whether the parents of students who are excluded from school should pay a surcharge.
You’re either arguing from the standpoint of an inclusive socialised health care system or not; to me the man in the accident has already paid for his treatment. If you’re saying he hasn’t or should be penalised for his actions then anyone who doesn’t wear a seatbelt or who injures themselves whilst driving because they’re a bit over the limit should be forced to pay a surcharge (or refused treatment?).
Obviously i think advocating such a system is absurd, i do not smoke but i do not think that smokers should be made to pay surcharges or be refused treatment altogether (and Tebbit’s point at the end is very valid).
If we’re going to ignore the socialist ideals that sought to combat ‘market failure’ (in a marxist context of that phrase) in health care then we might as well do away with the NHS altogether.
I would much much rather have my NI contributions given back and go to a private clinic that made similar demands on my personal habits (don’t smoke or eat certain things etc) and be given a choice of refusing to pay than be forced to pay by the government but still refused treatment.
Rumbold,
Yeah, bastards. How dare they have a religion I can’t understand?
I don’t think that people should have to wear crash helmets. If they want to increase their risk of serious injury, let them. As Kulvinder says, the NHS has already been paid for through taxes, so as soon as you start charging at the point of use, then surely everyone should have to pay extra if they get into a particular situation.
kulvinder,
I was scarcely arguing for that position, just pointing out that your suggestion for a refund of tax should you choose to decline a service leads to that position.
Don:
The more one reads about Hinduism the less one understands it.
Sid,
Your guesses about what could happen in the future do not count as `evidence’. So, where is your scientific evidence, Sid? Or are you basing your suggestions for how the law should be amended on beliefs?
In my opinion, your method of stopping reams of possible future litigation is draconian and extreme. It’s akin to stopping racism in school by eliminating the presence of non-white students.
Another question for you, seeing as you seem to care greatly about how busy courts may get. A freer society HAS led to courts spending more time on divorce isssues. Would you ban divorce (or marriage!) in order to give the legal profession less to do? If not, why get all worked up over courts spending time on uniform issues?
Don.
As far as restricting the size of the Kirpan, some people may well be upset. However, the safety of other human beings is important. Just as the right to self-expression, religious or otherwise is important.
When there is conflict over what to do, people can discuss things and try and come to agreement. If they fail in that, we have a legal system to fall back upon. To ban things outright and remove the right of people to go to court is unwise, in my opinion.
The issue of the swastika is interesting. Personally, I would not like it. Yet while it makes many people feel uncomfortable, it does not physically hurt them.
It would probably be a good opportunity to have a school assembly about mass murder and the holocaust. If someone appears with a swastika, I would also invite a holocaust survivor to speak in school and meet the person who is wearing a swastika. Let them wear the swastika, but let them also learn about the pain and suffering caused by the Nazis.
Don suggested that people should not be able to show outward signs of ethnic identity (61, last sentence). What about skin colour, the most obvious indicator of ethnic identity. We know it can be hugely divisive, so should we force the white kids to get tans, dye their hair black and wear brown contact lenses?
Basically, people disagree about what can and cannot be worn in school. Great, it’s to be expected–disagreement is part of life. If people can’t come to agreement, let the courts decide what is appropriate. It’s part of their job!
Just to clarify i’d have no issue with the NHS refusing to accept the Sikh man as a client before he got into an accident, ie id be happy for him to be given his NI contributions back and to get private health cover. I just wouldn’t agree with him being told after the event that the way he lived wasn’t up to the government’s ideals, and being given a check to underline that point.
I view tax as a glorified contract. Schools or health services can refuse treatment - or cancel the contract - but they shouldn’t compel you to pay only for them to refuse a service. Its somewhat ironic that a die hard-bastard-thatcherite like Tebbit has to point out to a supposedly socialist government where their logic will lead them, and the fact they’re on the thin end of the wedge to bringing in the conditions that Bevan fought against; only this time both the markets and the government are turning their backs on the ‘irresponsible’ proles.
Harry,
Why did you change affiliation to identity?
Take issue with what I say, don’t change it.
Don
Ok, skin colour is a sign of ethnic affiliation.
Should all school children have the same colour?
If you want to ban some signs of ethnic affiliation, why not ban the obvious one? It can be done, since white people can get darker, dye their hair and wear brown contact lenses. Seeing as some white people seem to enjoy getting darker, and many people dye their hair and wear contact lenses, surely it’s not an unreasonable request to make, all in the interests of making the world a better place!
Of course it will never happen! But why ban things like karas or headscarves?
Can’t we learn to live together, without all looking the same? Can we? Or is that too hard for some people? Perhaps, we need psychologists, not just lawyers.
Harry,
You are miles from anything I am talking about. And making no sense.
Don
I think I addressed your question about where to the draw the line when it comes to school uniforms. I also
discussed how I would deal with the swastika issue.
The decision of what to allow/ban is not easy, but that’s why we are having this discussion.
If there are any questions you have, I would be happy to answer them. If anything doesn’t make sense, please point it out clearly and I shall attempt to state things more precisely.
Harry,
You asked me if I wanted all school children to be the same colour. Is that addressing anything I said, is it even worthy of reply?
On reflection. no.
Unfortunately, that is the logical, and as you correctly imply, stupid conclusion of attempting to eliminate visible differences.
I did address your other points about size restrictions on kirpans and how to deal with swastikas.
However, you ignored that and decided to focus on my deliberately extreme example about skin colour.
My stance is to allow all symbols/signs of difference, apart from those that can cause physical harm beyond that which can be caused by objects which school children commonly use. That certainly means the end of an enforced school uniform. The results may end up seeming strange to many. Or, we might just find that only a few children actually want to look obviously different. We just don’t know.
However, I cannot (yet) see why more relaxed dress codes would affect educational standards.
If you want to reduce the ‘dress-code’ argument to an absurd level, why not suggest that for the sake of equality, that people should have plastic surgery to create clones?
I like the idea of school uniform, because there is a rather egalitarian ideal behind it.
By the way, Harry, what you wear is a statement of your socio-economic background and your beliefs. On the other hand, race and what you look like… does not convey that, it is something we are born with. Which is why there is a focus on dress-code… and not on plastic surgery, tanning or lightning creams.
[...] Straps & Protectors News » News News Why the Sikh girl / kara case was right2008-08-04 19:12:49Society accepts difference and political system that accepts difference and [...]
Ravi
I do hope you are spending your time more wisely than I am ;). I am not sure whether me writing on this blog makes an iota of difference to anyone, apart from me.
Clothing is sometimes a statement about belief or related to socio-economic background, but not always. On this planet, skin colour is actually closely correlated with socio-economic status. The whiter the people, the richer the country! (This may be the root cause of why some white folks think the dark folks are inferior).
What is the precise relationship between making people dress the same and egalitarianism? Does it impact salary differences between children in later life? Other European countries suffer less income inequality, but don’t have school uniform policies. What do you actually mean by egalitarianism? What empirically measurable quantity is impacted by a school uniform policy? I am willing to be persuaded of the benefits of school uniforms, if someone can show me some scientific evidence. There must be a study on this somewhere!
As an aside, apart from Ireland, the only other European country which places restrictions on school children’s clothing is France, apparently in the name of secularism. Yet after banning headscarves in schools, Chirac and Prime Minister Raffarin, accompanied by wives and government ministers, attended mass at Paris’ Notre Dame Cathedral to honour the dead pope. Raffarin declared, “The government solemnly associates itself with the homage paid to Pope Jean Paul II.” (see http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/fran-a26.shtml for more details). Are these the actions of a strictly secular state?
I find Harry’s comments most thought-provoking. Unlike his comments, most opinions seem to be based largely on emotions and personal prejudices.
Those against accommodation to religious minorities base their view on a narrow definition of secularism similar to French Republican understanding of a strict separation of Church and State.
However, Britain as a pluralistic country has understood not only the importance of separation of Church and State but also of the right of people to freely practice their religion within legal and moral limits of course.
In many police departments the uniform was rather strict. However, when women started joining as officers in large numbers, many police departments in Western democracies had to accommodate women by changing the requirements. They allowed for longer hair and dresses instead of slacks. Entrance requirements were changed to allow for women to enter forces, such as, for weight, height and muscular strength.
Some chauvinist males resented women entering the work-place and contributing their talents. However, the times were changing and you needed to change with them.
In the same way, as a democracy matures, attitudes will need to be readjusted in order to allow people to freely practice their beliefs and respectfully live with one another.
While conflict is what the news media reports, in everyday life, we find inspiring examples of neighbours living together, whether your neighbour is Christian, Muslim, Hindu or even an atheist is less important than the fact that we can learn from one another…in a setting that allows for diverse perspectives.
This decision shows that the UK is a vibrant pluralistic country that recognizes that laws need to change in order to reflect the diverse character of modern UK.
———
I find Harry’s comments most thought-provoking. Unlike his comments, most opinions seem to be based largely on emotions and personal prejudices.
———
Are you surprised people are getting emotional when the wider implications of the case essentially involves discarding hard fought over cultural markers, whatever people may think of them.
———-
This decision shows that the UK is a vibrant pluralistic country that recognizes that laws need to change in order to reflect the diverse character of modern UK.
———-
Someone hasn’t told the multitudes of ignorant twats who are making comments demonstrating attitudes contrary to this all over the country. It seems that your beliefs are now fair game in this post 9/11 anti religious environment. What I find the most distasteful in all of this, is how overnight, my right to quietly go about my business with my kara on was subject to national scrutiny. The bile and hate shown by Johnny Bulldog to all this was illuminating in itself.
You don’t want to believe in religion, good for you! Don’t force your beliefs down my throat under the guise of secularism though please. Especially as the country itself is still officially a C of E monarchy. I mean, it’s not like the House of Lords doesn’t heavily use symbology itself, but that is acceptable I presume……
Harry (58) - ‘Judging by some of the comments here (see Sid and MaidMarian), we live in a society where not everyone is that liberal.’
This isn’t about liberalism to my mind. This is about secularism being a good thing.
It looks like overnight this has gone way off the beaten track. Go right back to the start. This is, after all about the circumstances of an individual case where, it would seem, schools have been compelled to sactifice uniform policy at the altar of religious piety. The judgement was wrong.
Dalbir (94) - ‘It seems that your beliefs are now fair game in this post 9/11 anti religious environment.’ Diddums.
‘ignorant twats’ - Ah, always nice to see the peace that only religion can bring.
MaidMarian
You say:
This is about secularism being a good thing.
What is secularism according to you, and if it is a good thing, who is it good for?
If you claim that it’s good for society, I would like to see scientific evidence for that. I know, I am always asking for evidence ;).
Going back to the case, can you prove that the judgement was wrong? Do you expect us to just believe you, as if you were some kind of wise prophet?
Where is the harm in wearing a kara in school? Is it more dangerous than a metallic watch strap? Can you prove that society will collapse, that civil war will result? Will house prices decline more quickly? What exactly will happen now, that is so bad?
You say that schools have been compelled to sactifice (sic) uniform policy at the altar of religious piety.
If you read the judgement, you will see that the judge was very careful to say that it applies in this case only, not to all schools. So, to be accurate, one school has been compelled to sacrifice a strict uniform policy. Beyond some people being emotionally upset, I cannot see how any harm can come from this.
Harry (96) - ‘Going back to the case, can you prove that the judgement was wrong? Do you expect us to just believe you, as if you were some kind of wise prophet?’
In turn: No and yes.
This is a comment site if I am not mistaken - for opinions? Presumably you can give me an active demonstration that the verdict was right? I’d be interested to see that.
‘Where is the harm in wearing a kara in school? Is it more dangerous than a metallic watch strap? Can you prove that society will collapse, that civil war will result? Will house prices decline more quickly? What exactly will happen now, that is so bad?’ Untwist your underwear, you will wear that question mark key out! You may be attempting to put words into my mouth here.
‘So, to be accurate, one school has been compelled to sacrifice a strict uniform policy.’
Yes - but you need to add the words, ‘at the altar of religious piety,’ to that sentence.
I shall check my spelling of , ’sacrifice,’ in future.
Best of luck to you.
——
‘It seems that your beliefs are now fair game in this post 9/11 anti religious environment.’ Diddums.
——
MaidMarian: This is, after all about the circumstances of an individual case where, it would seem, schools have been compelled to sactifice uniform policy at the altar of religious piety.
Dalbir: Ahh…diddums.
What load of rubbish, Harry. Oh, I have to ask: how do you measure whiteness of a country? Do you count the number of whites and subtract the number of darkies? Do you give the Nordics 2 points, and southern Europeans 1 point, and mulattoes 0.5?
We are talking about schools and kids, do not try to conflate with the larger society. If what you wear makes a statement of your socio-economic status and belief system, this has the potential of creating pockets of students each with their own - if I can go by my experience at school at that level. You can teach tolerance and acceptance, it is less obvious how you engage in approximating people where there are perceived background differences.
I find that dress-code is a measure that allows schools to level the field and ensure that students can focus on what they have common, without other distractions that can be too divisive. It is also a good experience for them to live among other peers in a secular/neutral environment. I believe in this rather egalitarian experiment, and I hope that this case is not made a precedent to abolish all of that.
Secularism is - in crude terms - enables a belief-neutral environment, where people of different faiths and no faiths co-exist. In other words, it protects freedom *of* religion and freedom *from* religion.
The benefits of secularism? You would need a Historical background to appreciate that.
MaidMarian
I think the judge did a pretty good job of explaining why the verdict was correct. I do hope you have read his verdict. Of course, you might think it’s rubbish and that’s fair enough.
In my personal opinion no one has the right to force another human to comply with some dress code, whether it’s religious, secular or neither of the two. The Sikh girl has won the right to wear her Kara, partly because she was prepared to suffer for it. If others want the same rights, they will unfortunately have to go through the same process. I think this is a shame, but we live in an imperfect world and we need brave people, like Sarika, to help improve it.
As you can see from my previous posts, I am against enforcing school uniforms. If children want to comply fine and if they don’t, that’s fine too. I know that’s not how things have been done in many schools in the UK. But I have not seen any evidence to show that strictly imposing a uniform improves exam results or leads to happier children (and the UK has some pretty unhappy kids relative to other Western European countries).
Please don’t waste your time in checking your spelling ;).
Whilst luck is good to have, I place my trust in logical thought ;).
Harry (101) - ‘The Sikh girl has won the right to wear her Kara, partly because she was prepared to suffer for it.’
Whether that is true or not, it is still an attention-seekers’ charter. The idea that someone being prepared to suffer for something somehow makes everything OK rather sounds like a hostage to fortune.
For what it’s worth I don’t have strong feelings either way on school uniforms, but this verdict to my mind comes dangerously close to placing religious piety primus inter pares.
I often, wrongly, feel it is better to be lucky than it is to be good.
For what it’s worth I don’t have strong feelings either way on school uniforms, but this verdict to my mind comes dangerously close to placing religious piety primus inter pares.
Absolutely right. With the onus of measuring the degree of the “piety” falling on the shoulders of legally trained, not religiously trained, judges.
What a farce.
That there is link between skin colour and GDP per capita is alas, not rubbish. It may not be a perfect correlation (Qatar has very high GDP per capita), but there is one. I am not saying it’s a causal link either. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita.
Let’s just measure whiteness based on whether the indigenous population is white or not and not bother about differences between Northern and Southern Europeans. (Don, now I know you felt, earlier! I cannot believe I am answering this question, but Ravi asked and it seems unfair not to answer it).
Anyway, just to be clear, I don’t believe being white makes people richer. There is a deeper explanation than that–you have probably heard of the book, Guns, Germs and Steel.
Ravi, in your experience uniforms were useful. But that’s not scientific evidence. Do uniforms really stop kids finding out who is poor and what religions people have? When I was at school I knew who the Sikhs where, because of (1) the names Singh and Kaur, (2) despite their short hair, they made sure people knew they were Sikhs—they seemed pretty damn happy about being Sikhs. Same for the Muslims and Hindus, the Irish Catholics and so on. Did we get on better because of our silly ties and blazers. I cannot say, because we never lived any other way. I still claim that people base their arguments for uniforms on a `belief’ that it helps, rather than sound evidence.
There is no such thing as a belief-neutral environment, unless everyone is brain-dead. A bigot will be a bigot regardless of his clothing. I will believe in evolution whatever I wear. My beliefs are part of me and they change because I decide to change them, not because someone declares some place to be secular. How do we even monitor the beliefs of people in a public building or school? Is there some brain-scanning device I am unaware of? That part of your definition seems kind of weird.
The part of about having a space where people of different faiths and no faiths co-exist sounds great. We can have that without clothing regulations. And in some cases, imposing a particular dress code makes it very hard for people of different faiths and no faiths to co-exist. Banning the kara will only help people who dislike such objects, be they intolerant atheists or just plain old racists. It certainly won’t help make many Sikhs feel comfortable, certainly not the ones who are posting here!
As usual, a waste of time: PP has the merit of short easy to follow threads by few people,
set against the fact that most still fail to attend to what’s actually written (to the extent it can bear scrutiny).
Typical liberalist hypocrasy, in claiming neutral universalism while never seeking to employ logic to its conclusion.
So Harry, yes - largely wasting your time when the likes of a ravi ‘rubbishes’ any correlation between wealth and skin colour,
or a maid marrion proclaims a judgement to be wrong then hides behind this being an opinion thread.
It is indeed true that generally, those not suffering from a discrimination fail to ‘get’ it, yet once it’s addressed, many of them become sensitive to the issue in a bleating way.
Perhaps it’s better to examine the objective limits of meaningful discourse in terms of how far apart any positions may be, and ackowledge there is a place fro abuse and ad hominism.
Liberals want to both have and eat the cake. They claim to abhor POLPot yet that’s exactly the programme they require to effect their facile ideologies. At least France has sounder grounds to claim secularity compared to here, but the evidence alone as cited is damning.
An amoronic, ie sincere materialist, against any sort of religion, sees that religions predate nation-states, therefore there must either be a year-zero, as the liberals require but dare/cannot[+ even then without certainty of outcome],
or on the other hand, in a clean and improving society they will wither.
At which point Dalbir I disagree with you: this is an era of reaction, with an increase in religiosity, but of the shit-stirring kind, with problems being created for reactionaries to catalyse morons everywhere: that’s why you see an increase in the attitudes you cite; to which certain types say “diddums”, = passive incitement from those who don’t mind ‘42 days’ stepping on some racially demarcated toes [paraphrased].
It’s for similar reasons of internal ‘cohesion’ that externally their claims for armed humanitarian interventions are lies, for they use their poorest scum to fight, armed with technology from the largest firms.. + all the while mythogise their ’serving’ the country - utter bullshit: quicker and cheaper to train a million volunteers able to fight with civil skills and local language than to airbomb and occcupy a place for decades.
To any one thinking this is rambl/ranting and off-’thread’, put some distance between you + your mindless conceits and start using your brain.
Am I right in thinking the opponents of the judge’s verdict in this case would prefer if we move towards the French system and away from our present pluralist society?
And while we are at it, discard Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights:
“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 teaching, practice, worship, and observance.”
The Human Rights Committee confirmed this in its General Comment 22: ‘The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts but also such customs as… the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.’
The right to freely express ones religion is a fundamental human rights issue. As is the Sikh turban for boys. Will people now suggest they take off their turbans at the school gates? If so, you may unwittingly forced them to opt for the Sikh-only schools. Is that really what you would like to see?
#106:
You may be right in thinking such of some of them, but you have simply brought up the very reason why it ought not have gone court had the school not been so arsaholic in failing to learn about a kara;
basically all the ensuing crap has obscured this basic issue in favour of allowing many kinds of shite to be indulged in.
re the french, see the link given in #92 above for empirical evidence, if it is indeed to ascertain how egalitarian french society -or any nuclear-fixated capitalistic one- really is compared to its rhetoric.
As fro making schools secular, what of after-school activites; travelling to school and sports; genital jewelry; tattooed symbols..; why just schools - hospitals; parks and libraries..
Indrak,
I would certaily insist that genital jewellery remain covered while in a public space.
#108:
whom would you have checking whether there is any, to preclude ostentation or proselytizing in the showers?
-and who pays for the jews’ and muslims’ replacement school-time foreskins ?
Can you show that there is a correlation between being “brown” and a socio-economic background in Britain?
I am not sure you need “scientific evidence” that it minimises socio-economic differences. As for religion, I believe there is a difference between cues such as your appearance and name that are part of ones ethnicity - which would be silly to hide, and the need to use paraphernalia to make a statement about one’s beliefs. In general, I believe schools should have the right to minimise the latter.
I have no problems in this case, but like I said, there should be no exceptions on the basis of religion. If the girl is allowed to wear the kara, then others should be allowed to use bracelets. I am sure you accept this.
#110:
with the tunnel-vision afforded by head so firmly inserted up own rectum, you refuse to or are incapable of seeing this differently, as again described in #106.
But if subject to having your teeth kicked out, would you persist in a gandhi-like raising of cheeks,
or would rather sense prevail in the form of say nominating a sikh to defend you ?
xstatje: they’d be easier to identify if they wore a kara.
Sunny:
“The line has to be d