Shabina Begum loses jilbaab case


by Sunny
22nd March, 2006 at 2:13 pm    

The law lords today overturned a court ruling that teenager Shabina Begum’s human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing full Islamic dress at school.

Shabina, 17, won a landmark victory last March that Denbigh high school in Luton, Bedfordshire, had infringed her human rights after teachers would not let her wear a traditional jilbab covering her body completely.

Today’s judgment was warmly welcomed by headteachers, who feared the earlier ruling would make it impossible to enforce any school uniform policy. [Link]

Good! Although no doubt Kulvinder will trot out some libertarian argument… (boo, hiss!)
Update: You can read the full ruling here [hat tip Jay Singh in comments]


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Religion






63 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Indigo Jo Blogs

    So, Shabina has lost

    Today the House of Lords, effectively the UK’s supreme court, allowed an appeal by a school which had excluded a Muslim female pupil, Shabina Begum, because she insisted on wearing an Arabic-style jilbab, which was against their uniform. The school…




  1. Sanjeev — on 22nd March, 2006 at 2:24 pm  

    Is she a Pizza HuT employee?

  2. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 2:25 pm  

    Do you think I could be a law lord? I’d love it. I’d walk around with a solid gold orb and sceptre beating the poor and homeless, “Out of my way! I’m the fucking LAW!”

    As in the previous Shabina Begum thread, I’m very pleased with the verdict but wary of how this is being portrayed, especially outside the UK.

  3. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 2:26 pm  

    Not an employee per se Sanjeev, more like a pawn.

  4. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 2:38 pm  

    Check you mofo email!!!

    As for the case, oh you just wait im coming up with an argument why the law lords were muppets.

  5. Neil — on 22nd March, 2006 at 2:48 pm  

    What’s funny is that she thought she could get away with blaming the school for her non attendence for 2years. It was self imposed, she chose not to go.

  6. raz — on 22nd March, 2006 at 3:14 pm  

    I love this ”Pizza HuT’ term. Was it coined on PP or somewhere else?

  7. Amit — on 22nd March, 2006 at 3:21 pm  

    I agree with you sunny, this shouldn’t have got this far in the first place. Good ruling I say!

  8. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 3:47 pm  

    I started using it first Raz!

  9. Sanjeev — on 22nd March, 2006 at 3:54 pm  

    It is Jai’s…very amusing. I cant stand HuT….nutters!

    Shabs…a pawn indeed, I wonder whether she’ll realise in a few years?

  10. sammy — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    so can singh’s no longer where a patkaa?!!!

    sam

  11. sammy — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:25 pm  

    ‘wear’ not ‘where’.

    like duh.

  12. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:32 pm  

    No Sammy, NO! Are you being sarky? Where (wear) do people get these ideas? Bottom line: the public is moronic.

    Did you see anything about turbans or patkaas in this case? No. So clearly the ruling has nothing to do with anything except this one girl. Are patkaas legal in schools here? Yes. So kindly no more silliness, thank you please.

    Hit the HuT!

  13. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:34 pm  

    Sammy

    If you read the article you will see that it has no bearing on the wearing of patka or indeed yarmulkes or hijabs – it was a local case in which a consensually defined uniform of suitable Muslim dress including hijab was being challenged by someone who wanted to wear a form of clothing in defiance of that uniform policy.

  14. sammy — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:38 pm  

    I was being sarky rohin.

    like duh.

    and you’re being a lil’ naive in saying that the ruling in this case is explicit to her case. it is an important precedent, one which I’m sure will be contended.

  15. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:42 pm  

    sammy

    There were other schools in her area that had the jilbab as part of their uniform. It was a ruling specific to this school and case. In particular it tested the will of an individual Muslim headmistress and the Muslim school governers against an extremist inspired attempt to hound those Muslim governors and headmistress on this issue.

  16. sammy — on 22nd March, 2006 at 4:46 pm  

    yeah I see. my bad, I take it back.

  17. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 5:10 pm  

    fuck.

    :(

    There were other schools in her area that had the jilbab as part of their uniform. It was a ruling specific to this school and case. In particular it tested the will of an individual Muslim headmistress and the Muslim school governers against an extremist inspired attempt to hound those Muslim governors and headmistress on this issue.M

    Actually it seem to suggest that the uniform policy of any school is solely its own matter, disregarding this case unchallengable to any student and only a violation if no other school can be found.

    It also takes the most retarded view on the word ‘exclude’ i have ever heard.

  18. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 5:19 pm  

    Kulvinder

    The whole thing was a bit of bullying by Pizza Hut.

  19. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 5:54 pm  

    *sigh*

    No it goes beyond that, they’ve basically taken the opinion that though there is a statutary right to an education you don’t have a right to choose a school, if a school excludes* you, you have no human rights protection because the school is allowed to set its own uniform policy and you are allowed to find whatever other school is in the (undefined but lets assume LEA) area. The discrimination would only really exist if there was no ‘other’. If she didn’t find this ‘other’ there probably would be discrimination (against the school??? but surely by their logic it would be the LEA??)

    Im curious why any school would have to take any consideration to religious observance (outside the broadly christian act of daily worship), infact with the rise of state funded religious schools id guess there might be a rise in segregation, ‘mainstream’ schools taking whatever policy they wished and the pupil having no recourse because there was a ‘religious’ school they could be shunted into.

    *lol the school didn’t exclude her lol, because it wanted her but wanted her to fashion herself as they wished before they allowed her in, but it wasn’t exclusion because they never said no.

    exclude
    1. To prevent from entering; keep out
    2. To prevent from being included, considered, or accepted; reject.
    3. To put out; expel.

    when i don’t pay my gym membership and it doesn’t allow me in it isn’t excluding me, nah it wants me, its just doing this inclusive monetary keepout thing, where the word ‘exclude’ isn’t applicable.

  20. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:04 pm  

    I know what the law lords have said i’m talking about where it all came from, where it arose from.

  21. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:10 pm  

    I wouldn’t know where it came from, and id hate to say. The unbelievable vitriol that is being directed towards this girl from members of the public both on this site and others (like the BBC) is sickening. She took a stand for what she believed in, you may not agree with those beliefs but i admire anyone who takes a stance on principle. I don’t know if this is a ‘conspiracy’ of HuT and frankly its irrelevant.

  22. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:12 pm  

    Where is the hatred and vitriol being directed at her on this site Kulvinder? You libertarian Drama Queen you.

  23. Chris — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:17 pm  

    The vitriol (such as it is) is being directed at HuT, not her.

    Most commenters seem to regard it as (most used phrase) “victory for common sense”…which is how I regard it as well.

    And do you really admire “anyone who takes a stance on principle” (assume you mean ‘stand’)?
    Any principle??

  24. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:32 pm  

    The vitriol (such as it is) is being directed at HuT, not her.

    Fair enough, but again i question the wisdom of resorting to conspiracy theories regarding someones motivation. It is irrelevant whether HuT were involved and if they were to what extent.

    Most commenters seem to regard it as (most used phrase) “victory for common sense”…which is how I regard it as well.

    Yeah well, i think it may have unfortunate implications for the future.

    Any principle??

    yup, i may not agree with what they are taking a stance on but thats a seperate issue to admiring someone taking a stance for what they believe in.

  25. Muhammad Shaka Zulu Khalifa — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:35 pm  

    Allah will only guide thouse who wants to be guided.

    I pitty all of you, especialy thouse that seen the truth but not believe in it.

  26. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:38 pm  

    I want to attend my uni naked. I’m taking a stance and a stand. Kulvinder do you admire me?

    Sorry, your argument holds no water in this case. Of course a school should be allowed to define its uniform and, once again, in this particular case it was adjudged that the school was in the right as it had gone to such lengths to make its uniform as inclusive as possible. Are you saying you DON’T admire the dozens of other Muslim students who happily attended the school? Are they sell outs?

    W/r vitriol. I don’t believe we’ve directed any at her. Hell not even at HuT, they’re following form and are talking rubbish. The only vitriol I would have are the liberals (I hate using that word in this regard as I think being liberal is a good thing) who wring their hands and say this poor girl’s been victimised.

  27. Sunny — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:42 pm  

    Legally it makes no difference that Pizza HuT is involved (to go along with Jay’s coined phrase).

    but otherwise it does. I’m not going to the Freedom March because some unsavoury right-wing characters hope to hijack it for their own purposes. In the same way I would be wary of any “principle” that involves siding with HuT, because they’re worse than the BNP in my opinion.

  28. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:47 pm  

    I want to attend my uni naked. I’m taking a stance and a stand. Kulvinder do you admire me?

    Absafuckinglutely, there is no rational reason to making it illegal for people to walk around naked. I fully support that gentleman (forgot his name) that walked the length of briain naked until he was arrested and jailed for some ridiculous period (3 months iirc). I don’t see why naturism should be against the law.

    Sorry, your argument holds no water in this case. Of course a school should be allowed to define its uniform and, once again, in this particular case it was adjudged that the school was in the right as it had gone to such lengths to make its uniform as inclusive as possible.

    Well, yes i agree the school should be allowed to define it but it should also be accountable for discriminating with it, this ruling says it can’t be. You can’t do anything about a particular institution actively using its uniform policy to discriminate because you can always fuck off somewhere else.

    As far as i can tell, although the ‘lengths the school went to’ were welcomed, the core issue of discrimination wasn’t valid because she could go elsewhere.

    Are you saying you DON’T admire the dozens of other Muslim students who happily attended the school? Are they sell outs?

    Erm, no. Its their decision where they go, im not taking sides on whose interpretation is correct.

    W/r vitriol. I don’t believe we’ve directed any at her. Hell not even at HuT, they’re following form and are talking rubbish. The only vitriol I would have are the liberals (I hate using that word in this regard as I think being liberal is a good thing) who wring their hands and say this poor girl’s been victimised.

    She has been victimised :(

  29. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 6:48 pm  

    but otherwise it does. I’m not going to the Freedom March because some unsavoury right-wing characters hope to hijack it for their own purposes. In the same way I would be wary of any “principle” that involves siding with HuT, because they’re worse than the BNP in my opinion.

    Bob Geldoff said George Bush was the best thing for africa (or words to that effect), are you going to stop supporting drop the debt etc because of that? :p

    :D

  30. Don — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:02 pm  

    ‘yup, i may not agree with what they are taking a stance on but thats a seperate issue to admiring someone taking a stance for what they believe in.’

    Presumably you admire David Irving? Or Fred Phelps? admire is rather an odd choice of words if you divorce it from the repurcussions of the stance.

    And Rohin, don’t be swayed, keep your kit on.

  31. Reformist Muslim — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:02 pm  

    The principle while siding with HuT is a profoundly anti-HuT one. It is saying that if an individual has a religious belief it should not be tampered with unless it affects others rights. That’s actually the opposite of what HuT believes in.

    Rohin the point about attending uni/school naked is an obvious one. However no one was saying that the school couldn’t have enforced this policy – only that more care should have been taken.

    They made their decision believing that the dress code they prescribed was acceptable to all Muslims – it wasn’t – in the meantime they tried to make up some silly health and safety stuff.

    Personally I’m in favour of a dress code as it prevents extremists from pressuring girls to wear clothes which they don’t want to. However lets make that clear when we are setting such policy.

  32. Reformist Muslim — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:03 pm  

    Btw, has anyone not noticed that this girl is hardly wearing a burqa? The stupid sky news scrollbar described it as a muslim robe!! its more like an overcoat.

  33. Don — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:09 pm  

    Reformist Muslim,

    I agree with your last point, but I’m doubtful about;

    ‘ believing that the dress code they prescribed was acceptable to all Muslims – it wasn’t ‘

    as I am doubtful that the case was motivated by purely religious sensibilities. That Shabina Begum and her handlers are muslims is beyond doubt, but not every action of a muslim is motivated by their religion (except in cases of extreme piety, which as a secularist I would consider religious monomania), although it may be presented as such.

  34. Refresh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:15 pm  

    Yes you are right, I have so many silly mistakes, probably reflecting a deeper ignorance .

    As for the coat, quite a trendy one I think.

    As a general point there hasn’t really been much common sense shown on either side. Certainly no signs of any real principles other than stubborness.

  35. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:22 pm  

    RM the naked point was more a rebuttal of Kulvinder’s odd I’ll-admire-anyone-stubborn statement. I could’ve said Hitler too, it was meant to be obvious. I don’t think my nudity has any bearing on this case! And Don, for the sake of the greater good, I’ll remained clothed.

    There is confusion about what she’s wearing in, how shall I say, the less knowing press. Bunting on CiF starts talking about a niqab for some reason.

    Is it a coat or cardigan? You decide…

  36. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:26 pm  

    Presumably you admire David Irving? Or Fred Phelps? admire is rather an odd choice of words if you divorce it from the repurcussions of the stance.

    David Irving’s imprisonment is the work of an utterly insecure and frankly dangerously repressed society, i don’t agree with what he says but i completely agree wit his right to say it and to test the law to say it. Im not sure if fred phelps has said anything that made the law discriminate against him or censor him but if it did then i support his right to say it and his fight to have the right to say it.

  37. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:27 pm  

    …what is wrong with walking around naked?

  38. roxsana — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:30 pm  

    Just watched ITN main evening news. After the budget the lead story was the Shabeena Begum story.

    The coverage included an interview with a Moslem “dress shop owner” called Felicity Hutton (and yes she was a young English woman) wearing the full hiljab. She showed a hiljab to the ITN reporter and stated categorically that wearing the full hiljab is a matter of religious duty for a devout moslem woman. “It says in the Koran that all women must wear a dress which covers them completely from the neck to the ankles.”

    Does it say this? It was presented as fact by ITN.

    Roxsana

  39. Don — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:32 pm  

    Kulvinder,

    The word in question is ‘admire’.

  40. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:34 pm  

    hiljab?

    Roxsana, a lesson in life. ITV and ITN are SHIT.

  41. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:42 pm  

    roxsana

    I know Muslim women who would contest what Felicity Hutton said was a stipulation for Muslim women to wear.

    This is a battle/debate going on inside the Muslim community and Shabina Begum’s case was a staging post in this.

    Some Muslim women and Muslim men do believe they should give a dress code on how all Muslim women can dress – but even many Muslim women who wear hijab will not agree with what Felicity Hutton says – especially the aspect that she asserts implying that you are a lesser Muslim if you dont dress like that. It is totally bogus.

    Muslim womens bodies and dress codes have become the site for all these contested ideas and assertions on what constitutes Islamic practice, who is a Muslim, a ‘true’ Muslim etc etc etc – all the faultlines are focussing and falling on Muslim women. They are the ones who are carrying the burden of simple religion and the style of Islamist politics that Pizza Hut assert. Even if they just want to go without hijab, or wear a hijab and nothing else, it is all being focussed on them – their hair and skin has become a cultural batleground.

  42. Kulvinder — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:48 pm  

    Kulvinder,

    The word in question is ‘admire’.

    I admire david irving for taking a stance on principle against a deeply unfair law. Happy?

  43. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 7:52 pm  

    No no, he didn’t take a stance against the law at all. He took a stance that the holocaust didn’t happen and oh whoops he broke the law.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you meant to say something like “I can respect anyone’s right to a certain view” but admire implies you applaud their actions.

  44. Sunny — on 22nd March, 2006 at 8:05 pm  

    I don’t admire David Irving but will argue for his freedom of speech.

    but this is a situation that applies to young kids at school, its a different situation because they can be pressurised into wearing very conservative dress.

    So its a false analogy to compare to David Irving since we’re only talking about school uniform here, not her right to wear the jilbaab full stop.

    I do not concur with Rohin on one thing – ITN is not shit. They produce Channel 4 news which is by far the best :P

    The problem is that new channels will take one or two opinions and present them as representative of everyone. I understand they have to have soundbytes but its stupid when they end up mis-representing entire communities as it is the case here. Have no soundbytes in that case. I hope they got Yasmin Alibhai Brown to weigh in because she’s quite anti-jilbaab in this case.

  45. roxsana — on 22nd March, 2006 at 8:19 pm  

    Does this mean that the shalwer kameez is not actually acceptable clothing for devout Pakistani muslim women – I assume Shabeena Begum is one – and they too should wear the hijab.

    Equally worrying is that ITN News accepts these assertions by women like Felicity Hutton (a young English convert) as being the total truth.

  46. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 8:34 pm  

    roxsana

    She is Bangladeshi. Millions of Muslim women in the sub continent and the majority of Asian Muslim women in the UK wear the shalwaar kameez, even if it is only at weekends. To say it is unacceptable for Muslim women to wear shalwaar kameez is total BS.

    Shalwaar kameez is also worn by Sikh and Hindu women. It is not a religious dress, it is a dress of the sub-continent. But all my Pakistani female friends wear, at least occasionally, without a problem, shalwaar kameez. These people who say otherwise are laughable – but they have an agenda.

  47. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 9:21 pm  

    Oh whoops, that completely slipped my mind – that ITN make Ch4 news. In that case I retract my statement and simply say ITV are shit. And they are. Channel 4 is the best channel on TV.

  48. Don — on 22nd March, 2006 at 9:40 pm  

    The best channel on TV is the one that Attenborough (PBUH).

  49. Don — on 22nd March, 2006 at 9:43 pm  

    … that has Attenborough.

    Living proof that ‘The Sopranos’ is only the second best thing TV can produce.

  50. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 10:54 pm  

    Any programme that can film monkeys swimming underwater is the best channel on Earth

  51. Rohin — on 22nd March, 2006 at 10:58 pm  

    Wait a second. I’ve thought of a reason the ITV really are the worst channel around – they put that Hundal on TV! Ew! Then again so did people like PTV or the Islamic Channel, but then I don’t think anyone started with particularly high expectations for those). On that note, has anyone seen Raj TV? Sweet fancy Moses, that’s bad shit.

  52. Jay Singh — on 22nd March, 2006 at 11:02 pm  

    Rohin – Raj TV – I shit you not – Saturday nights they do a programme called ‘Shaadi’ when all they do is play peoples wedding videos. I swear to God that’s it. You send in your wedding video and they broadcast it for two hours. No editing. Nothing. Just play it and send it out on satellite to peoples homes. I was watching in amazement dumbstruck at the all time amateur Asianness of it all – some Punjabi couple from Birmingham, people dancing bhangra, drinking whisky, blokes giving hugs on camera, aunties gossiping. That was it. Just send in your wedding video and they’ll broadcast it. Unfuckingbelievable.

  53. jamal — on 22nd March, 2006 at 11:27 pm  

    I assume she will now take the case to the European court of human rights.

    BTW, CH4 is crap, look what happened to brookside! Furthermore, ‘Prison Break’ , ‘Charmed’ and ‘everybody hates chris’ is on Ch5.

  54. Sid D H Arthur — on 22nd March, 2006 at 11:44 pm  

    She is Bangladeshi. Millions of Muslim women in the sub continent and the majority of Asian Muslim women in the UK wear the shalwaar kameez, even if it is only at weekends. To say it is unacceptable for Muslim women to wear shalwaar kameez is total BS.

    Bangladeshi women traditionally wear saris. When Bangladesh was still under the, er, yoke of West Pakistan, there was a law passed that women should wear shalwar kameez, because it is far more “Islamic” than the sari.

    Go figure.

  55. Sunny — on 23rd March, 2006 at 12:53 am  

    Punjabi couple from Birmingham, people dancing bhangra, drinking whisky, blokes giving hugs on camera, aunties gossiping. That was it. Just send in your wedding video and they’ll broadcast it. Unfuckingbelievable.
    Haha! That’s some crazy shit… I never knew Raj TV was that pants…

    Rohin you bar-steward – I’m pretty sure that they canned ITV News because of me… that was the lowpoint of their journalism :D

  56. Rohin — on 23rd March, 2006 at 2:18 am  

    Jay that’s how I discovered it. My gf was flicking thru channels at home and called me in hysterics. She said turn to [whatever number it is] and we both cracked up – it was some dorky Brum wedding from…

    wait for it….

    1987!

    Video camera – A pony from the market
    Wedding suit – £29.99 from C&A
    Teenage kids watching their parents pissed up in shiny outfits and uncle Jeet in a shellsuit on a 19 year old video on national TV – priceless.

  57. Kulvinder — on 23rd March, 2006 at 3:51 am  

    No no, he didn’t take a stance against the law at all. He took a stance that the holocaust didn’t happen and oh whoops he broke the law.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and accept you meant to say something like “I can respect anyone’s right to a certain view” but admire implies you applaud their actions.

    AFAIK he went to austria knowing he’d be arrested, regardless of whether he broke it intentionally or not, i admire him for standing up to something that is inherently idiotic

  58. Kulvinder — on 23rd March, 2006 at 7:32 am  

    I understand the logic of the decision, but i still strongly disagree with it. The ruling said that since the schools are given the choice of uniform policy any students ultimately have to face a take it or leave it option if they dissent with the policy of the school. You can argue about nature of thought that went into that policy, but it is ultimately besides the point. The test for discrimination would be a withholding of education over the entire LEA. The modulus of equality over the entire region (perhaps even country) is of greater importance than localised discrimination – regardless of whether that discrimination is justified.

    If you want a very loose analogy think of it in this terms, this is sunny’s site, he sets the rules, he isn’t infringing your rights by banning you if he doesn’t like you, the absolute value of your ‘freedom of speech’ is maintained over the entire internet and your ability to go elsewhere.

    Amid all the rejoicing for the victory of common sense over the fundamental radicals i can’t help but be worried. There was another significant ruling before Shabina’s that got less attention but was equally important (infact it was used in her judgement!). In Ali v Lord Grey School the lords decided that even though the school had breached the domestic laws on exclusion they could not be held liable for any damages since the duty to provide an education fell to the LEA. Even though the school breached the law!.

    Those two rulings give schools nothing less than a quasi-license to discriminate if they so wish. You can argue that a school will take into account whatever needs exist, but it doesn’t matter, because that decision making process is unchallengeable. Because there is no requirement to educate at a particular school, any school can exclude you and id argue that this ruling gives the go ahead for those schools to do so even if there aren’t any other suitable ones in the local vicinity – the LEA could provide ‘home schooling’. There is a duty to provide education but that’s it.

    I don’t understand the near hysteria about the mortal defeat of misogynist radicals, for the sake of argument lets assume the HuT conspiracy is an accurate depiction of reality. In what way does this help any future child? Id always hoped that an institution would be held accountable for its practises and give any child a specific rationale for denying them their request, not a generic account of a policy devised 10 years previously but due consideration – on individual merit – of any request, and that that consideration could be challenged. The COA has been heavily criticised over its decision but i strongly believe that over the long term it would have been the most fair.

    With the introduction of faith based schools im weary that all this will lead to is a greater segregation of society. By holding an institution accountable for its policy its actively responsible for doing absolutely everything for a particular individual, all this ruling suggests to me is that problematic or dogmatic family’s will be shunted out of the education system when the very opposite is necessary. Instead of dealing with a patriarchal and deeply insular family head on and doing everything to keep a child in heterogeneous environment the school will find it far far easier to get rid of and exclude the problem child. That exclusion may not even comply with the law. It no longer matters.

    Id be interested to know what would happen if there was no suitable school found, would the LEA paying for a home education be sufficient? The insular parents and the school will both find it more useful to keep the child from their peers. In an age of education league tables, OFSED examinations, private investment and running of schools and faith based institutions all i see is trouble ahead.

    Those privately run schools will ditch problem students, faith based schools will introduce whatever form of uniform they wish and if those that don’t share their faith don’t agree they can leave. This won’t be cohesive in any way. Don’t get me wrong i have no problem with faith based learning, i have no intrinsic problem with private investment.

    Its just that all the media backslapping and general joy at her losing will be shortlived. The institutions that we hope will instill commonality amongst a diverse set of individuals will find it more prudent to aim for a homogenous makeup that gets them further up that blessed league table.

    Any future Shabina Begums won’t find a way to interact with people outside their immediate family, they may well end up just sitting at home. How sad.

  59. Barbara Meinhoff — on 23rd March, 2006 at 10:01 pm  

    I note that her argument that the Jilbaab was the appropritate Islamic dress meant by inference that women wearing the full burqua were therefore not dressing in accordance with Islamic cultural tradition.

    She was on BBC breakfast news yesterday morning flaunting her colour-coordinated PURPLE headcovering (to go with her designer coat, no less), and was utterly shameless about showing her made-up face.

    The harlot.

  60. Bikhair — on 23rd March, 2006 at 10:49 pm  

    Barbara Meinhoff,

    “I note that her argument that the Jilbaab was the appropritate Islamic dress meant by inference that women wearing the full burqua were therefore not dressing in accordance with Islamic cultural tradition.”

    Probably not. THere are differences of opinion when it comes to which is obligatory or just praise worthy when it comes to womens clothing. Some scholars believe it is obligatory for the women to cover the face, but the strongest opinion is that it is praiseworthy.

    “She was on BBC breakfast news yesterday morning flaunting her colour-coordinated PURPLE headcovering (to go with her designer coat, no less), and was utterly shameless about showing her made-up face.

    The harlot.”

    Shameless yes, but it is unacceptable in Islam, for your information, to call a woman a harlot. It carries a stiff penalty.

  61. Goldenberg — on 24th March, 2006 at 12:14 pm  

    Not directly related to the current discussion, but an interesting article nonetheless:

    Muslim girls don sporting jilbabs

    Girls in a refugee camp in northern Kenya have started playing volleyball for the first time thanks to specially designed sportswear for Muslim women.
    Some Muslims believe girls should wear a jilbab – a traditional Islamic dress – which hampers agility.

    Sports wear company Nike worked with the girls to find something appropriate and presented the designs last year.

    Initially camp leaders renounced the outfits, but the girls have now convinced them of their suitability.

    The UN refugee agency’s Olivier Delarue, who saw one of the first volleyball matches, said the girls had a choice of outfits and went for the most traditional.

  62. Goldenberg — on 24th March, 2006 at 12:15 pm  

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.