http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4311019.stm
So what implications will this have on other dress codes for people of other faiths and other beliefs? If a school can’t be allowed to have its own dress code what powers can it have to do anything? What effects will this have?
My personal opinion is that of the last opinion Irfan Haqqee, that its a phase (hopefully) I’m glad the girl won her case, and she has the right to wear what she deems appropiate, but I’m fearful of extremists hijacking her cause and useing it to drive a wedge between the two communities, I’ll admit when I first found out she won I was angry.
However, it passed and I realised it is what she’s comfortable in. But her last statement talking about ‘bigotry’ is kinda strange to the fact the head teacher which excluded her was born a Muslim of Bangladeshi origin.
So what ripples will this have on British society?
Well, your location says your from England…you tell us. FWIW I doubt it will have any noticable effect. I think the lawsuit was kind of silly myself…if it was a school with a dress code then they should be able to enforce that dress code. If it wasn’t then the girl should be able to wear whatever she wants…within reason. And I think such clothes would be considered within reason. All in all another frivolous lawsuit IMO…glad we aren’t the only country that has them.
I found it unnecessary, she won on the technicality of being excluded because of her dress, and even by saying that, they didn’t have any other objection to the dress other than it breaking the safety code.
It just adds more fuel to the extremist fire, on both sides. I hope when shes older, she’ll realise what shes got UK law into. Well I hope anyway.
Is this type of dress merely “traditional”, or is it required for religious reasons?
Is this like telling a Japanese woman she can’t wear a kimono to school (acceptable, if arguably unnescessary), or is it like telling an orthodox Jew to not wear a yamulke (unacceptable in all but the strangest situations)?
Though an expression of religious belief, the yarmulke is strictly tradition (Tra-Dition!). We’re commanded not to eat pork, to keep the sabbath etc. There’s no commandment to wear yarmulkes.
Er… um… even if the yarmulke isn’t specifically mandated by Judaic tradition, as you say, obviously many Jews see it as a symbol of their faith. Demanding that they not wear it in a public setting–be it a school classroom, a public ceremony (such as the swearing-in of the President) or whatever–without establishing that it would be highly disruptive to do so, would seem to be making a grossly unreasonable demand on them. Christians are not required by their religious principles to wear crucifixes or crosses, but unless it can be shown that this is somehow disruptive, it should be tolerated. Similarly, if an atheist chose to wear a Darwin fish on a necklace, no one should tell him “Take it off or get out,” unless they can show that it somehow disrupts the proceedings.
So I guess what I’m asking here is: How did this girl’s mode of dress disrupt the classroom?
Granted, such things can be taken to extremes. Imagine a Christian student who wore a huge, fifteen-inch cross on a necklace over a T-shirt or sweatshirt that had “Jesus saves” in great big huge honkin’ letters, and a baseball cap with “Come to Jesus” printed in large letters on it. In that case, the school authorities might very well be within their rights–might even have a duty–to tell him, “Look, this is a publicly funded institution, and it isn’t meant to serve as a forum or an opportunity to promote your religion. Tone it down or leave.” Similarly a student who wore a fifteen-inch Darwin fish around his neck and a T-shirt that said, “No Gods, No Masters,” in a great big huge letters might reasonably be told, “Look, this really isn’t an appropriate place for that. Dress more appropriately, or leave.”
If this girl’s outfit is on that level, then perhaps the school is right to tell her that perhaps she should go to a private school if her faith requires her to wear it. But I need someone here on this thread to make that case before I could agree that it was reasonable for the school to forbid her outfit.
Mostly traditional. Otherwise all observant Muslim women would wear this everywhere. As Saad Khan commented, Islam only preaches modesty in dress codes. The only issue is that at least some Muslims would consider the regulation shalwar kameez to be immodest. “Immodest” isn’t an objective standard.
Have you seen Bowling For Columbine? If someone can conceal a mini arsenal with a pair of baggy dockers, imagine what can be hidden under a full-length robe: guns, explosives, drugs, Playboy. All kinds of contraband. The school could have argued they were just trying to protect the kids. You know; “Won’t somebody please think of the children!”
By the way, there’s already a GD thread about this. Perhaps what we’re seeing here is in part a conflict between European and American attitudes regarding free expression - ‘you have a right to do it and the state shouldn’t forbid you’ vs. ‘differentiating yourself creates unnecessary divisions and the first priority should be getting along.’
Read the OP. This case was in the UK. The school never argued any of the sort of things that you mention above as a reason. I doubt that kids in the UK with guns are seen as a significant probelem. Also, from checking Google images I presume that the already allowed shalwar kameez mentioned would be loose fitting enough that a shool girl could pack heat under that without it being noticeable.
Although I can see this being an issue in the US. I seem to recall reading that some US state run schools have indeed started requiring uniforms. I can very well imagine a US state run school, particularly in an area where kids with guns might be seen as a likely threat, adopting a uniform policy that would make it difficult to pack heat.
FWIW I doubt it will have any noticable effect. I think the lawsuit was kind of silly myself…if it was a school with a dress code then they should be able to enforce that dress code. If it wasn’t then the girl should be able to wear whatever she wants…within reason. And I think such clothes would be considered within reason. All in all another frivolous lawsuit IMO…glad we aren’t the only country that has them.