Harry's Place

I love the photo of the girl on the BBC story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7529694.stm

She has a bracelet, a huge knuckleduster ring, and massive hoop earrings, and probably more elsewhere.

Are they all religious? Or just the ones from Argos?

This case was brought by the Marxists at Liberty.

The Left is paracitic, it exists by creating differences between sex, race and religion, and then feeding off this. I assume Liberty’s lawyers were on Legal Aid.

As a Conservative, I believe everyone should obey the rulles.

I think the tide is turning in the UK now, but the cancer of identity politics has caused so much damage.

This case will do great damage to immigrants.

One of the reasons Jews have done so well in the UK, is the fact that they came here before Liberty and their friends created victim politics.

You’ve got it wrong here, Brett. This decision is to be welcomed. You can’t really call the Sikh kara as “jewelry” as its function is not personal adornment. It is a requirement of the Sikh faith to wear it.

Chastity bracelets, crosses, etc are a slightly different story, as it is not actually a part of the Christian faith to wear them. But, at the end of the day, what harm do these things do?

Religious discrimination laws were needed because some religions (i.e. Judaism, Sikhism) were covered by case law from the Race Discrimination Act, whereas others weren’t. This situation was clearly an injustice that needed rectifying.

I agree with you however that noone should be “exempt” from equalities legislation. Religious people need to accept that they are protected by the same laws as LGBT people.

Wait for the torrent of claims from disaffected Zororastrians, refused permission to play with fire on school premises…

Sikhs, whilst representing arguably the most well-integrated minority community, have also provided their fair share of thorns in the backside of absolute equality…

I can’t wait for the school that bans ‘hoisties’ only to find themselves guilty of sending ‘conservative’ Muslims to hell (Sunan Abi Dawood no.632 إلخ)…

This is totally fucked up.

Yep. Agreed fully.

And the next whinging theist who whines about “respect” or “offense” to me, or claims special privileges because of their lunatic irrationality is likely to be batterred senseless by a piece of 2×4 with spiked nails in it.

Bangles and shite like this give the lie to the statement that its somehow about “inner piety”. Is it like fuck. Its all about a public pissing contest with the sole aim of intimidation.

It is a requirement of the Sikh faith to wear it.

Then its a fucking stupid and idiotic faith. If she’s that petrified or brainwashed into thinking that she’ll be damned by Waheguru for not wearing a piece of metal on her wrist then she’s a fucking retarded moron that needs to be locked up somewhere with nothing but a straightjacket and some purple crayons.

Weak-minded cretins, the lot of them.

Abdul Alhazred – but didn’t the gurus (Nanak definitely cos he made the Hajj) also prescribe female modesty? Many Sikh girls, at least the more conservative ones, where loose scarves… Miss Sarika doesn’t appear to be so unflinching in her belief when it comes to that

Essentially the whole thing has boiled down to a spoilt brat (Ms Sarika Watkins-Singh – fuck me, she’s Welsh as well, which makes things even worse) screaming “Wawawa!!!!!!! Let me do anything I want because my imaginary sky friend told me I have to, and its NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!ONE1111ELEVEN!!!!!!”, and idiot judges have fallen for it.

I don’t agree with this idea that the sincerity of people’s beliefs is irrelevant.

For example if a school fails to provide an alternative menu for a child if they don’t like lettuce, this is more understandable than failing to provide an alternative menu if a child is a committed vegetarian.

Obviously a court may have to determine motives, but then they do that all the time already.

For example if a school fails to provide an alternative menu for a child if they don’t like lettuce, this is more understandable than failing to provide an alternative menu if a child is a committed vegetarian.

Why? There’s absolutely no difference in the two scenarios.

Can I start suing restaurants because I can’t stand Onions?

State run schools – always a bad idea, unless your Stalin of course. He would have just shot her and her family to death.

Personally I am appalled. Children not being allowed to wear jewelry in school?! The way to deal with this and not be discriminatory AT ALL is to let the kids wear their jewelry! We live in a rich society. Give the kids a chance to show it.

Isn’t it about time that the UK formally separated church and state as the US and France did 200 years ago?

“It is a requirement of the Sikh faith to wear it.”

Which of course would effectively mean that, had the ruling gone the other way, one could not be a true Sikh and attend a state school, whereas one could of course be a true Christian.

Haven’t you guys read JS Mill? Harm principle, boyo!

Here, here Mr TT

The Left is paracitic, it exists by creating differences between sex, race and religion, and then feeding off this. I assume Liberty’s lawyers were on Legal Aid.

As a Conservative, I believe everyone should obey the rulles.

I think the tide is turning in the UK now, but the cancer of identity politics has caused so much damage.

This case will do great damage to immigrants.

One of the reasons Jews have done so well in the UK, is the fact that they came here before Liberty and their friends created victim politics.

As an ex-Muslim turned pastor at an evangelical church in the East End, I can personally testify to the damage done to the immigrant cause by strident relgious symbolism. I could cry when I hear some of the overtly racist bigotry coming out of the mouths of my former co-religionists in tongues that their takeaway customers fail to grasp. Let’s face it, if it weren’t for the name and the minority British community, you could be forgiven for thinking that you’d stumbled into Jalalabad or Sylhet Town in parts of Newham and TH.

Can I now bring my newts to school? I do after all sincerely believe in Ken Livingstone.

Ps. I am absolutely NOT related to Deborah Fink

waily waily waily

Fifty years ago jewellry was banned by schools on safety grounds, though I sensed there was also a degree of discouraging display and flamboyance.

This is a bad judgement because it reinforces difference at a young age. It will not escape the malign and the small minded (indeed others too) that this judgement is also, inter alia, against those who cannot prove some affiliation in order to cover themselves in metal. Yet again equality legislation is shown to be kicking down the door of tolerance.

“It is a requirement of the Sikh faith to wear it.”

The Kara is one of 5 ‘requirements’ the others being

Kesh (uncut hair)
Kirpan (knife)
Kucha (baggy under shorts)
Kanga (comb)

Didnt see any of the other ‘requirments’ on display when she stood outside the High Court on TV this afternoon, (she may of been wearing a kucha under her trousers but im guessing not)

The other disturbing thing is the Sikh Federation where the ones in the background supporting her. a Bunch of Sikh Fundamentalists known formally known as International Sikh Youth Federation a perscribed terror organisation.

Any Sikh female who values their faith would call her self Kaur and not Singh.

As a Conservative, I believe everyone should obey the rulles [sic]. [tt]

As a libertarian leftist I really couldn’t give a shit.

“And the next whinging theist who whines about “respect” or “offense” to me, or claims special privileges because of their lunatic irrationality is likely to be batterred senseless by a piece of 2×4 with spiked nails in it.”

Unless its the ‘right’ of fundamentalist Jews to recolonise Palestine and clear out those who already live there, sancified by Deuteronomy etc. of course.

Though I agree broadly with the post, it is still looking at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope. In France there is a clearly understood and strong commitment to a secular state and an absolute separation of religion and the public sphere. So when issues such as religious symbols in schools are discussed the position is clear – ban them all – up to and including turbans for Sikhs.

In Britain, the position isn’t at all clear. Some schools allow religious symbols, others don’t. Where they are banned, it is usually on some health and safety pretext or, as here, because jewellery generally is banned. In such a confused landscape, it’s not surprising that individuals might feel they are being unfairly treated and be able to make successful appeals to the courts.

Without a general agreement that Britain is to be a secular society and laws enshrining this, we’ll always get cases of this sort. Trouble is, there is no real appetite in Britain for genuine secularism.

Udham “I-Couldn’t-Give Udham” Singh – which Palestine are you talking about? The one made up of the West Bank and Gaza strip where the majority is still Palestinian, the one on the East Bank called Jordan? When India was partitioned into Pakistan at the far East and West with a considerable smaller India at the centre, millions and millions of people fled all those areas to get to where their group constituted the majority. A hell of a lot of people died during all that. But why? Why partition India? And why does India refuse to give up Muslim-majority Kashmir or the Sikh-majority Punjab?

based on the claim that her jewelry has religious meaning.

The usual special pleading invocation borne of religious sensibilities.

The only reason religious sensibilities ARE granted special dispensation, is the implicit threat of those that indulge in this special pleading. At best pulling a tantrum or especially when it comes to Islam, of mob violence and terrorism.

Also, it works! If you reward errant behavior, you are encouraging it; and the chances are, it will be repeated.

It’s time to start treating this religious inspired truculance in an adult manner, by stopping indulging it for the sake of short term expediency.

This is completely un-profound and blindingly obvious to any parent that has managed to raise polite, well behaved kids.

Why is it not more obvious to so many?

Yes, French Sikhs protested at the time that wearing a turban is not a religious requirement, but growing their hair long is and the turban hides it, so that instead of hiding their religious signs the law forced them to show them. The knife was, er, generally not discussed as much.

If we carry on like this we’ll end up with bus conductors wearing turbans.

Let’s not forget the Khalistan project (Panjab) ltd. Udham Mitnakar Singh (not the Khalistan project Southall…and now Rhyll)…

Simon H:

In Britain, the position isn’t at all clear. Some schools allow religious symbols, others don’t. Where they are banned, it is usually on some health and safety pretext or, as here, because jewellery generally is banned. In such a confused landscape, it’s not surprising that individuals might feel they are being unfairly treated and be able to make successful appeals to the courts.

But surely you’d have to question a parent who allows her child to miss school rather than conform to a school dress code. The situation is made even worse by the fact that she is ‘alf panjabi ‘alf Taffy and that she’s the only Sikh student…probably within 300 miles. How can a society which hope to instill a respect for authority in the young survive when race inc., the diversity police and the enrichment hustlers constantly undermine common values?

The message from this judgement seems to be: if you’re different in any way from what would be considered quintessentially British, we will bend like a reed to your every whim so as to accommodate you and ensure that, despite the fact that you were born here, speak English as your native language and share ostensibly the same values as the majority of Britons, we’ll reinforce your difference.

No doubt the high priests of multiculturalism and diversity will be sacrificing babies at the same shrine as their racist bigoted Sikh nationalist khalistan advocate comrades. Tonight they’ll sleep soundly in their beds, secure in the belief that the Enrishment deity has been appeased…until the next time.

How is Madinah High School getting on of late…any takers for that mythical 10% yet?

And what about the poor Zaydi tribesmen in London…can my brood carry their ceremonial Imam Yehya janbiyyahs to class too?

What about Qat? Can my son chew it at school? I’m sure there’s a hadith related by the Irredescent One concerning Qat chewing…it’s fard ‘ayn according to our school of fiqh!

Don’t Sylheti children, especially the Bishnatis (tkud…jaaah!) have a dispensation to chew paan/betel nut during PE lessons in TH?

As a libertarian leftist I really couldn’t give a shit.

Talk about an Oxymoron….

Incidentally, is Udham Singh actually Bob Pitt?

We Welsh rejoice in Sister Watkins victory. Our right to consume fly agaric in specially-designated work/schoolplace oak groves and commune with our badger spirit-guides will soon be recognized by your transient English courts.

The point is that people have the right to practice their religious beliefs. The actions of the school force a choice between being able to practice a belief and being able to attend the school. One can argue that religious beliefs are meaningless and should therefore be discounted, but insofar as it limits the lifestyles of the religious, this is actually a very illiberal notion and is the kind of attitude you would be more likely to expect from a communist country than a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy shouldn’t prescribe what people ‘should’ believe, and restrict access to services, directly or indirectly, on that basis.

Treating people equally is not just about having the same rules for everyone, but making sure that when those rules are drawn up in the first place they accommodate different people equally. We make allowances for culture all the time; but it is usually so obvious we don’t even notice it. For example companies have rules such as ‘no jewellery, except wedding rings’, or the fact that we designate religious holidays such as Christmas as days off for workers. The reason we do these things is because in a free society, the purpose of our society is to accommodate the people, not the other way round. It is one thing to say we should obey the rules, but the rules should be flexible enough, within reason to allow people to live fulfilled lives.

The cultural majority has clout, because it would be foolish for companies to alienate such a large section of the population (e.g. with wedding rings), but cultural minorities do not have such clout. It is only right that their rights are protected in line with the majority.

The school should just allow everyone to wear jewellery. Why be anti-libertarian and ban it in the first place? Safety? Rubbish. It’s because jewellery both represents (to communist teachers) individualism and status.

Sayyed, I have no great sympathy for parents who keep their kids out of school on a principle of this sort. Point is, though, that these situations would be much less likely to arise if secularism was legally enshrined. Schools in these cases are rarely if ever making a stand on pure grounds of secularism (in this case it’s ‘equality’; in others, health and safety).

I mean, the ‘principle’ that the school was defending here was something like ‘kids shouldn’t wear jewellery because it might make some look richer than others. Oh, except for watches and earrings – they’re OK.” It’s no wonder lawyers run rings round schools in cases like these.

If the rule was “no religious symbols or clothing of any kind in schools, anywhere, anytime”, it wouldn’t happen.

It’s this kind of action by schools that push religious folks into setting up their own schools, where they can follow their own rules and not have to put up with the rules of bigoted secularists and socialists.

So let’s give these folks their own school where they can set their own rules!

Hmmmmm.

I think this is a bit more complex than you suggest. I respect the point you make, that this ruling can be seen to entrench religious discrimination and double standards.

I believe there is a difference between a pupil wearing a necklace or bracelet for adornment and this young Sikh wearing the “kara”, which is a sign or her faith, or indeed a Christian wearing a crucifix. Again I would see a difference between a pupil wearing a base-ball cap in class and wearing a hijab.

I think the principle I look for in this whether there can be any negative impact on others. Sikhs wearing “kara” bangles is not harmful, carrying the Sikh ceremonial knife could be harmful and the state should not allow it. I see no problem with the hijab and the turban, but the niqab, which can conceal an identity, I feel can be harmful and should be banned in schools, for example.

This is a very complex issue.

from the times report:

As Stephen Grosz, head of public law and human rights at lawyers Bindmans, explains, Sikhism, like Judaism, is protected under law for being a race as well as a religion. In 1983, the House of Lords decided that that a school had acted unlawfully by refusing to accept a Sikh boy who wore a turban. The judgement said that Sikhs were a racial group and because of that, were capable of being discriminated against. This judgement was obviously raised by Sarika’s legal team, and made her case one that she was always quite likely to win under race relations legislation.

The Kara is a religious obligation for a Sikh, not an adornment of choice – as you could argue for a crucifix or chastity ring. What Sarika had to show was that the school’s general rule disadvantaged her (the only Sikh among 600 pupils), as the member of a particular racial group, because she couldn’t comply with it.

seems fairly straightforward to me.

“seems fairly straightforward to me.”

I know “clothes maketh the man” but since when was clothing and jewelry a ‘racial’ characteristic?

“I believe there is a difference between a pupil wearing a necklace or bracelet for adornment and this young Sikh wearing the “kara”, which is a sign or her faith, or indeed a Christian wearing a crucifix. Again I would see a difference between a pupil wearing a base-ball cap in class and wearing a hijab.”

Why?

take it up with the law courts.

Sikhs were a racial group and because of that, were capable of being discriminated against

What Sarika had to show was that the school’s general rule disadvantaged her (the only Sikh among 600 pupils), as the member of a particular racial group, because she couldn’t comply with it.

Morgoth:

“Can I start suing restaurants because I can’t stand Onions?”

No, but if you were admitted to a hospital and they refused to serve non vegetarian food to you despite you being a vegetarian, I think you might have a case. Neither the hospital nor the state has to have any official endorsement of vegetarianism for this to be the case. The state can be neutral on the issue of whether eating meat is okay, whilst still upholding the right of vegetarians to practice their beliefs.

Recolonization suggests prior ownership, Udham. Now complete this: you shot the sheriff…

And, I agree with Brett.

How does the Government decide what is and isn’t a religion anyway? If I start a religion tomorrow that says that taxes are a sin and must never be paid, where do I apply to sue HMRC?

Look at my botty!

I’m not that bothered either way, but how can a racial group have religious obligations?

No, but if you were admitted to a hospital and they refused to serve non vegetarian food to you despite you being a vegetarian, Neither the hospital nor the state has to have any official endorsement of vegetarianism for this to be the case. The state can be neutral on the issue of whether eating meat is okay, whilst still upholding the right of vegetarians to practice their beliefs.

I’m glad you agree with me that vegetarianism and its bastard offspring, veganism, are more irrational religions than anything.

P.S. I’m a confirmed omnivore – I don’t think your analogy works, for the simple reason that hospitals cannot and do not serve “non-vegetarian” food exclusively. As much as I personally love tasty animals, I couldn’t eat them exclusively.

What Boyo the Wise said.

Please, enough of this shite about supposedly secular France, where a generation of rebellious youth are attracted to the absurdities of religion owing to politicians who think it acceptable to micro-manage the citizenry, prescribing this and proscribing that. Going by the blizzard of legislation over the past decade, it would seem that the English are taking a lesson from their Gallic cousins.

Look at the BBC’s spEak You’re bRanes today, and you find the same kind of people who rail against speed cameras and the “nanny state” expressing horror that Sista Sarita can now wear her band of silver. For goodness sake, haven’t the people of Perfidious Albion got anything better to whinge about?

So what if the Welsh girl wears a Kara? We should welcome the court ruling as a fine example of common sense liberalism, and campaign instead against school uniforms which have never done what they say on the tin.

When commenting on Birmingham City Council and its ban on employees visiting atheist websites, National Secular Society president Terry Sanderson defended the rights of Wiccans. Quite right. Everyone has an inalienable right to make an arse of themselves. It’s the British Way.

…against school uniform *policies* which have never done what they say on the tin.

Oh, what Francis Sedgemore said, exactly.

AC Grayling has a splendid article today in the Guardian (*gasp*) on this:

The worshippers of Brian’s sandal everywhere are tireless and persistent in their efforts to recapture the world for dogma. In America the creationists and so-called “intelligent design” votaries expend vast sums and energy on trying to drag us back into medieval times. Islamists have never left them – except of course in freely using today’s technology to further their aims. Cherry-pickers all, the Brian-sandalistas want it all: they want the rest of us to think and act as they prescribe, and to make us do it by the means that infidel thinking has produced: for example, religious freakery is all over the internet like a rash.

If the Brian-sandalistas cannot succeed by direct assault, they will do it by constant nibbling and encroachments: prayers in American publicly-funded schools, headscarves in Turkish publicly-funded universities, a little bit of anti-evolutionary biology there, a little alcohol ban there – and if that doesn’t work, they try more robust means. So it goes: creep creep, whisper, soothe, murmur a prayer with the kids in assembly, ecumenicalise, interfaith-schmooze, infiltrate, subvert, complain, campaign, scream, threaten, explode.

(my emphasis – this is so very true).

Francis, I’m confused.

Are you against school uniforms, or just strict interpretations of school uniforms/dress codes et cetera?

“So what if the Welsh girl wears a Kara? We should welcome the court ruling as a fine example of common sense liberalism”

The issue isn’t that she can wear it, but that others *can’t* because only religious reasons are accepted. If there are going to be rules, then it is unfair that the only people getting exemptions are religious ones. Why can’t a pupil embracing hippy philosophy grow his hair and go to school barefoot? Why can’t a another pupil indulge her passion for fantasy and dress like Cleopatra? Is punk-rocker not potentially a part of a pupil’s identity?

In other words, why are all personal choices divided into ‘religious’ and ‘other’, and only one group granted priveleges. And then this travesty is called NON-discrimination *sigh*.

Brett,

If the “no jewelry” rule applies to everyone, there is no discrimination.

Are you making some sort of elaborate joke?

I’m gay and wear a celibacy braclet.

However, I always take it off when passing a construction site.

You never know when opportunity will knock

Now, I,m responsable for enforcing dress regulations in food producing establishments.

I will not allow unhygenic headscarves, long sleeves ( dragging in food) jewelly, including crucifixes and other religious symbols that could risk falling in to food products..

Nor do I allow earings or nose rings.

The ONLY exception I make are to wedding bands, provided those wedding bands are covered by, not one, but TWO gloves.

I’ve dealt with Sikhs and Muslims on these issues. The former are, with a couple of exceptions, generally understanding and accommodating, the latter often arrogant, indignant and pig-headed, the more illiterate among them sometimes insisting that it can’t be unhygenic because it is ordained by Allah, and that all that is ordained by Allah is pure and perfect, at all times and in all situations.

One has to put one’s foot down right from the get-go, and not allow any grey zones to be indavertently established, becasue those zones will be exploited and enlarged in very short order.

The religious are a bunchy of prissy whingers. This girl should be taken into care – any parent who allows their child to be out of education for 9 months because of a magic bangle should not be in charge.

Get stuffed Brett, this article is the biggest piece of garbage I’ve read on this site in quite a while (a major achievement in itself). She’s not asking to wear a bleedin’ Burka, or a string of shrunken heads, it’s a soddin’ stainless steel bangle, which just happens to be one of the central tenets of her religion.

If we’re going to have a secular country, absolutely fine, ban all religious symbols in school. But we’re a very bloody long way away from being secular, with a “act of Christian worship” being forced down kids’ throats every day. In your book school rules are apparently more important than the law of the country, are you some kind of imbecile? Knowing Aberdare like I do, in all probability this poor kid is the only non white child in the school, and she’s been singled out because of the megalomaniac policies of the Head and the craven gutlessness of the governors.

If this is a left-wing blog then I’m the soddin’ Archbishop of Canterbury.

Posting for my former co-religionist Rev. Sayyed Gul:

Boyo: the words ‘urinating’ and ‘myself’ and ‘on’ spring to mind…were your lot behind the moratorium on the badger cull?

Dinner: Some excellent points. The actions of the school force a choice between being able to practice a belief and being able to attend the school. But didn’t her parent(s) know about the school dress code before she joined? One can argue that religious beliefs are meaningless and should therefore be discounted, but insofar as it limits the lifestyles of the religious, this is actually a very illiberal notion and is the kind of attitude you would be more likely to expect from a communist country than a liberal democracy. A liberal democracy shouldn’t prescribe what people ‘should’ believe, and restrict access to services, directly or indirectly, on that basis. I agree somewhat but wouldn’t it be eminently more sensible, perhaps not freewheeling laissez faire libertarian, but more sensible to allow the school’s governing body to make these decisions – wouldn’t it help community cohesion (agreed ther’s not much diversity to speak of in Wales).

Treating people equally is not just about having the same rules for everyone, but making sure that when those rules are drawn up in the first place they accommodate different people equally. Again, I broadly agree, but this is where it gets complicated. We’re back to the age-old problem of accommodating everyone yet satisfying no-one. How do you ensure permanently that everyone’s cultural, relgious and ethnic differences are respected to the nth degree? The answer is you can’t. To satisfy the healthy dynamic of a cohesive society we must allow people to set ground rules regardless of how they affect minorities. There are many schools, public facilities etc. that don’t cater for affinity with Arabic, but I wouldn’t expect them to change just for my benefit on such a minor point. Madinah School doesn’t appear to be respecting the cultural and ethnic majority consensus that the hijab is a primitivist and mysogynistic construct…but are they adapting?

Your last point is admirable but I’d have to disagree based on experience It is only right that their rights are protected in line with the majority. Having spent a considerable amount of time in the Middle East, I can never remember thinking that the local community should adapt to me – in fact I’ve stridently opposed it: I refuse to speak English with Arabs even in places with sizeable western ex-pat communities like Damascus, Cairo, Casablanca or Beirut. I have always encountered respect for this ethos, whilst there is an thinly-veiled contempt for most foreigners who resist cultural mores (at any cost in some cases…sex on the beach) and refuse to adapt. I have little sympathy for this ostensibly secular ‘Sikh’ girl.

SimonH: My thoughts exactly. Precisely. The French model of civil government, without the francais de souche mentality. Bravo!

StooomarketBooy: yes it is a complex issue…but need it be? I can’t recall any major confrontations like the HuT/Begum case or the Sikh bus drivers in the French press. Luckily, Suffolk is spared most of the enforced diversity of much the country, but it’s only a matter of time. Plenty of lil Bengalis go to St. Margrets now…how long before Tower Hamlet/Newham inspired conformity is rigidly enforced?

Demonstrative – how can they possibly classify Sikhs as a race? They’re no more the same ‘race’ (we’re all the human race) than Yemenite Temani Jews are anything other than distantly related to Ashkenazim from Poland. Plus, this girl is ‘mixed-race’…she appears to fall under a separate category altogether. But I guess as far as the High Chieftains are concerned she ticks all the right boxes.

Your Grace -

I’d go one further. Ban all pupils from school. 100% of pupil related problems solved in a flash.

Sikhs wearing “kara” bangles is not harmful, carrying the Sikh ceremonial knife could be harmful and the state should not allow it.

The Kara, I believe, stems from the same warrior prince mentality as the Kirpan. It’s a shield to protect the arm when swordfighting, rather than jewellery. Modern Sikhs rationalise this by stating that they are in a figurative state of constant battle-readiness in order to protect the innocent.

She is too young to become a Khalsa Sikh, so I’m left wondering why she (or whoever supported the legal action) was so insistent she be permitted to wear it. Surely anyone with any knowledge of Sikh theology could point out that a Sahajdhari Sikh girl is not under any obligation to wear the kara alone, although many may choose to do so.

I suppose the only valid argument in the girl’s favour is if the school allows girls to wear hijab, then she should be permitted a kara. Perhaps this dispute stemmed from a wish to engage in some religious one-upmanship with local Muslims?

There aren’t any muslims in Aberdare. She’s probably the only Sikh.

No one has yet answered the question about employers codes which state ‘no jewellery except wedding rings’.

Under Brett’s interpretation of treating everybody equally, companies would have to ban all jewellery, including wedding rings, or allow all jewellery. Is this right?

“in all probability this poor kid is the only non white child in the school, and she’s been singled out because of the megalomaniac policies of the Head and the craven gutlessness of the governors.”

I see. So your answer is to have different rules for “non white” pupils. There’s a word for that.

The issue isn’t that she can wear it, but that others *can’t* because only religious reasons are accepted.

Then why not campaign for the rights of others to do the same, instead of trying to stop her? I realise that a line needs to be drawn somewhere to stop kids turning up to school in a full suit of armour, or whatever, but why should we support an Absolutely No Jewelry Whatsoever rule? It’s just brainless authoritarianism, isn’t it?

If this is a left-wing blog then I’m the soddin’ Archbishop of Canterbury.

You clearly don’t remember Bernard Manning-gate

Francis, I’m confused. [Mark T]

I’m against the imposition of school uniforms. They are supposed to create a level playing field, but they don’t. Childebeest are on the whole ingenious, creative little devils, and if they wish to show off and flaunt their family wealth, a school uniform isn’t going to stop them.

The issue isn’t that she can wear it, but that others *can’t* because only religious reasons are accepted. [Brett]

I agree, but you advocate dealing with the problem by coming down hard on the religious, and instead have everyone follow a strict set of rules. It simply won’t work; you cannot legislate away hypocrisy and double standards. All these rules do is increase resentment and provide fodder for angry blog posts and comments. Where laws and regulations are found not to work, they should be got rid of.

“I see. So your answer is to have different rules for “non white” pupils. There’s a word for that.”

So minorities don’t have any rights do they genius? What part of “pluralistic democracy” didn’t you understand?

Like I said, Christians can express their religion all they bloody want in school, why can’t this girl wear one soddin’ bangle?

I see. So your answer is to have different rules for “non white” pupils. There’s a word for that.

The school actually allowed jewellery – other students turned up with expensive watches. By your maximally dumb standard, then, she suffered discrimination.

“Recolonization suggests prior ownership.”

Yeah, right, so the bible says. Given by God, right?

Proves my point. You people are the worst fundamentalists around. Bin Laden is a novice by comparison.

“One can argue that religious beliefs are meaningless and should therefore be discounted, but insofar as it limits the lifestyles of the religious, this is actually a very illiberal notion and is the kind of attitude you would be more likely to expect from a communist country than a liberal democracy.”

Actually its worse. Because at least those like Hoxha who tried to ban religion were not motivated by crude prejudice. Unlike the bulk of people here who rant on about Muslims and now Sikhs, but bumsuck the Israeli state. That ’secular’ re-creation of biblical myth.

“Under Brett’s interpretation of treating everybody equally, companies would have to ban all jewellery, including wedding rings, or allow all jewellery. Is this right?”

No. Specific exceptions can be made, as long as they apply to *everybody*. In the school’s case, it could have said decided to allow bangles along with stud earings and watches for everybody.

The issue – for the umteenth time – is why should “religious reasons” get special dispensation over other reasons a person might have?

I would prefer to do away with school uniforms altogether -

but in the event that they do exist I see absolutely no objection to a school choosing to discriminate (in the best sense of the word: inter alia, the word needs to be reclaimed from those who think that “discrimination” is in itself necessarily a bad thing: that way lies post-modernism and amorality) between authentic expressions of religious faith and allegiance (such as in this case) and mere secular, contemporary trends (like those cited above associated with hippiness or “goth” things).; The former can be defined as those things that are regarded as central or otherwise important aspects of an enduring civilisation (so, yes, longevity of a tradition does count for something: anything invented in the last 10, 20, 30, 40, 100, 200, possibly more, years, has yet to prove itself), the latter as mere fashion. Religion is far more important and fundamental to any society that endures for its designating attributes to be compared with shallow meaningless insipidities and the frivolous fopperies of fashion or the destructive anti-values of mindless materialistic atheistic popular culture

Udham Singh seems strangely insistent on bringing Israel into this discussion of a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel, doesn’t he. I hope onlookers don’t conclude that he’s mad as a hatter.

“The school actually allowed jewellery – other students turned up with expensive watches. By your maximally dumb standard, then, she suffered discrimination”

Are you actually alleging that because she is “non white” she couldn’t afford a watch? Or was prevented from wearing a watch? You’re not making any sense.

“Like I said, Christians can express their religion all they bloody want in school, why can’t this girl wear one soddin’ bangle?”

Firstly, I’m opposed to Christianity in school, and secondly – perhaps you didn’t notice – but there was an almost identical case last year where a Christian schoolgirl argued for the right to wear religious jewelry and she LOST. And thirdly, Christian crucifixes – since they are neither watches nor stud earrings – are presumably also banned at this school.

One of the few threads on this site that is not about bumsucking Israel. Which makes its claims of ’secularism’ even more preposterous. Why not just admit it, you just dont like non-white people and their terrible religions and cultures.

As a former regular churchgoer, I can absolutely fucking assure you that wearing a crucifix is NOT a religious requirement for Xtians.

And that case wasn’t even about a crucifix, it was one of those fucking demented chastity rings from the US.

Are you actually alleging that because she is “non white” she couldn’t afford a watch? Or was prevented from wearing a watch? You’re not making any sense.

Um. No. You argued that the school treated everybody the same, because it applied the same rule to all its students. An obviously crap inference; let it pass. The school did not apply the same rule to all its pupils: as the judge noted in his judgement, they appear to have allowed pupils jewellery; the rules governing the wearing of e.g. expensive watches appear to have been somewhat arbitrary. Even by your stupid standard – sameness of rules entails sameness of treatment – there was discrimination because there were (apparently) different rules in play.

“The school did not apply the same rule to all its pupils: as the judge noted in his judgement, they appear to have allowed pupils jewellery”

I know you’re a little slow on the uptake, but “allowing some jewelry to be worn” is not the same as “allowing some to wear jewelry”. It is perfectly sensible for the dress rules to stipulate what jewelry can be worn – discreet stud earings YES, ostentacious safety-pin lip piercings NO – as long as (try to grasp this) *the rules apply to everyone equally*. If bracelets are then added to the ‘permitted’ list, then *everyone* must be allowed to wear bracelets. It is not acceptable that one pupil can do what another cannot.

What’s more, the phrase “they appear to have allowed pupils jewellery” implies that there is no difference between a tie pin and a tiara. It’s like a pupil demanding the right to wear stiletto heels arguing that “they appear to have allowed pupils shoes -if you’re allowed flat black leather shoes, why not plastic mock leopard-skin high heels?”

To Imam Hussein Badr ud-Deen al-Huthi

“But didn’t her parent(s) know about the school dress code before she joined?”

I have no idea, and I don’t think it changes the principle of the case, but I suspect they didn’t. I doubt they wanted to go through the subsequent hassle and exclusions any more than anyone else.

“but wouldn’t it be eminently more sensible, perhaps not freewheeling laissez faire libertarian, but more sensible to allow the school’s governing body to make these decisions”

Sure, but there has to be some right of appeal if the wrong decision is made. Governors are quite capable of making bad decisions; they can’t have absolute autonomy to behave in a discriminatory way.

“How do you ensure permanently that everyone’s cultural, religious and ethnic differences are respected to the nth degree?”

You can’t. I should add that I don’t think there is an absolute right to accommodate religious beliefs, especially when there are other potential harms. However, a reasonable effort should at least be made to accommodate people. As Suffolk booy has pointed out there are no real harms in this case. It would have been easy to accommodate this girl.

“I can never remember thinking that the local community should adapt to me”

There is nothing wrong with that sentiment, but it depends on the extent of the integration expected. Imagine this hypothetical situation. A western woman goes to live on a pacific island. She attempts to integrate into the local culture, and is to some extent successful. However, the tradition on the island is that the local women often walk around topless. The western woman, due to her cultural upbringing, feels deeply uncomfortable about doing this. This limits her ability to fit in. My view is that this woman’s beliefs should be respected. She should not be ostracised by society because of them and the local community should respect her right to her individual dress.

Personal beliefs are normative. They can’t necessarily be justified by logic, but they are nevertheless important to people’s quality of life.

It is not acceptable that one pupil can do what another cannot.

What if one pupil has no arms?

One of the few threads on this site that is not about bumsucking Israel. Which makes its claims of ’secularism’ even more preposterous. Why not just admit it, you just dont like non-white people and their terrible religions and cultures.

That’s a ridiculous thing to say, and if you were to actually read HP regularly – I guess maybe you can’t as your screen is probably rather spittle-flecked – you would know that HP regular writers have opposed e.g. Orthodox Jews’ claims to special treatment by British public services too.

Is that Thomas Paine I can hear turning in his grave?

<blockquote. No one has yet answered the question about employers codes which state ‘no jewellery except wedding rings’.

Under Brett’s interpretation of treating everybody equally, companies would have to ban all jewellery, including wedding rings, or allow all jewellery. Is this right?

But don’t most people wear rings? Christians, Jews, Muslims (silver for men/gold for women)…etc. Don’t civil partnerships too involve a ring exchange ceremony? This is an long established cultural more. If I bribed 50 million Indians, primarily of Indian high caste extraction to move here tomorrow, should we allow wives to throw themselves on their husband’s funeral pyre? The problem lies in the unswerving loyality to a mythical Shangri-la multicultural multifaith society…it will NEVER happen. There will always be divergent self-interests for relgio-cultural-ethnic-political purposes. If we continue to march along this road, any minimal steps that have been made towards a common national identity and heritage shared by all will just be obliterated.

Let’s look at reality, as human beings unless we’re Jesus, the Teacher or ‘I am’ we can’t hope to avoid a little suspicion or institutionalised inherent subconscious prejudice. What would be better for this girl, growing up where she does – to emphasise her minimal differences and chastise innocent children for picking up on those differences or helping her to overcome any minmal differences that distinguish her from her classmates? If her mum was really all that relgious then why didn’t she marry a Sikh man from the panjab? Where is this mysterious fellow now if she’s so authetically devoted to the Sikh creed.

I happen to like the fact that when I visit Damascus it’s so free of McDonalds and all the other baggage which are homogenised societies carry. It’s nice to visit Damsascus and speak Arabic, listen to Arabic storytellers, listen to Arab music and see…Syrians. How boring Britain would become, and how balkanised it would be if we all just let anything go and allowed every little Sikh bus driver ‘dictate’ terms…which is what has happenened. I resent this, knowing full well that unless I recolonised India with a substantial force, no-one would be kow-towing to me…nor would I want them to, world’s largest democracy or not.

If bracelets are then added to the ‘permitted’ list, then *everyone* must be allowed to wear bracelets

You will doubtlessly think I am being facetious, but, in fact I’m not, I’m being serious.

The school should thus permit boys to wear skirts, because girls do (as part of their uniform)?

(I suppose it was a milder form of this mindset that made it the norm ,generally at failing comprehensive schools, that inflicted ties upon schoolgirls, in and since the bad dark days of the 1970s)

Or if it’s OK to discriminate (largely on the basis of social convention) on grounds of sex, why not (again, largely on the basis of social convention) on the grounds of religious allegiance.

Granted that the two are not the same: one is a biological fact, the other is, ultimately, a question of free will, but they are both things that society, conventionally, regards as important.

I think the question is actually rather complex, and absolutely not something to which a “one size fits all” rule can be applied.

I would prefer to do away with school uniforms altogether

Must… resist… temptation… to… accuse… other… poster… of paedophilia…………….

Oops too late!

One of the few threads on this site that is not about bumsucking Israel.

It’s a ridiculous thing to say, but even more howlingly, clunkingly stupid when you remember that the “By Topic” section on the left of the webpage shows all posts by category, and of the 5,745 listed there are 72 under “Israel/Palestine”, which is one and a quarter per cent. What rubbish trolls we have these days.

“Personal beliefs are normative. They can’t necessarily be justified by logic, but they are nevertheless important to people’s quality of life.”

I agree to an extent. But then we must accomodate other personal beliefs that might be just as sincere and heart-felt as religious ones. The issue for me here is why the exemption should only apply to the religious. Why can’t ‘goth-chick’ or ‘hippy-guy’ be allowed to express themselves and their identities?

“Is that Thomas Paine I can hear turning in his grave?”

I would have thought that Thomas Paine would have been more concerned about the daily god-bothering assembly and compulsory Christian religious indoctrination to be perfectly honest. But that doesn’t seem to be a problem for Brett.

Why can’t ‘goth-chick’ or ‘hippy-guy’ be allowed to express themselves and their identities?

Because it’s a school, a place of learning, and of serious matters, not the transient frivolities and follies of popular culture. (And, oh, the would be inclined to put that “chastity ring” thing soundly in the latter category, too)

“I would have thought that Thomas Paine would have been more concerned about the daily god-bothering assembly and compulsory Christian religious indoctrination to be perfectly honest. But that doesn’t seem to be a problem for Brett.

I have no idea who you are Lyndon, but clearly you have no idea who I am, or you wouldn’t come up with such tripe.

Joe Muggins….quite right! And the Beth Din is hardly massive imposition on the 70 million inhabitants by the mere 150, 000 or so haredis who choose to partake of its services. I think we ought to employ more Chazans at local government level; they’re normally extremely gifted musically and often play the harpsichord divinely.

Dinner Dinner – you’ve conviced me. As I have no logic to speak of, I’ll try to glean some of yours…all I need now is to find a smidgen of tolerance.

“Because it’s a school, a place of learning, and of serious matters, not the transient frivolities and follies of popular culture”

Now you see, that’s all I think your stupid religion is.

Brett: “No. Specific exceptions can be made, as long as they apply to *everybody*.”

Okay, what about a rule that says ‘No Jewellery, unless it is required by your religious beliefs’. It applies to everybody.

“The issue – for the umteenth time – is why should “religious reasons” get special dispensation over other reasons a person might have?”

Because they are hugely important to people and ignoring them would be enormously detrimental to their quality of life. That is why we also respect differences like vegetarianism, wedding rings etc.

I don’t think you can quite say the same thing about people dressing as Goths etc. It is not massively distressing for someone to not dress as a goth, even if they would prefer to dress that way.

Someone, say, whose mother had died of breast cancer might feel as strongly and deeply about wearing a pink charity bracelet as a religious person does about wearing the particular symbol of their faith. How would the rules apply to them?

“I have no idea who you are Lyndon, but clearly you have no idea who I am, or you wouldn’t come up with such tripe.”

Nope, and I don’t care either. I’m just judging you by the half-arsed tripe you’re coming out with today.

Someone, say, whose mother had died of breast cancer might feel as strongly and deeply about wearing a pink charity bracelet as a religious person does about wearing the particular symbol of their faith. How would the rules apply to them?

Assuming that on the whole, jewellry is banned for safety reasons – i.e. it might catch on something when kids are running around – they shouldn’t be allowed to wear it either.

“Nope, and I don’t care either. I’m just judging you by the half-arsed tripe you’re coming out with today.”

No you’re not. You declared that I was unconcerned about Christian worship in schools, suggesting thereby that I only wished to remove non-Christian religion from public places, which anyone who is familiar with my views knows is utter bollocks.

Can I just put one point to rest?

Although a daily act of christian worship is a requirement for all state schools, the majority, in my view, do not comply with this. Certainly the secondary school I work in, and all bar one (an explicitly christian school) that I have visited ignore the requirement, as did all of the primary / infant schools my wife has worked in, as well as the one where she currently works. There is no appetite for christian indoctrination in the state eductation sector (apart from the religious schools).

Because of the legal nature of the requirement, I would imagine that it would be very hard to collate evidence about how well observed it in fact is.

[i] Assuming that on the whole, jewellry is banned for safety reasons – i.e. it might catch on something when kids are running around – they shouldn’t be allowed to wear it either.[/i]

But would a court uphold this? What about the commenters here who beleive there should be some sort of exemption from school rules on grounds of conscience?

” It is not massively distressing for someone to not dress as a goth, even if they would prefer to dress that way.”

How do you KNOW that? Once again, there’s this assumption that religious feelings trump all others. It’s this chauvinism that only religious feelings can be real, sincere or deeply-felt and that anything else is just a “fad”.

Okay, what about a rule that says ‘No Jewellery, unless it is required by your religious beliefs’. It applies to everybody.

It applies to everybody, does it? What about those people who don’t have religious beliefs?

I imagine you would consider a rule that says ‘No clothes, unless you’re a man’ to ‘apply to everybody’.

Deary me.

How do you KNOW that? Once again, there’s this assumption that religious feelings trump all others. It’s this chauvinism that only religious feelings can be real, sincere or deeply-felt and that anything else is just a “fad”.

If worst comes to worst you can figure it out in a court, although mostly I guess it wouldn’t come to this. For example if someone said that they were distressed if they weren’t dressed as a goth, and it could be pointed out that they only dressed this way some of the time, that would be evidence against them, I would guess.

Oops, the first paragraph of my last post is a quote from Brett.

Plus it isn’t just religious feelings. Vegetarianism, as I have pointed out is also afforded accommodation because it is a deeply held belief.

Then its a fucking stupid and idiotic faith. If she’s that petrified or brainwashed into thinking that she’ll be damned by Waheguru for not wearing a piece of metal on her wrist then she’s a fucking retarded moron that needs to be locked up somewhere with nothing but a straightjacket and some purple crayons.

No! No! No!

It is not for you or anyone else to disparage someone else’s faith and beliefs.

If the bracelet is PART of her religion then she should be allowed to wear it. I have no objection to Jews and Christians wearing a Star of David or vross around their neck.

If there is any issue of health & safety in wearing it (as in a sport) then I expect them to remove the items.

Islamic dress is NOT preoscribed by their religion. Islamic dress can impinge health & safety and create a cultural barrier. A yamulka, cross or SoD doesn’t.

Discretion and don’t push it in someone elses’s face.

Most schools do not have a total ban on jewellery. Those with pierced ears are usually permitted to wear sleepers. I should think allowing everyone to wear one bangle would be alright.

As for health and safety, ties are an absolute menace! If the bangle is an issue, then medical tape is your friend. This is what’s done with wedding rings and so on…

Actually thinking about it, to be massively distressed by small details of your attire sounds like the symptoms of some kind of autistic spectrum disorder.

In which case this girl isn’t pushing it nearly far enough – if something as small as a bracelet distresses her that much she should be pushing for personal tutors, therapists and maybe even some sort of free computer equipment, as she clearly has some quite intense emotional imbalance that requires close attention.

“No you’re not. You declared that I was unconcerned about Christian worship in schools, suggesting thereby that I only wished to remove non-Christian religion from public places, which anyone who is familiar with my views knows is utter bollocks.”

I suspect that our opinions on religion in public life are almost identical, but on this particular issue you are clearly wrong. Allowing, in fact enforcing, Christian religious practices in school while unreasonably restricting others is simple, crude discrimination. Until the day we get a true secular society with religion removed to its’ proper place in private life, allowing modest displays of non-Christian religion is simply a matter of fair play.

Is is no more “chauvinism” (do you really know what the word means?) to regard religion (whether you regard its verities as eternal, or indeed, as verities at all) as constituting something of an entirely different order or level of gravity from temporal fashion than it is wrong to regard “The Divine Comedy” or “The Brothers Karamazov” as being of an entirely different order of value and worth and meaning than, say “Does My Bum Look Big In This?” (which I must admit I have never read, so am judging it entirely on its name and adverts on tube station escalators) or something by, say, Tony Parsons .

Long live judicious discrimination.

Only a fool cannot discriminate between that which is serious (whether they agree with it or not) and that which is trivial

It’s this chauvinism that only religious feelings can be real, sincere or deeply-felt and that anything else is just a “fad”.

Exactly, Brett. Its theist supremecy in action, and historically and today this intolerant irrationality is implicity and explicitly backed up with “allow us to do this or we’ll kill you in the name of $DEITY” threats.

To the theists here: which part of “keep your stinking supersitions and irrationalities out of places of learning” don’t you understand?

Is is no more “chauvinism” (do you really know what the word means?) to regard religion (whether you regard its verities as eternal, or indeed, as verities at all) as constituting something of an entirely different order or level of gravity from temporal fashion than it is wrong to regard “The Divine Comedy” or “The Brothers Karamazov” as being of an entirely different order of value and worth and meaning than, say “Does My Bum Look Big In This?” (which I must admit I have never read, so am judging it entirely on its name and adverts on tube station escalators) or something by, say, Tony Parsons .

Ven, I’m not aware of Tony Parsons ever claiming that his work should be treated as fact, which theist output has, since the year dot, always claimed to be (and has killed in order to maintain that particular masquerade).

I would say

To the atheists here: which part of “keep your stinking superstitions and irrationalities out of places of learning” don’t you understand?

(and there are few greater superstitions and irrationalities than atheism)

except that it would alas, make me sound like a bigot.

Live and let live, and all that.

The stupidity of this post is surpassed only by most of the comments.

Long live judicious discrimination.

Only, it seems, when it is you who is judging what is of a sufficient ‘order of gravity’.

Frankly I find organised religion rather silly.

Goths, and assorted romantics, will no doubt take their attire and habits very seriously indeed.

Who are you to dismiss them?

I’ll leave Venichka to rattle on about how his own beliefs uber alles…

Goths, and assorted romantics, will no doubt take their attire and habits very seriously indeed.

Maybe they do, but soon enough they’ll reach the age where they are allowed to purchase alcohol, and those days will be passed.

I am quite happy to dismiss children, and those who think like children, when they are pretending to be adults.

(and there are few greater superstitions and irrationalities than atheism)

Err, no. Atheism is actually a lack of said supersitions and irrationalities. The negative of 5 isn’t 0, its -5.

“Vegetarianism, as I have pointed out is also afforded accommodation because it is a deeply held belief.”

What are vegetarians demanding to be allowed to do that is forbidden to other people?

Maybe they do, but soon enough they’ll reach the age where they are allowed to purchase alcohol, and those days will be passed. I am quite happy to dismiss children, and those who think like children, when they are pretending to be adults.

You are Rupert Giles and I claim my five Sunnydale dollars.

Maybe they do, but soon enough they’ll reach the age where they are allowed to purchase alcohol, and those days will be passed.

I know at least two goths who are in their forties. But while they might take their attire and habits very seriously indeed I think it’s extremely unlikely that they’d claim they were on a par with someone’s religion.

I know at least two goths who are in their forties. But while they might take their attire and habits very seriously indeed I think it’s extremely unlikely that they’d claim they were on a par with someone’s religion.

I’m 3*, and a goth.

I’m getting the feeling these days that Ven is rapidly developing an outer endoskeleton of finest Tweed, to prevent contamination by anything past 1854.

Either that, or he’s Peter Hitchens in disguise.

I did feel a slight sense of disappointment on Ven’s behalf that his sensibilities had been affronted by the knowledge that a thing called “Does My Bum Look Big In This?” exists.

What are vegetarians demanding to be allowed to do that is forbidden to other people?

Not to eat meat at the school canteen, obviously.
(Or, to have their own meals catering to their own, quasi-religious, “needs”, obviously)

(and I think it’s perfectly reasonable that their request should be respected)

One regularly hears local bigots kick up a fuss when Muslims demand halal catering in schools, etc, although in reality that no more constitutes a difficulty for a canteen (in a conventionally meat-eating culture, such as that of the UK) that vegetarians demanding their own cuisine, about which no-one generally makes a fuss (not least.

(It was certainly unheard of for schools to provide vegetarian dishes when I was a lad, going to a rough primary school by the docks where boys who misbehaved themselves were punished by being locked in cages. Sorry, trying to outdo Graham there. This is East London in the 1970s)

Morgoth, I’ll take that as a compliment.

(I had to look up who Rupert Giles was on google/wikipedia, but first turned up nowt, as my google preferences are to search only pages in the successor langs of Serbo-Croat. I can assure you that I had never SEEN ,let alone WORE, any item of tweed until I was WELL into my 20s)

Brett: “What are vegetarians demanding to be allowed to do that is forbidden to other people?”

Having an extra vegetarian menu takes time and money to produce.

If a non vegetarian doesn’t like the menu in a school, hospital or a place of work, because they are fussy, and asks for different food they are likely to be asked ‘do you think this is a hotel?’ or something similar.

However, because people have strong vegetarian beliefs, they are much more likely to be accommodated than they otherwise would be if it was simply a matter of taste.

The strength of these beliefs result in several things if they are ignored, 1) inability to eat the food, 2) likely detrimental effects on that persons quality of life by being unable to eat 3) the fact that they are being denied services which other people have access to, because of their beliefs.

This is different from a simple preference.

As a matter of interest, does anyone object to the rule changing to allow all pupils to wear simple bracelets, regardless of their reasons?

Providing there was no genuine health-and-safelty issue, I would take this as an acceptable solution.

I think you are inching towards sanity with your last comments, Ven. What is at stake with vegetarians and Sikhs – and atheists – alike is principles.

At my own school it was compulsory to attend chapel several times a week – Muslims were exempted but atheists were not – I think that’s wrong, you know, no freedom of conscience.

Generally speaking, we should not try and force people to act contrary to those principles – religion is just one variety of principle, after all. What’s tricky is deciding where to draw the line (cf the religious bigot who worked at Islington council debate); but if we take the view that most people will be able to decide what is a reasonable request and what is not reasonable, what will harm others and what won’t harm others, we’re well on our way.

If we cannot accommodate people whose religion requires them to wear a small bit of metal on their wrist, or people who believe eating meat is wrong, or whose convictions do not allow them to partake of religious ceremonies, then we’re pretty much creating a society that isn’t worth living in. (Almost as bad as one in which religion is privileged above everything else).

Having an extra vegetarian menu takes time and money to produce.

Not really.

It’s a simple matter of cooking a meal that happens to be vegetarian instead of one that contains meat.

No extra expense, or time, at all.

“Having an extra vegetarian menu takes time and money to produce.”

This is a completely different and spurious argument. This is not about applying one set of rules to one group and another to another. Catering frequently takes into account a wide range of tastes and taboos. But no one is forced to eat meat (or pork or beef or shelfish) and no one is forced not to eat meat (or pork or beef or shelfish).

There really is a simple issue here. If there is a genuine reason why the pupils shouldn’t be allowed to wear certain jewelry (say for genuine health and safety reasons) then it should be banned – for everyone. It stands to reason that “beliefs” do not render something unsafe safe. But. if there is no good reason why someone shouldn’t wear a plain bracelet, then it should be allowed – for everyone.

does anyone object to the rule changing

At last you are seeing sense. It is that rule in the first place that is the problem, not the desire to circumvent it.

“As a matter of interest, does anyone object to the rule changing to allow all pupils to wear simple bracelets, regardless of their reasons?”

The only reasonable objection to such a rule is that the school’s uniform policy should be a matter for the head and the governors, and they should not have been compelled to change it, whether for one pupil on religious grounds, or for all of them to avoid treating one child as an exception.

Venichka: “I am quite happy to dismiss children, and those who think like children, when they are pretending to be adults.”

Unless they are theistic children, in which case you take them very seriously indeed.

I’m happy to concede that the nature of religious belief is such that the attendant customs usually hold more significance than the fashion statements of a goth. So what?

Should the right to wear religious trinkets be reserved only for those deemed ultra-religious, but banned for the less observant? Should there be some sort of faith test to assess the extent of religious belief? Should a schoolchild be allowed to wear a swastika if he really, really believes in Nazi ideology?

Surely you can see the problem in legislating for a hierarchy of belief systems that are internalised and subjective. I was allowed to skip rugby on Fridays during the warmer months because I was Jewish, although frankly, during my teens it was far more important to me to be able to have long hair (as Sikh pupils were allowed), to dye my hair and to wear crazy earrings, but these things were forbidden to me.

As it happens, I disagree with the post. I can see the underlying principle, but for the sake of harmony, what’s the big deal? Should we ban all religious symbols, from burkas to skull caps? It’s just a frigging bracelet.

Religion is far more important and fundamental to any society that endures for its designating attributes to be compared with shallow meaningless insipidities and the frivolous fopperies of fashion or the destructive anti-values of mindless materialistic atheistic popular culture

Really?

“Should we ban all religious symbols, from burkas to skull caps? It’s just a frigging bracelet.”

But by your own argument, “it’s just a friggin’ swastika”.

I’ve had it on good authority that her mother is behind this. She was a shop steward at IKEA Bristol before moving to Wales and caused havoc with her constant complaining, ridiculous actions and claims of discrimination at every turn. The entire store heaved a sigh of relief when she finally left to move to Wales. It was also said that the mother despite now having such a pious daughter was very much everything you wouldn’t expect of a good Sikh.

Shades of the recent case involving the hypocritical registrar methinks.

Brett,

So far you’ve argued that there’s no discrimination – that is, there’s equality of treatment – if the same rules apply to everyone. Two things. First, that inference is crap. Second, the premiss is false: the rules were differentially applied. But first, let’s discover which rule is in play. That is, which rule applied to everyone and was breached by the wearing of the kara? Here’s your attempt:

I know you’re a little slow on the uptake, but “allowing some jewelry to be worn” is not the same as “allowing some to wear jewelry”. It is perfectly sensible for the dress rules to stipulate what jewelry can be worn – discreet stud earings YES, ostentacious safety-pin lip piercings NO – as long as (try to grasp this) *the rules apply to everyone equally*. If bracelets are then added to the ‘permitted’ list, then *everyone* must be allowed to wear bracelets. It is not acceptable that one pupil can do what another cannot.

At least three different rules are extractible from the passage above: (i) all may wear some jewellery (ii) all may wear jewellery, so long as it is not ostentacious[sic], and (iii) all may wear bracelets.

Only (ii) is relevant: the school argued, inter alia, that the pupil should not be allowed to wear the kara because it might be seen as ‘a sign of affluence’. This argument failed. The judge found that the watches permitted under the rules were far more likely to be seen as signs of affluence. If you’re going to argue that Watkins-Singh should have been prevented from wearing the kara because there is a rule which (a) applies to everyone, and (b) was flouted by the wearing of the kara, then you’d best identify the relevant rule. The judge identified the relevant rule and ruled – quite sensibly – that it wasn’t breached. Quite apart from being shit, your argument is broken.

What’s more, the phrase “they appear to have allowed pupils jewellery” implies that there is no difference between a tie pin and a tiara. It’s like a pupil demanding the right to wear stiletto heels arguing that “they appear to have allowed pupils shoes -if you’re allowed flat black leather shoes, why not plastic mock leopard-skin high heels?”

On which sense of imply does they appear to have allowed pupils jewellery imply there is no difference between a tie-pin and a tiara?

This judgement is risible, and ultimately it places the state in the unenviable position of becoming the arbiter of what is a religion, and what isn’t. This will happen, because once the law has opened the door a little, by making a few subjective precedents, the trickle of plaintiffs will turn into a torrent. And the state has no defence against ever more elaborate and exotic demands, because the common law has no religious competence or provenance.

That is why it is so important to make sure our laws, and our rules, are totally objective and universally applied.

So is wearing the braclet a requirement of all Sikhs or only of particularly religious Skihs? I used to work in an office with a Sikh girl, who did not wear tradtional Skih clothing nor,so far as I recall, any special religious bracelet. She had quite an unusual name which she said was rather embarrassing because it was quite an old fashioned one by Sikh standards.

One day she showed me a photo of her husband and their two children, one girl and one boy. The husband and boy both had short hair and her husband was not wearing a turban. I expressed surprise at this and she said it was not uncommon for modern young Sikhs not to wear the turban. Yet in every other respect, they lived a conventional Sikh life, living near the parents, attending their religious centre together at weekend.

I do often wonder if many of these cases are brought by the religious right to push out the envelope and make these symbols a way to demonstrate how devout you are and ergo better morally than someone who doesn’t wear the symbols. Were other students at the school here allowed to wear crucifixes.

I think all religious symbols should be banned from school uniform, whatever the religion.

Allowing, in fact enforcing, Christian religious practices in school while unreasonably restricting others is simple, crude discrimination.

And the answer is not more discrimination, further acquiescence to religious special pleading. That is to exacerbate the anachronistic absurdity of an official, state-sanctioned superstition. No, the answer is less descrimination. It’s disestablishing the special privileges conferred by the state upon the Anglican superstition.

On this one, Brett’s absolutely spot-on.

I simply fail to see why this girl’s reasons for exemption from the school’s dress code should trump, for example, any Chelsea supporter wearing the club stripe to school.

emmanuelgoldstein , I’m not indulging your sophistry. Was there something she was not allowed to do that other pupils were allowed to do? No. No pupils were allowed to wear bracelets. Was she barred from wearing a watch while others enjoyed the privlege? No. All pupils were allowed to wear watches. Were Christian pupils allowed to break the rules and wear chastity rings or crucifixes? No. Religion was not accepted as grounds for exemption – for anyone or for any religion.

So where is the “discrimination”?

Another interesting point of discussion is that religious schools are allowed to directy discriminate in order to preserve their “ethos”. Indeed, parents have had to pretend to be more othodox than they are to keep their child’s place safe at the school. So why should a non-religious school not be allowed to preserve its secular ethos by requiring that religious symbols be kept at home?

I may be against the majority here, but I think the school was wrong. They should have let the girl wear the bracelet and be done with it. They could have easily made an exception for religious reasons.

I am with the girl and against the school on this point.

Dinner: I have lived on a Pacific Island, and I can assure you that the women out there are well covered up, the missionaries, both Catholic and various low Protestant churchses have done their work well. Also, I have always found that local people in non-European cultures do not like you ‘aping’ their culture, they actually feel you are taking the piss. davem wrote about the difficulty fhe had in learning Syrian Arabic, and that is one of the reasons. Many societies don’t want the foriegner to penetrate into them. My husbands step-uncle is an archeologist and he spent many years in Iraq, digging up ancient ruins and acquired a fluency in the language. He was telling Mr Rochester the other day that in Stockholm where he now lives, nearly all the taxi-drivers are Iraqi. The things they say about us (Europeans) whicle driving and talking into their mobile phones are obscene. It amuses him greatly to address them in perfect Iraqi Arabic when he gets out of the cab, so they know that there conversations have been understood.

Udham Singh: Not surprised you deny that the Jews have any historical link with what is now Israel. Article 40 of the Palesitinian National Charter says exactly that.

I was amused to see that the girl is wearing a Claddagh ring (Irish)on her little finger. So, she obviously loves her jewellery.

So is wearing the bracelet a requirement of all Sikhs or only of particularly religious Skihs?

See my comment above. It is not a requirement of unbaptised Sikhs, although many may choose to wear it.

As far as I can tell, she is an unbaptised Sikh as (apart from anything else) she’s probably too young.

As a vegetarian and atheist I am offended that my vegetarianism is being used to justify special treatment for the religious. As a vegetarian I don’t ask for any special treatment. At school I would simply choose items from the menu that didn’t have any meat in them. Most schools no longer have set meals anyway, you just pick what you want so as a vegetarian I would just not choose meat. Therefore, the catering staff were required to make no special effort for me. I would just choose a cheese baguette instead of a hamburger.

This judgement, however, gives special rights to people who are religious. As a vegetarian I have the right to eat meat or to not eat meat, but so do non-vegetarians. As an atheist under this judgement, however, I would not have the right to wear jewellery whilst someone else would. See the difference?

For this thread and the one below;

I really think it is worth re-stating the European Convention of Human Rights (which is implemented in the UK through its incorporation in the Human rights Act 1998).

The text of articles 9 and 10 seem astonishingly clear to me, though in addition to the articles one has to interpret the meaning of these articles in relation ship to the case law of ECHR, i.e. the judgements handed down by the European Court in particular national instances.

It should be remembered that the court has upheld the ban on headscarves in both France and Turkey as being perfectly consistent with the Human rights legislation on freedom o religion, as these ‘rights’ are not absolute but are to be balanced by the criteria in the second part of the article which sets the limit on such a ‘right’ in a free and democratic society.

The problem is with human rights law in England that it is neither understood by the public, politicians or lawyers, especially human rights lawyers.

English common law lawyers habitually read (construct) the meaning of an act in a narrow literalist way.

Human rights lawyers such as those at Liberty typically have a reverse narrow concept of construction.

They use law as a strategic implement to lasso judges until there is no wiggle room left, no loopholes for the English common law judges to slip through distinguishing a case on the most technical and self serving of principles.

It’s a game and you get a judgement in your favour when there is no technical escape for the hostile judge.

In the case of the Sikh girl above the judge was lassoed with English (not European law) case law on exceptions for Sikhs and crash helmets.

Game set and match as Bindmans said.

Often judges in their fury give a sweeping false (or malicious) compliance with Human Rights law just to create controversy.

What neither the judges nor the advocates in our adversarial system ever do is apply the law in the way it was intended ‘purposively’ and broadly and inclusively.

This is an alien style of jurisprudence to ask

‘What was the purpose of the law, what is it to protect and how is this protection to be balanced against all the other obligations and duties in a democratic society.

Article 9 ECHR

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the right to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest ones’ religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitation as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public, safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent states from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial, integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime or for the protection of health or morals, for the protection and reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

I think these articles are pretty clear in showing that such ‘rights’ are not absolute, unqualified or illimitable but rather are conditional ‘rights’ to be secured within a social and political context of the fabric that underpins democracy.

Now Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty once claimed that she would make human rights a household word that would be understood as applicable to everyone not wrongly seen as the preserve of a minority claiming ‘special treatment.’

Every case supported by Liberty is a choice, and a choice that conveys an educational and political message about the nature of ‘human rights’ what they are, who do they apply to who is responsible for ‘providing’ them and for whom, and in whose name are they upheld.

Arguably Liberty has failed in this task and has actually undermined the cause of human rights.

As an atheist under this judgement, however, I would not have the right to wear jewellery whilst someone else would. See the difference?

Well yes, but it’s just a bangle, isn’t it.

“But by your own argument, “it’s just a friggin’ swastika”.”

A sikh bracelet seems pretty innocuous to me. I was arguing against Venichka’s principle that religious customs are more deeply felt, and as such should be accommodated. The absurd implication of that is that school uniform should be dictated according to the wearer’s (or her parent’s) personal convictions. So far, I guess we’d agree.

However, I don’t happen to think that there’s no room between, on the one hand, placing anyone who happens to hold strong religious convictions above everyone else, and on the other, banning all religious artefacts and symbols from the classroom. Surely as a society, we can tolerate something as innocuous as a bracelet at school, whilst proscribing swastikas and ceremonial knives.

Your point about the discrimination in faith schools is well made, and I’d be happy to see all state funding withdrawn from any school that practices religious discrimination. It would be much more desirable to see children of all faiths and none mixing within a secular environment. I don’t think that the banning of all outward symbols of faith would further that goal. Do you?

One irony here is that of all British institutions which embraced the tenets of multiculturalism, state education might be said to have been in the vanguard. It has now had its throat ripped out as a consequence. It is going to be impossible for schools (state particularly, but not, as the perceptive have noted already, faith schools) to maintain the policy of equal treatment for all without collapsing the advantages of school uniform policy brings – and it does so bring advantages in my own experience. In my London school boys were sent home for coming to school in ‘boover boots’.

The other consequence is that Sikhs may have won a battle but they have lost a war. The resentment felt about this judgement on this and the BBC web site is palpable. Extreme nationalists and racists must be delighted. This is a sad day and I do agree with some posters above that some locally achieved compromise whilst this child was going through school would have been preferable.

Incidentally, my parents encouraged me to take Friday afternoons off, despite being as irreligious as myself. The rationale was that it was important in principle that Jewish kids should be able to keep the Sabbath, and by attending I might undermine that right at a school which enforced a quota of Jews just a generation before.

None of the kids in my year was religious, but all, bar one, were happy to go home early on a Friday. There was one exception, a keen rugby player, who ironically, turned ultra-orthodox a few years later.

Brett,

emmanuelgoldstein , I’m not indulging your sophistry. Was there something she was not allowed to do that other pupils were allowed to do?

(1) Yes. Wear unostentatious jewellery. (As the judge found.)

(2) Yours is the wrong question. (And you gave the wrong answer.) Discrimination is (usually) differential treatment. That the same rule has been applied in every case does not show that there was no differential treatment. Even if you could show that the relevant rule had been applied in the same way to every child, it still wouldn’t follow that no discrimination had occured: the children, after all, might have been in different circumstances to begin with. But you’ve failed even the minor task of showing that the same rule was applied in the same way to every child. Ms. Watkins-Singh was denied what was allowed to everyone else: the wearing of unostentatious jewellery.

Please tell me that wasn’t Brett with Sunny on More4.

Is a watch an item of unostentatious jewellery? As a judge has spoken, I guess it must be, but actually, I would have classed a watch as a functional item. What practical purpose does a bangle have? Apart from signifying religious committment. Personally, I think the school shouldn’t have made a fuss, because now it means that there will be more of these cases. And, quite honestly, how is upholding superstition hfelping anyone’s human rights?

Venichka’s principle that religious customs are more deeply felt

Erm, excuse me: that wasn’t my principle at all.

My principle is, and was, that religious customs have greater value, meaning and purpose, and constitute an important (perhaps the most important) element in how societies are formed, joined together, and hold meaning and form a shared morality and identity.

Worrying about “personal feelings and how deep they are” as a guide to action strikes me as dangerously liberalistic and post-modern – it’s neither here nor there.

“Ms. Watkins-Singh was denied what was allowed to everyone else: the wearing of unostentatious jewellery.”

As I said. Pure sophistry.

Dr Ketland could help us out, but I don’t think it was, Brett. Plain misleading, as her particular group is fellow students, not members of the public.

personally, I think dress codes are a bit bizarre, whatever they are

telling people what clothes they must (or mustn’t) wear is decidedly illiberal, the school should have been smarter, not made it a big issue and carried on

arguing over dress codes is a really backward way of thinking, surely there are more worthwhile discussions to be had?

Venichka:

“My principle is, and was, that religious customs have greater value, meaning and purpose, and constitute an important (perhaps the most important) element in how societies are formed, joined together, and hold meaning and form a shared morality and identity.”

Well, as an atheist, that feels a bit exclusive. Kind of undermines my place in society. I mean, let the girl wear her magic bangle, by all means, but you’ll have to do better if you’re going to persuade anyone that this is some fabric of society issue. What you’re really arguing is that any attempt to push a personal preference into the public sphere should be afforded special privilege if it can be labelled religious.

“Worrying about “personal feelings and how deep they are” as a guide to action strikes me as dangerously liberalistic and post-modern – it’s neither here nor there.”

It is here and there. Until the holy creator reveals the one true religion to the rest of us, your religious conviction (and the many competing religions) should properly be considered in the realm of “personal feelings”. Deeply and sincerely held ones, of course.

TJ,

Well I pretty much agree with 90% of what you’ve written here (which is about 90% more than most of the posters in this thread):

I suppose my objection to your use of the word “feelings” was that it seemed overly emotive/subjective/ promoting….essentially the triumph of the will…(and denial of the intellect or other aspects of humanity): and of course no-one can ever be, in this world, be absolutely certain about ultimate truths… the word “interpretation” (or “understanding”) – something that does not exclude these other, non-emotive, factors, would be one I would prefer.

I suppose my principal point was that, throughout all of human history, and across the entire world (including at the present time, even if we are in a largely secular age in this part of the world, at the moment)….religions have been the major societally-shaping and forming force, and have (as the etymology of the word – “to bind together” indicates) – - that is what makes them different from “gothdom” “punkdom” or whatever – - – now of course that does not mean that all religions are true or valid (…and, in the world, how can any secular authority posit which are and which aren’t: clearly they can’t) – I have suggested longevity of a practice as being a possible indicator that implies some sort of validity..”tradition the democracy the dead” if you will..although that would clearly not be the only factor….

Which is essentially why I think that it is right that a school operating a school uniform policy should operate, within certain bounds, exemptions, like this, that do have a religious basis….whereas there would be no reason whatsoever, say, for someone who idolised Sid Vicious to be permitted to wear a clothes pin through their nose to classes…to give an intentionally ridiculous example.

It doesn;t answer the whole question: (Sikh knife? I don’t think so — although in practice many Sikhs have found a way to get round that by wearing a small badge in the form of a dagger: All-covering veil? I don’t think so either). But a little bracelet is neither here nor there. That’s the sort of thing a sensitive, reasonable, exemption can and should be made for. It harms no-one, and it is vaguely preposterous (and a gift to the “permanently offended”) to claim that permitting such an exemption in any meaningful way constitutes “discrimination” against atheists

I always thought it was the Right that wanted to impose uniformity, with consent or not, as shown by the early post by tt. As also shown when Secondary Schools were generally Church-run and proper protestants (ooh! provocative) couldn’t get their children in unless they signed up to the 39 articles of the Church of England.

The best known example in Wales was 19th Century Antidisestablishmentarianism. It failed, but it made the Tories look anti-Welsh and profoundly unpopular.

Multiculturalism was clearly established in 1641 before the UK was founded, when King Charles I agreed to stop using force to impose Bishops and the Book of Common Prayer in Scotland. He reneged on the deal and everybody knows what happened after that….

Enough if the imposition of Uniformity advocated by too many on this thread. What could be more un-British?

What will they want next? Ban Rugby League for being regionalist? Compel Scots to support the English Cricket team? Padlock Adventist churches between dusk on Friday and dusk on Saturday? Crackdown on foreign influences like cola, twin beds and lager? Stop Jewish shopkeepers opening on Sundays and closing on Saturdays?

When were Secondary Schools generally run by the CofE? Interesting analysis of the English Civil War, I’ve nevr looked upon it as Charles I reneging on a promise to Multiculturalism before, but now you mention it…

I know “clothes maketh the man” but since when was clothing and jewelry a ‘racial’ characteristic?

If you provide a service and take an action or enforce a rule which has disproportionately and adversely affects one ethnic group, then you have committed indirect discrimination. The Race Relations Act and its successors make this illegal and such a case would have been won at any time since 1976.

“If you provide a service and take an action or enforce a rule which has disproportionately and adversely affects one ethnic group, then you have committed indirect discrimination. The Race Relations Act and its successors make this illegal and such a case would have been won at any time since 1976.”

I don’t see how that answers my question.

For example if someone said that they were distressed if they weren’t dressed as a goth, and it could be pointed out that they only dressed this way some of the time, that would be evidence against them, I would guess.

Or, for example, if it could be pointed out that subject A flouts numerous tenets of a particular religious faith whilst simultaneously demanding accommodation of one to which s/he clings, s/he should be told to take a running jump.

In this case it really is the school that has made the fuss.

A Sikh could reasonably claim that your preventing them from wearing ‘jewellery’ would disproportionately affect Sikhs who wear the kara not just as part of their religion but also as a traditional and usual token of their ethnic identity. No other group, other than Jews, have successfully claimed that they are at the same time a religion and an ethnic group. Certainly under the Race Relations Act, no other jewellery of whatever religious origin would be acceptable.

Once again a coddled, overpaid judge drives a nail deep into the coffin of our culture.

This judgement is absurd.

I think we need to have a counter offensive against all this nonsense.

I would like us to trace this all the way back to when the first Sikh was allowed to evade the law on motorcycle helmets, when the first headteacher gave way to the first demand from a Muslim pressure group on swimming lessons.

We need to be militant in defending ourselves against these religious fanatics.

Remove ALL concessions to religious sensibility.

it’s a soddin’ stainless steel bangle, which just happens to be one of the central tenets of her religion.

If this girl were truly pious, It seems to me her “Kara” would be made of iron (the proper material, according to wikipedia), not stainless steel.

It’s fucking jewelry and Brett is right.

First sentence is a quote. Oops.

I had to look up who Rupert Giles was on google/wikipedia, but first turned up nowt,

You’re kidding me? Who are you? Mr. Cholmondley-Warner or something?

I would like us to trace this all the way back to when the first Sikh was allowed to evade the law on motorcycle helmets, when the first headteacher gave way to the first demand from a Muslim pressure group on swimming lessons.

Or…. You could trace it back to the time when the Sikh regiments – in turbans, natch – lost over 80, 000 men in two world wars.

Field wrote:

“We need to be militant in defending ourselves against these religious fanatics. “

what utter nonsense, ranting against Sikhs?

field, do you honestly, in one of your more considered moments, think that it will work?

why not try it, go up to a group of Sikh, try it out?

as an atheist, two things piss me off :

1. Christians waking me on Sunday to rant on about the Bible

2. Hysterical atheists (field and Co) who mimic religious fundamentalists and haven’t got the common sense of a dead prawn

it is ridiculous, it only plays into the hands of religious fundamentalists, who want to exert their power

the stupid way to deal with this type of situation is to rant and rave, as field & co continually do, the smarter away is to accept that there are people who will be different, make some minor accommodation (as many many schools have) and defuse the issue

alternatively if you wish to heightened tensions within society carry on as field does…

what about a dress code for adults? why stop at students and kids?

Modernity –

I am neither hysterical nor an atheist. I am someone who is firm in defending our society from the religious fanatics who would destroy it

Where is the ethical content in your post?

There appears to be an implied threat of violence. To propose common legal standards will, you indicate, be seen as a threat by Sikhs and they will respond violently. You appear to suggest that I would personally be subjected to violence if I made this proposal to a group of Sikhs. And you appear to relish that prospect.

Do you think I discounted the possibility of a violent reaction? A Sikh mob used violence in this country to closed down a harmless theatrical production. I was fully aware of that.

Of course Sikhs threaten violence in defence of their peculiar dress code. That’s why they have to be opposed. Because that sort of organised violence undermines our peaceful and tolerant society.

What about a dress code for adults? you ask…er, we do have one. It’s not legal to walk around naked. You are required to at least clothe your genital area (and breast area if you are a woman). This is of course discriminatory towards Hindu Saddhus who go about naked. Plus you can’t wear clothing with overtly obscene imagery.

The way to reduce tensions in society is to make clear that this society has a certain character and that that character is not going to be altered by determined fanatics. In fact this society will go after determined fanatics and make their life difficult.

Once everyone understands that we will have a much less tense society.

What creates the tension is the feeling within religions that they are involved in a zero sum game, where a gain for one is a loss for another.

What creates tension for the majority population who have no or quite weak religious beliefs is the feeling that religious fanatics are getting control of the law making and policy making machinery and that they are being indulged beyond all reason.

It’s an issue of fairness, Modernity.

If you let one student wear a bangle, then you are obliged to let all the students wear bangles. I don’t see why this is so hard to comprehend.

make some minor accommodation (as many many schools have) and defuse the issue

Chamberlain was also very good at making “minor accommodations” and look where it got him.

I may be in the minority here, but I am with the school girl. The school should have just let her wear the bracelet.

does the world stop because a kid wants to wear a bangle?

Booski, a sense of proportion, please

Chamberlain was also very good at making “minor accommodations” and look where it got him.

One minute you’re letting a school girl wear a bit of cheap metal around her wrist, the next thing you know she’s trying to annex the Sudetenland. Still, we’ll all defend Miss Watkins-Singh’s Polish classmates if the worst happens, won’t we?

I may be in the minority here, but I am with the school girl. The school should have just let her wear the bracelet.

I agree. This little bracelet is nothing like the deeply anti social jilbab veil thing that the Islamist school girl wanted to wear that even most Muslim parents opposed. It wasn’t worth going to court over this bracelet. The ruling has only opened the way for the Islamists to have another go.

Field wrote:

“You appear to suggest that I would personally be subjected to violence if I made this proposal to a group of Sikhs. And you appear to relish that prospect.”

it was sarcasm, but as you appear so anally retentive you wouldn’t get the point

but let’s look at your points, such as they are:

you write:

” In fact this society will go after determined fanatics and make their life difficult.”

really? that’s your approach? the authoritarians’ boot to crack down on religious belief, that you don’t like?

Hmm, where else has that been tried, ahh Albania under the dictator, Enver Hoxha, good example!

next we have China’s elites cracking down on Falun Gong and other religious minorities

not forgetting the Soviet’s attempt at crushing religious belief

you’re in fine company there! dictators and thugs

you wrote:

“What creates tension for the majority population who have no or quite weak religious beliefs is the feeling that religious fanatics are getting control of the law making and policy making machinery and that they are being indulged beyond all reason.”

no, what creates tension is shit stirrers who use these issues to foment hatred, following their agenda

now I appreciate why JP does it, he’s a fucked up Catholic with lots of issues, even Morgoth’s reasons are plain enough, as some form of Satanist he probably views them as competition

so field, where do you fit in this turf war?

does yourreligious belief preclude others believing what they want?

or does the idea of others not sharing your views annoy you? or just certain “types” of people?

which is it?

which particular religious group do you support?

does the world stop because a kid wants to wear a bangle?

Of course not, but that isn’t the issue. The issue is fairness, and I believe that is the point Brett is making. In order to be fair, you would have to let all the kids wear bangles.

Tell you what, Mod. Explain why letting one kid wear a bangle whilst preventing the rest of the kids in the classroom from doing so is fair.

booski,

accepting your point, so what? if kids wear bangles does that really, really vex you?

surely, in terms of political issues this is less important than “what type of tie John McCain wears”? or on a par with “how often does Mrs. Clinton shampoo her hair?”

ahh yes, I can see it now, the flood gates are open

1,000s, no, millions of kids will wear bangles, that crash in the background is, Western civilisation crumbling as a result? hardly

I lived in India for a while in the early 80s and wore a kada as a kind of post hippie Punk affectation.

Sikh men and boys of all degrees of religious observance generally wear them (even the ‘cut hair’ sikh).

The naffer ones are chromed steel, the better ones are stainless (though curiously in museums a lot of antique ones seem to be brass, though officially they were supposed to be iron).

there is quite a lot of macho associated with them (a set of mrtial references to Sikhism that many like to play up to seriously or ironically)

Like all symbols there is a dense set of semiotics attached and they range in style from slender disco sleek versions to great clunking lumps of broad steel.

They are used in a fight both defensively and offensively, and in British Asian street culture they slide nicely into a gangy/ hip-hop/ ragga ‘its cool lakh streeet stahl innit?’.

I liked wearing my kada as it was a kind of semiotic non-sequiteur in most contexts, though it went well I thought with my cropped hair and leather jacket etc.

I thought I was really cool until I first went to San Francisco to discover that big hairy men in chaps thought I was signalling my slave status (the kada is worn on the right side) yikes!!

I couldn’t get it off though as post dysentery I had gained a lot of size over the years.

I finally had it removed in 1987 when London underground started introducing guardless trains with the doors being closed by the driver without full view of the platform.

Dashing for a train I got my hand in the door only to be dragged the full length of Warren st tube by my kada encircled (bloody) wrist.

Somebody pulled the emergency halt thank God, and I took my cut and bruised wrist to the nearby UCH emergency room whee it was cut off.

The very nice Sikh Dr on call found it quite amusing (saw bones humour and all that) and we had a nice chat about Rajasthan.

I considered it was a good time to loose the bangle.

Without wanting to diss Sarika Watkins-Singh or question her doubtless heartfelt religiosity, she does look like a bit of a fesity lass.

I am sure though, that the complete set of meanings the bangle has for her are not those of either her parents or the projective ‘rights protectors’ of Liberty or the Judge.

I mean has anyone from Liberty actually ever been to Aberdare ?

They really do need to get a better grip on reality, they really do.

booski,

accepting your point, so what? if kids wear bangles does that really, really vex you?

Nope. But people not playing fair in these matters does. And that’s what some religious folks are trying to do. Ain’t having it.

I declare Brett the winner! :D

Morgoth – Chamberlain was also very good at making “minor accommodations” and look where it got him.

Agreed. If only there was some kind of demented right-wing Satanist with no sense of proportion around to speak for me from beyond the grave, what with it being 1933 and all.

Speaking of Winston Churchill, Did this happen:

Woman to Winston:

If I were your wife, I’d poison your coffee!

Winston to Woman:

Madam, if I were your husband I’d drink it!

Lol!

Boogski; approximately, that happened. The woman was Nancy Astor.

“What’s more, the phrase “they appear to have allowed pupils jewellery” implies that there is no difference between a tie pin and a tiara. It’s like a pupil demanding the right to wear stiletto heels arguing that “they appear to have allowed pupils shoes -if you’re allowed flat black leather shoes, why not plastic mock leopard-skin high heels?” “

It may not be a breach of rules, but is certainly a massive breach of good taste.

GW

Wsn’t there another interchange between Nancy Astor and Winston Churchill where she accused him of being drunk, and he replied, ‘By the morning I shall be sober madam, whereas you will still be ugly.’. Actually, I’m not sure that was Lady Astor, but it’s a good quip.

Fair enough, Ven. As for societal importance of religion, we’re in agreement, although I would rather it wasn’t thus. All the same, unlike most of the people on this thread, I’m pragmatic enough to realise that there has to be some flexibility, and the desire to completely eradicate religion from the public sphere is both impracticable and undesirable.

I mean, it’s only a friggin’ bracelet.

You could trace it back to the time when the Sikh regiments – in turbans, natch – lost over 80, 000 men in two world wars.

Well, perhaps if they’d been forced to wear helmets, a lot less of them would have died? There is probably a good reason why helmets are worn by soldiers, what with the bullets, and explosions and such like.

Or was that exactly the point you were making?

Anyway, another Churchill gem that sticks in my mind -

Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?

Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.

1969: Sikh busmen win turban fight
However, Mr Jolly’s actions did not receive whole-hearted support from all of Britain’s estimated 130,000 Sikhs.

Dr A K S Aujila of the Supreme Council of Sikhs in the UK said: “We are going to wage relentless war on the idea that individuals can take this sort of action involving the whole community and very likely lead to a worsening of community harmony in Britain”.

booski,

you might look up the background to the American express “tyranny of the majority”

Is that a book, Modernity? You should know that I break out in a cold sweat around books thanks to Edward W. Said. And don’t get me started on Rebecca L. Spang’s The Invention of the Restaurant (Paris and Modern Gastronomic Culture). Blech! :D

Norm weighs in.

Unlike Brett at Harry’s Place, I welcome yesterday’s decision in the case of Sarika Watkins-Singh. That the girl should have been forbidden by her school from wearing a ‘5mm thick steel bangle, known as a kara,… one of the five outward signs worn by Sikhs to show their faith’, strikes me as a piece of worthless rigidity not justified in a secular and liberal society.

That secularism doesn’t require any prohibition against wearing religious insignia in schools or other public spaces is something I’ve already argued more than once, including in these posts, so I won’t go into that again. But the argument from a need for uniforms is also unconvincing, given the way in which exceptions generally seem to be made to this requirement but to stop short just where the relevant authority arbitrarily specifies it must. In this particular case, it is no different:

It was not until April 2007 when a teacher noticed her kara that she was asked to remove it in line with the school’s “no jewellery” policy which allows pupils to wear no more than watches and simple ear studs.

The school, it would seem, was willing to allow exceptions of practicality (a watch for telling the time) and – what? – fashion (ear studs). So, everything on the pupils is not quite uniform. By what reason, then, can it be said that an object important to a person on account of her identity speaks to a less important consideration than these two? You will struggle to get an answer to that question.

If the bracelet in question could tell the time, or if it was actually a holy set of ear studs, then Norm would have a point. But they’re not, and he hasn’t – he’s just indulging in special pleading for irrationality.

So you agree that the school’s policy is fucked up if they say “no jewelry”, but allow ear studs?

You have to keep something in the ear ring hole or it will close up (I think).

Mark T @ 30 July 2008, 12:32 pm

Not Winston Churchill, but Oscar Wilde.

I like reading misquotes on Harry’s Place. They remind me how good my memory is.

I think you’ll find it was GB Shaw

Modernity –

I don’t know where you are coming from Modernity. What’s your beef? Why don’t give a damn about our society becoming a collection of petty clerical fiefdoms?

You seem not to understand for instance that devout Muslims object to a hell of a lot of things. They object to:

Mixed bathing.

Men playing football in shorts.

Music.

Representational art.

Pigs.

Dogs.

Polytheism.

Democracy.

Young women being allowed out without chaperones.

Plays, films and books that are critical of Islam or Mohammed.

Caricatures of Mohammed.

Prostitution (well the Western kind at least).

Scepticism displayed towards the Koran.

Mishandling of the Koran.

British foreign policy.

Muslims joining the British army.

I’ve haven’t stopped because I’ve run out of things they object to, it’s just I’ve got bored. I could go on for hours.

Unless you are going to say that you agree to banning everything on their list, then YOU TOO are going to have to annoy Muslims. It’s just a question of at what point you annoy them. I’m suggesting that the way to have a happy society is to make clear to them and all other religious groups that they cannot expect to get their way, that they will have to make the accommodations, not the rest of us.

You ask where I am coming from. I am coming from the great tradition of the Greek polis, the notion of free citizens combining to rule themselves and adopting common laws applicable to all regardless of religion.

So I am a secularist and a democrat. I do have religious and philosophical beliefs or views but they are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Many’s the time that I’ve felt like challenging someone at work to a philosophical debate in the Socratic manner. That would be an expression of my belief system. I’ve often thought it would be nice to have a special room at work for Socratic debate and reflection – or just sleep come to think of it. That would indeed be nice.

Is it really mean spirited to deny the borderline obese Sikh girl her bangle (let’s not forget a lot of healthy slim people find the sight of obese people very distressing while we’re at it)?

Or is it just a sensible measure to prevent the intimidatory flaunting of religious identity?

You quote me as saying ” In fact this society will go after determined fanatics and make their life difficult.” You take the words out of context. As I made clear, I was referring to those determined fanatics who are trying to change our society without our consent. I’ve absolutely no interest if a Scientologist believes that some alien being cast 50 billion souls into star or whatever it was, to create Thetans and if they are determined that we should all believe that. That is of no interest to me. I am only concerned when the Scientologists intimidate people, or cosy up to the City of London Police etc etc. They can be determinedly fanatical in their beliefs – it doesn’t worry me. In fact I quite like to hear people’s different views about life.

I actually respect quite a lot of religions. I think Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism all have valid things to say. Islam however seems to many people to be a fake religion, more like a cult that got lucky, a cult built around one very vain man who Hubbard-like cherry picked a lot of contemporaneous ideas and threw them together while creating a religion that guaranteed their own personal gain.

I think you are still allowed to say that in this country – but only just and only on the web. I’d be arrested if I put that in a leaflet and distributed it on the street.

I meant to add Modernity that you don’t actually understand how sarcasm works. You are supposed to be sarcastic towards your opponent in a dispute, not to the people you are supposed to be defending. Your “sarcasm” was directed to the Sikh people because you imputed to them violent intent in the circumstances where I went up to a group of them to give them the benefit of my views on legal exemptions for Sikh turban wearers.

Given that I had already noted that Sikhs had used violence or the threat of violence to get there way in the past, you were simply confirming the accuracy of my assessment.

Field,

I missed it, what religious views did you say you have?

please, be honest and fulsome about them

I’m with Field on this one.

Mrs Ben

Modernity –

I don’t know why you are obsessed with my religious beliefs.

I was brought up an Anglican and still like the hymns. I am I suppose a deist of some description but prefer anyway to have philosophy at the centre of my belief system. None of this is particularly relevant to what I am proposing here: that we should ensure that religious belief does not intrude on our public civil life: our laws, law enforcement, our schools, libraries, hospitals, local government, parliament etc. Religion or philosophical beliefs only become problematic if they try to muscle in on these areas of life.

It’s best to draw a clear boundary line and say to religions you can’t overstep this mark.

So tell us – are you saying people should be allowed to express their religious beliefs in whatever way they like? I doubt it. So, tell us then where YOU draw the line.

Field,

fine, fair enough. I asked the question, because I wondered if your dislike of Sikhs and Muslims, etc was part of some wider religious turf war (as with JP and Morgoth).

you write:

“So, tell us then where YOU draw the line.”

Firstly, all those genuinely interesting secularism should agree with the disestablishment of the Church of England, etc the removal of all privileges and all funding, that includes the seats in House of Lords.

1. Agreed?

Then secularists should read a bit of history and try to find modern societies without religion, any religion, in any form, and surprisingly they won’t find any, there are religious views in all societies, they just tend to vary in size and intensity.

Taking that has a given and bearing in mind that there are multiple religions, you’re left with basically two approaches:

1) accept that religious people will hold views, try to come to some sensible accommodation with them and let them have religious freedom

2) state that there is no such thing as religious freedom, that these beliefs can only be kept in their own mind and any display of religious sentiment is punishable by imprisonment.

The latter approach has been tried in numerous dictatorships across the world (Stalin’s Russia, Albania, Cuba, parts of Eastern Europe and China), strangely enough no matter how repressive regimes are, the religious sentiments don’t go away, they just go underground.

So anyone with an ounce of common sense, even if they disagree with the existence of the Deities, etc, would take the first approach.

2. Agreed?

Modernity –

You are dodging the question. I ask you where you draw the line. Either you do draw a line between the religious and the secular or you don’t. If you do – and it would appear you do – then you have to say where you draw the line. It’s not good enough to just say we have to make an accommodation with people’s beliefs. Of course you do, that’s what any society has to do. Even Stalin’s Russia tolerated a degree of religious observance.

Where do you draw the line? For instance, should a female Muslim be allowed to wear a full Burka at work in say a government office interacting with the public? From all that you have said, I presume you see nothing wrong with that.

As for disestablishment of the Church, sadly yes. That is an inevitable result of where we are now. I say sadly because I do value history and tradition and, although I am a secularist, I can see that a religious connection can enrich societies. If I lived in some Spanish town I wouldn’t want to stop festa days for the local patron saint.

However, we have now reached the point where the existence of an established Church threatens our culture. It is in many ways being used as a Trojan horse to import Shariah into this country.

On JP and Morgoth, I respect both posters. The Catholic Church is an incredible institution that has done much to enrich our culture over the centuries. Since it stopped being an anti-democratic institution, I welcome it as an ally of civilised society. JP posts from a Catholic perspective. Catholics have every right to be suspicious of what Islam has in store for it if it ever gets political power.

Morgoth is an extremist. But then he appears to be a polytheist and strict Muslims who adhere to traditional Islamic teaching wish to summarily execute or enslave polytheists. He has a right to be concerned. How you view his posts depends if you think extremism in defence of liberty is a vice. Morgoth puts the Islamic threat to our society on a par with the Nazi threat. It sounds extreme, but then when one looks at what Islam (as an ideology, as expounded by its clerics) means to do, I think one is justified in making the comparison.

I think rather than analysing everyone’s motivation for posting you would do better to address the specific points made by posters AND tell us what policies you think should be followed, in particular where YOU draw the line on this issue of preventing religious life from intruding into the public sphere.

No-one should understimate the determination of a teenage Sikh to do her own thing. I’ve seen “Bend it like Beckham”.

JP posts from a Catholic perspective.

Um, no. I’m Catholic and JP certainly does not speak for me; indeed it is difficult to see how he speaks for anyone other than himself.

field,

morgoth is an occulist, a one time follow of Aleister Crowley, if you don’t consider that to be an issue then I have to wonder why? (please look him up)

frankly, your evasions, and difficulty with the rather simple question of the disestablishment of the Church of England, suggests to me that your motivation is questionable

where do I draw the line? I think there are many helpful and pragmatic solutions to these very, very minor issues

I think that people who get worked up about them display either:

intolerance to others, ignorance, or their own agenda

I don’t, cos I am basically a pluralist I accept that people will have different views from me, some that I don’t like, and as long as they don’t intrude too much I can’t get too worked up.

To suggest that wearing a bangle in school is some big issue strikes me as utterly irrational.

As far as I can see, to adopt your, morgoth or JP’s attitude on these issue would be:

1) to play into the hands of extremists
2) to stir up racist strife
3) authoritarian

which obviously I can’t go along with, honestly, your collective paranoia worries me more than school kids and dress codes.

finally, I don’t find engaging with Muslim haters, baiters or the paranoid to be useful, so forgive me if I ignore you (and others) in the future.

emmanuelhusseingoldstein Says:

“JP posts from a Catholic perspective.”

Um, no. I’m Catholic and JP certainly does not speak for me; indeed it is difficult to see how he speaks for anyone other than himself.

*****

Did I say “the” Catholic perspective? No. I did not. I said “a”. I am well aware that there is a range of opinion within the Catholic Church. Some of us remembering John Paul II’s quixotic gesture of kissing the Koran.

Actually “kissing the Koran” is a nice phrase to describe Dhimmi-style appeasement. I prefer the current Pope, whose well chosen quotation so enraged followers of Islam.

Meanwhile all over the Muslim world everyday Muslim clerics describe Christianity, Judaism and Western culture in the vilest terms. And for some reason, the bien pensants of the world seem to find that perfectly acceptable.

Alan Ji Says:

“No-one should understimate the determination of a teenage Sikh to do her own thing. I’ve seen “Bend it like Beckham”. ”

Not sure if you are satirising the tendency of film makers to fashion the world as they would like it to be. In films just about ALL Muslim and Sikh girls are feisty, just as all Black people are law abiding and erudite,
all women excel at male-dominated jobs, and all lawyers and doctors are principled persons unconcerned with financial reward.

But then they seem to think Father Christmas really exists, six year olds can defeat adult burglars, animals can talk and Steve Martin is still funny.

modernity

1. I thought you were in favour of religious toleration. Not when it comes to occultism it seems.

2. I have not evaded the question of disestablishment of the Anglican Church. I said I support its disestablishment. I support my child becoming independent of me one day. Doesn’t mean that when the moment comes there won’t be some feelings of regret and sadness.

3. Yet again you refuse to say where you would draw the line:

Do you draw the line at

Bangle.

Hijab

Full Burka

Full Burka plus relative to act as chaperone.

Female child not being allowed to attend mixed school beyond
puberty?

This is a perfectly valid question. I want to find out where you draw the line with specific examples not some airy-fairy “as long as it doesn’t intrude too much” nonsense. Of course the wearing of a bangle intrudes. It might not intrude on you but it intrudes on other Sikh girls who then have to ask themselves whether they should wear a bangle as well, to show they are true Sikhs. And it intrudes because it immediately introduces the question of whether male Sikhs should be allowed to carry the sword/dagger which is a requirement of their religion.

4. Today I spoke with two teachers who raised the issue – not me. They were clearly concerned about the ruling and what it would lead to. From bangle to Burka is a but a short step seemed to be their message. So I think you must be including a large section of the teaching profession in the circle of “collective paranoia”.

5. You are essentially burying your head in the sand. You clearly rule out of court the idea that anyone should ever be allowed to entertain any strongly negative feelings towards a religion. Why ever not? People are allowed to hate Nazism, Communism, American Imperialism, Thatcherism. Why can’t they despise a religion that wants to reduce them to the status of second class citizens.

6. You need to educate yourself in what Islam as an ideology consists of. Only then once you have familiarised yourself with the Koran, the Hadith, the teachings of the main Islamic schools and the curricula in Islamic religious schools (both formal and informal) can you dismiss concerns about allowing religious symbolism to intrude on public life as part of a paranoid reaction. Of course, if you do read up on the subject and can show that Islam does not wish to dominate the world, has full respect for non-Muslims, does not want to institute Shariah, does not view women as inferior and does not wish to treat non-Muslims as second class citizens, then that will be an interesting development. I’ll certainly look at the evidence you bring forward. But I’m not prepared to take any lectures based on no more than wishful thinking.

filed: Not only have I seen “Bend it like Beckham”, but I’ve been known to describe it’s Director, Guiinder Chadha, as the best British film Director since Bill Forsyth. She was a teenager once.

As an Indian and as a Sikh, I am disappointed with the behavior of this Sikh girl. ( Actually her parents – as she is just a kid ) I request you NOT to give in to these religious demands made from time to time by certain people. Perhaps you can use some defense from what I write to support your cause.

Immigration to the UK by Sikhs – There are Sikhs lined up and waiting desperately to immigrate to your country. A young Sikh man who is wasting his life in his farm in Punjab without money, job, future or real happiness will be willing to cut off his entire left arm in return to get an opportunity to immigrate to a White Country. But once they get a second life, some of these same Sikhs who were ready to cut their left arm don’t want to cut their religious symbols in Public places.

My main point is not support for Whites, or to criticize my religion, my main point is that selfish bastards in my community do not realize that this behavior is only spoiling the prospects of other needy Sikhs the opportunity to immigrate to the UK .

Desire to keep the 5 k’s. – Almost every Sikh breaks these religious laws. Of the 5 K’s the Kesh ( hair and beard, eyebrows, body hair ) is shorn by a massive ( maybe 99 %, yes 99 % ) majority of the young Sikhs, weather they are in the UK or the fields of Punjab . Even the Sikhs who keep the hair will reject 3 other physical symbols. For convenience sake – without batting an eyelid. Ask a typically foolish and religious Sikh, – if you take so much trouble over maintaining your hair at the right length, do you keep ‘the Kacha’ ( large undergarment / drawers ) or do you wear a Calvein Klein brand of underwear. Do you keep ‘the Kanga’ ( comb ) of the right length or only a miniature Kanga – for convenience sake ? The ‘Kara’ is convenient so almost everyone ( including I ) wear it.

Desire to maintain identity – Strictly my viewpoint, and it can be rejected but I have seen in India that those Sikhs who have very little achievements to their credit, try to attract attention to themselves and pump up their fragile egos by this display of religious identity ( again – only Kesh and Kara ) by saying – “look I am a true blue Sikh, I am better than you. You cannot achieve this.

Refusal to reciprocate to decency. – Sikhs refuse to understand that they have a very good life in the UK . The British are basically good hosts. Do the Sikhs realize how their fellowmen are treated in the Gulf, were treated in Uganda , or would be treated if they made demands in say – China ?

A rule is a rule. If the Sikh cannot obey the rule, buy him a one way ticket. See how quickly the swine will come to his / her senses. The problem is also in British society, by being politically correct to the point of being apologetic, and by giving in to a few fanatics. It is the British only who are creating a situation where they will have to continuously satisfy the demands of fools and ingrates.

Satpal Ahuja –

Thanks for that interesting post. Interesting to get a view from inside Sikh culture.

I think what you say is essentially true. Sikhs make lots of compromises over their religion – just as Christians, Jews and Muslims do – nothing unusual with that. Most Christians don’t really believe that they will go to Hell for harbouring desires for people who aren’t their spouses.
Most Jews don’t follow absolutely every dietary and behavioural restriction to be found in Judaism. Most Muslims in the UK don’t do the full prayer five times a day every day and most Muslim men actually wear tight fitting western clothes (also against their religion).

The idea that they won’t be prepared to compromise with a secular approach to public life and equal citizenship in a country like the UK is doubtful in the extreme.

It’s interesting that you say there is still a great hunger to migrate to the UK – despite the recent economic success of India.