Girl loses Lords fight to wear full Islamic dress
-23/03/06
The House of Lords yesterda
Girl loses Lords fight to wear full Islamic dress
-23/03/06
The House of Lords yesterday overturned an appeal court ruling that a Muslim teenager’s human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing a head-to-toe Islamic dress to school.
The unanimous ruling by five law lords was greeted with relief by teachers’ bodies and the Department for Education and Skills, which feared that upholding the ruling would throw schools’ policies on uniforms into chaos.
Shabina Begum, 17, won a landmark victory last March when she took the school’s headteacher and governors to court for denying her the “right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs” under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
She lost two years’ schooling before moving to a school which allowed her to wear the religious garb.
But the law lords said there was no right to be educated at a particular school, and she could have moved earlier to a single-sex school where the garment would be unnecessary or to a school where it was permitted.
Shabina had worn the shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) for her first two years at the school, but when she was nearly 13 she went to school in a jilbab.
The court had heard that 75 per cent of the school’s pupils were Muslim and that the shalwar kameez, trousers and tunic worn by many women on the Indian sub-continent, was allowed to be worn by pupils.
Lord Bingham said: “It would, in my opinion, be irresponsible for any court, lacking the experience, background and detailed knowledge of the headteacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this. The power of decision has been given to them for the compelling reason that they are best placed to exercise it, and I see no reason to disturb their decision.”
At the court hearing, her counsel, Cherie Booth, QC, had argued that the shalwar kameez was no longer suitable for her because she had reached sexual maturity and it did not sufficiently protect her modesty.
Shabina said after the judgment: “Obviously I am saddened and disappointed about this, but I am quite glad it is all over and I can move on now. Even though I lost, I have made a stand.”
She said she would be discussing with her lawyers whether to take the case to the European court of human rights.
Girl loses Lords fight to wear full Islamic dress
-23/03/06
The House of Lords yesterday overturned an appeal court ruling that a Muslim teenager’s human rights were violated when she was banned from wearing a head-to-toe Islamic dress to school.
The unanimous ruling by five law lords was greeted with relief by teachers’ bodies and the Department for Education and Skills, which feared that upholding the ruling would throw schools’ policies on uniforms into chaos.
Shabina Begum, 17, won a landmark victory last March when she took the school’s headteacher and governors to court for denying her the “right to education and to manifest her religious beliefs” under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
She lost two years’ schooling before moving to a school which allowed her to wear the religious garb.
But the law lords said there was no right to be educated at a particular school, and she could have moved earlier to a single-sex school where the garment would be unnecessary or to a school where it was permitted.
Shabina had worn the shalwar kameez (tunic and trousers) for her first two years at the school, but when she was nearly 13 she went to school in a jilbab.
The court had heard that 75 per cent of the school’s pupils were Muslim and that the shalwar kameez, trousers and tunic worn by many women on the Indian sub-continent, was allowed to be worn by pupils.
Lord Bingham said: “It would, in my opinion, be irresponsible for any court, lacking the experience, background and detailed knowledge of the headteacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this. The power of decision has been given to them for the compelling reason that they are best placed to exercise it, and I see no reason to disturb their decision.”
At the court hearing, her counsel, Cherie Booth, QC, had argued that the shalwar kameez was no longer suitable for her because she had reached sexual maturity and it did not sufficiently protect her modesty.
Shabina said after the judgment: “Obviously I am saddened and disappointed about this, but I am quite glad it is all over and I can move on now. Even though I lost, I have made a stand.”
She said she would be discussing with her lawyers whether to take the case to the European court of human rights.