In the Head or On the Head
Harry at Harry’s Place on the Shabina Begum case.
Those who blame the judge for not making a political decision or who attack the Human Rights legislation for this ruling miss the point. It is clearly Britain’s lack of secularity, the absence of a written constitution and the religious character of our schools that have allowed such a verdict by creating the conditions in which it has been taken. But as long as we are allowing religions or beliefs to be displayed in schools then it is simply unjustified to discriminate. Those of us who would prefer schools to be free of such religious battles and identity conflicts, need to be aware that we are fighting a losing battle unless the fundamentally unsecular nature of the British constitution and its institutions are changed. Which, given the state of our major political parties, all busy enthusing about ‘faith schools’, is highly unlikely.
And Mona Eltahawy says some very good things.
I felt like screaming with anger and frustration when I heard about Shabina’s case because once again a Muslim woman is in the headlines only because of what she wears…Shabina chose to go beyond a uniform that was deemed acceptable for the other Muslims and denied herself the ability to continue attending her school. She claimed that her school’s refusal to allow her to attend classes in a jilbab was a result of post-9/11 bigotry. I assert that Lord Justice Brooke’s ruling is a classic example of liberal guilt over the ugly Islamophobia that many Muslims have faced since 9/11. Instead of standing up to a growing conservatism among some Muslims, many liberals will simply give in rather than appear prejudiced. Sadly, most of the points they give in on have to do with Muslim women. This is nothing short of the racism of lower expectations – they expect Muslims to be extreme, they expect Muslim women to be covered. The Guardian newspaper, which I reported for from the Middle East, committed a grave error in reporting Shabina’s story. It did not interview a single Muslim woman who could have told them there is more to being a Muslim than a jilbab and that such a jilbab was over and beyond what is deemed modest.
That error sounds very familiar. The BBC did a pretty limited job of interviewing people for that article I commented on the other day.
I wish Cherie Booth had defended a Muslim girl’s right to complete her education against a family who was pulling her out of school early to get married, which happens even in Britain. I wish she had defended a Muslim girl against violence at home – a suffering that is too often ignored by the Muslim community in the West because it would prefer girls and women suffer in silence than bring shame to the community by speaking out. And what does Shabina think she has achieved? She told The Guardian that the Court of Appeal verdict would “give hope and strength to other Muslim women” and that it was a victory for all Muslims “who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry”. My response to Shabina is thanks but no thanks. I wore the hijab for nine years from the age of 16 to 25 and do not feel my identity lies in a piece of cloth. I gain my hope and strength by sharing the excitement of ambitious young Muslim women like my sister Noora who loves her university studies. Noora wears the hijab but she knows that it is what is in her head, not what is on it that is more important.
Exactly. And Shabina Begum hasn’t done much to remind people of that perception, I don’t think.
And again, as OB has pointed out many times, religious reasons have been allowed to trump all other considerations.
This is profoundly inequitable. The Court of Appeal has decided that Shabina Begum can now dress as she wants. Does this right extend to all other students at the school? Of course not! As a consequence, the decision discriminates among students on the basis of their religion (or lack of).
And going a bit further (perhaps a bit too far): Now that Shabina Begum has won the right to dress as she thinks appropriate, does she think that other Muslim women should be allowed to dress entirely as they think appropriate?
The uniform imposed by the school met health and safety requirments; the jilbab does not comply with these in as much as draping flammabale material close to the live flame of abunsen burner in a chemistry lab constitutes a hazard. It was the Science Dept. head who first raised the matter to the headteacher as problematic for his staff – this detail was only reported in the local press (Luton on Sunday)then forgotten about; the details of real life are often so mundane. Had Shabina continued attendance, but suffered burns injuries or worse due to inappropriate clothing for a lab, in the course of conducting otherwise perfectly safe science lessons, would the school / teachers / LEA have been found guilty of any wrong doing? You bet your keister.
“It was the Science Dept. head who first raised the matter to the headteacher as problematic for his staff – this detail was only reported in the local press (Luton on Sunday)then forgotten about”
Really – that’s very interesting. And irritating. Bad news coverage all around, then. Mona Eltahawy only scratched the surface of the inadequate reporting.
Somewhat related – there was a controversy in the Netherlands a few months ago when one of the universities in Amsterdam banned the burqah and niqaab (both face-covering as far as I know) in the classroom. Of course there was a campaign against the ban. Don’t know how it ended up. But I don’t think any campaigners ever stood before the classroom – I would find it quite impossible to teach someone with a covered face (regardless of what the covering is, or for what reason it is there) for simple reasons of communication.
I don’t have that much of a problem with school dress codes. As Keith pointed out, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: if I were the school board, I would now allow _any_ clothing (or lack of) that the student feels to be essential to express his/her identity.
M.
“I don’t have that much of a problem with school dress codes. As Keith pointed out, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: if I were the school board, I would now allow _any_ clothing (or lack of) that the student feels to be essential to express his/her identity.”
What is unfortunate is that the precedent has already been set in British schools and society (and rightly I think), that a certain degree of accommodation of religious dress is expected – whether it is allowing turbans, yarmulkes, headscarves or crucifixes. Obviously it is difficult with children, because they often haven’t made an informed decision to buy into that religious group, and therefore, headscarves, as a symbol (to some extent) of the oppression of women rather than a quaint cultural manifestation (although some of the other headware has a gender difference) are, in my opinion, just about on the acceptable side of religious accommodation for children, although, obviously, I have some reservations about the message it sends. But the Shabina Begum case exists at the extreme of this, where the accommodations asked for are starting to interfere with running the school effectively, and where the clothing is making a much more overt religious statement. In a country like the UK, where school children don’t have the right to choose what they wear to school anyway, you are going to have to draw the line somewhere, and it seems that the courts have unfortunately come down on the wrong side, setting a rather worrying precedent in the process.