egum the right to manifest her religion in refusing to allow her to wear a jilbab.
But in a unanimous ruling, judges at the House of Lords overturned that.
They said the school had “taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy which respected Muslim beliefs”.
It had done so “in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way”.
They said: “The rules laid down were as far from being mindless as uniform rules could ever be.”
They added: “It appeared the rules were acceptable to mainstream Muslim opinion.”
Shabina Begum had chosen a school which “went to unusual lengths to inform parents of its uniform policy.”
They ruled there was no interference with her right to manifest her religion as she had chosen a school where such a policy existed.
There were three other schools in the area which permitted the jilbab, they noted, although one was oversubscribed.
Miss Begum eventually attended another local school where she wore the jilbab.
Lord Bingham ruled that the two-year interruption of her schooling was the result of her “unwillingness to comply with a rule to which the school was entitled to adhere”.
Not good news for Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Cherie Blair.
Update: Ophelia Benson points to this interesting paragraph in the judgement given by the Lords:
On 3 September 2002, the first day of the autumn term, the respondent (then aged nearly 14) went to the school with her brother and another young man. They asked to speak to the head teacher, who was not available, and they spoke to the assistant head teacher, Mr Moore. They insisted that the respondent be allowed to attend the school wearing the long garment she had on that day, which was a long coat-like garment known as a jilbab. They talked of human rights and legal proceedings. Mr Moore felt that their approach was unreasonable and he felt threatened. He decided that the respondent should wear the correct school uniform and told her to go home, change and return wearing school uniform. His previous experience in such situations, with one exception, was that pupils always complied. He did not believe he was excluding the respondent, which he had no authority to do, but did not allow her to enter the school dressed as she was, this being (it was said) the only garment which met her religious requirements because it concealed, to a greater extent than the shalwar kameeze, the contours of the female body, and was said to be appropriate for maturing girls. The respondent then left with her brother and the other young man. The young men said they were not prepared to compromise over this issue.
Rather chilling. Of course it was the young men (Shabina’s brother and a mysterious “other young man” – presumably a Hizb ut-Tahrir heavy) who “were not prepared to compromise over this issue”. Shabina was 13 at the time.
Leave a Reply