A 14-year-old Sikh girl has won her High Court discrimination claim against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule.

 

Sarika Singh, from Cwmbach, south Wales, was excluded by Aberdare Girls' School in November 2007 for refusing to take off her religious bangle.

 

A High Court judge in London ruled on the controversial matter after reserving judgement last month.

 

The school said it would consider the judgement "in detail".

 

Sarika says the Kara bangle - a slim steel bracelet - is important to her as it is a symbol of her Sikh faith.

 

As a result of the judgement, Sarika is allowed to return to the school in September, wearing the Kara.

 

Teenager wins legal bangle battle

 

Her lawyers had told Mr Justice Stephen Silber that the Kara was as important to her as it was to England spin bowler Monty Panesar, who has been pictured wearing the bangle.

 

The judge declared the school was guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

 

After the judgement, Sarika said: "I am overwhelmed by the outcome and it's marvellous to know that the long journey I've been on has finally come to an end.

 

"I'm so happy to know that no-one else will go through what me and my family have gone through and no other pupil will ever get banned from wearing their Kara again.

 

"I just want to say that I am a proud Welsh and Punjabi Sikh girl."

 

Sarika's mother, Sinita, 38, added: "We are over the moon. It is just such a relief."

 

Her father Satnam Singh read a statement which said: "We are very pleased with the outcome of the case but we are extremely disappointed that we had to come to the High court in the order to give our daughter the right to wear the Kara in school."

 

Mr Justice Silber said he had been told the Kara bangle was regarded as vital to the Sikh religion.

 

It denoted the "God's infinity" he said and was effectively a "handcuff to God."

 

The judge rejected claims by the school that the bangle, which he said was less obtrusive than some watches, could be seen as a "symbol of affluence."

 

He said many watches which were allowed at the school were more expensive than than the simple plain steel Kara.

 

He commented: "In this case there is very clear evidence it was not a piece of jewellery but to Sarika was, and remains, one of the defining focal symbols of being a Sikh."

 

He said his decision had already been made known to the school authorities, who had agreed to Sarika returning at the start of the next term in September when she will begin preparing for her GCSEs.

 

The judge also refused the school permission to appeal, although it can still seek permission from the Court of Appeal.

 

The governors and head teacher at the school said in a statement that the decision to defend their action was taken after careful consideration by all concerned, and in good faith.

 

"It was not taken lightly. We regret that this action became at all necessary," they said.

 

"We note the comments of the judge regarding the advice offered to the school.

 

"Should Sarika wish to return to school in September, in accordance with the judgment, she will be offered help and support to reintegrate her into the normal day-to-day life of the school."

 

Liberty, which backed Sarika, argued the school had breached race relations, equality and human rights laws

 

They said it also contravened a 25-year-old law lords' decision which allows Sikh children to wear items representing their faith, including turbans, to school.

 

Anna Fairclough, the Singh family's solicitor, said: "It's a shame that each generation has to fight the same battles. This battle was already fought 25 years ago and Sarika shouldn't have had to go through that again.

 

"Our great British traditions of religious tolerance and race equality have been rightly upheld today."

 

A spokesperson for Rhondda Cynon Taf council said it had been informed of the High Court's judgement in the case and it would "be working with the school's governing body to ensure Sarika Singh's continued education."

 

What is your opinion on this case? I heard the story on Radio 1 before... some idiotic girl text in saying its "ridiculous", "rules are rules", but fact of the matter is, the bracelet (kara i beleive) is part of the sikh religion. It is in the holy book and required to be a true sikh. If a christian wants to wear a necklace with a cross, i beleive this to be a different matter. Yes, it's important to them, but it's not vital to their religion, which is different to this sikh case.

 

Do you believe rules are rules and everyone shold play by them, or that this is a fair judgment?

Wow, a law battle all over a bracelet. :mellow: :lol:

 

Well, it's not like more IMPORTANT stuff has been happening in the Uk is it?.. <_<

People should leave religion at home when they go to school and that includes all forms of religious symbols, clothing, headwear and everything else, if they want to wear that stuff at home or in places of worship then fine but people go to school to learn and should leave religion at the gates

People should leave religion at home when they go to school and that includes all forms of religious symbols, clothing, headwear and everything else, if they want to wear that stuff at home or in places of worship then fine but people go to school to learn and should leave religion at the gates

 

I totally agree!!!

People should leave religion at home when they go to school and that includes all forms of religious symbols, clothing, headwear and everything else, if they want to wear that stuff at home or in places of worship then fine but people go to school to learn and should leave religion at the gates

 

I can agree on the one hand, but on the other, the school concerned has a "no Jewellry" rule, NOT a "no religious iconography" rule (the Kara is NOT a simple piece of Jewellry in that sense), and frankly, the school's attitude leaves a bit to be desired, and its rules seem rather contradictory... On the one hand, it says "NO JEWELLRY", but then allows the wearing of watches and plain ear-rings..... Erm, come again....? Ear rings aint Jewellry now....??? :huh: You could also argue that watches can be Jewellry as well, after all, they are sold in JEWELLERS shops..... It's probably those contradictory aspects to the school's rules, and the fact that it does NOT have a specific rule which bans the wearing of religious iconography, that led to the judge to rule in favour of the girl... And based on the facts that certain jewellry seems to be okay, rightly so IMO.... It's not as if the girl was trying to convert anyone to her religion... In fact, I'm betting no one there had a fukkin' clue what the hell the thing was until the school chose to make an issue out of it....

 

If a school wants to have a rule explicitly banning the wearing of ALL religious iconography, then I'm all for it... In fact, we should be doing what the French did and make it a LAW to ban such things in State schools... But until this change in the laws or the school's rules happens, as far as I'm concerned, the girl has every right to wear it because it aint some piece of bloody "bling" or whatever....

if religious iconography is allowed then so should a crucifix, ive known christians who were VERY passionate about how important it was to them..

 

on the other hand, couldnt this bangle be hidden from view somehow? so she could still wear it as a religious symbol but not have it on display like jewelery?

I can agree on the one hand, but on the other, the school concerned has a "no Jewellry" rule, NOT a "no religious iconography" rule (the Kara is NOT a simple piece of Jewellry in that sense), and frankly, the school's attitude leaves a bit to be desired, and its rules seem rather contradictory... On the one hand, it says "NO JEWELLRY", but then allows the wearing of watches and plain ear-rings..... Erm, come again....? Ear rings aint Jewellry now....??? :huh: You could also argue that watches can be Jewellry as well, after all, they are sold in JEWELLERS shops..... It's probably those contradictory aspects to the school's rules, and the fact that it does NOT have a specific rule which bans the wearing of religious iconography, that led to the judge to rule in favour of the girl... And based on the facts that certain jewellry seems to be okay, rightly so IMO.... It's not as if the girl was trying to convert anyone to her religion... In fact, I'm betting no one there had a fukkin' clue what the hell the thing was until the school chose to make an issue out of it....

 

If a school wants to have a rule explicitly banning the wearing of ALL religious iconography, then I'm all for it... In fact, we should be doing what the French did and make it a LAW to ban such things in State schools... But until this change in the laws or the school's rules happens, as far as I'm concerned, the girl has every right to wear it because it aint some piece of bloody "bling" or whatever....

 

But that school already had a ban on Christian iconography likes crucifixes, so they were being entirely consistent.

 

I just think this case is yet another in a long long list of examples of an an out of touch Liberal do gooder in too high a place of authority where common bloody sense is always one of the first casualties.

I can agree on the one hand, but on the other, the school concerned has a "no Jewellry" rule, NOT a "no religious iconography" rule (the Kara is NOT a simple piece of Jewellry in that sense), and frankly, the school's attitude leaves a bit to be desired, and its rules seem rather contradictory... On the one hand, it says "NO JEWELLRY", but then allows the wearing of watches and plain ear-rings..... Erm, come again....? Ear rings aint Jewellry now....??? :huh: You could also argue that watches can be Jewellry as well, after all, they are sold in JEWELLERS shops..... It's probably those contradictory aspects to the school's rules, and the fact that it does NOT have a specific rule which bans the wearing of religious iconography, that led to the judge to rule in favour of the girl... And based on the facts that certain jewellry seems to be okay, rightly so IMO.... It's not as if the girl was trying to convert anyone to her religion... In fact, I'm betting no one there had a fukkin' clue what the hell the thing was until the school chose to make an issue out of it....

 

If a school wants to have a rule explicitly banning the wearing of ALL religious iconography, then I'm all for it... In fact, we should be doing what the French did and make it a LAW to ban such things in State schools... But until this change in the laws or the school's rules happens, as far as I'm concerned, the girl has every right to wear it because it aint some piece of bloody "bling" or whatever....

 

spot on grimly.. the school system needs sorting and until that point is reached then religious iconography which has symbolism and importance to the religion in question should be allowed by all means.

But that school already had a ban on Christian iconography likes crucifixes, so they were being entirely consistent.

 

Source please... It doesn't state that anywhere in the article.... And, as I say, without a specific ban on Religious Iconography, the school has no right to ban the wearing of crucifixes under a supposed ban on Jewellry either, because a simple, unobtrusive Crucifix worn by someone who does have faith ISN'T a fashion statement.... And your post does not address my point about ear-rings or watches.... I say it is utterly contradictory and very ambiguous as to what the hell this school regards as "jewellry"....

 

The school is utterly wrong to ban such practices WITHOUT a specific law or rule to back it up.... A French-style law with a uniform banning of religious iconography in schools I would certainly support, because there is no ambiguity or contradiction in something like that, and no one could possibly cry foul.....

 

 

 

Source please... It doesn't state that anywhere in the article.... And, as I say, without a specific ban on Religious Iconography, the school has no right to ban the wearing of crucifixes under a supposed ban on Jewellry either, because a simple, unobtrusive Crucifix worn by someone who does have faith ISN'T a fashion statement.... And your post does not address my point about ear-rings or watches.... I say it is utterly contradictory and very ambiguous as to what the hell this school regards as "jewellry"....

 

The school is utterly wrong to ban such practices WITHOUT a specific law or rule to back it up.... A French-style law with a uniform banning of religious iconography in schools I would certainly support, because there is no ambiguity or contradiction in something like that, and no one could possibly cry foul.....

 

It was being discussed on Radio 5 Live at time between 10PM & 11PM. :rolleyes:

 

The overwhelming viewpoint 93% of the Radio 5 Live poll.

 

Was that the judges decision was WRONG!

 

The Headmaster of the school was on the programme stating that they have had a clear ban on ANY religious iconography at this PRIVATE school for over 20 years without it being challenged as that school has a deliberate Non religious stance (Something I thought you would fully approve of, so I'm very surprised by your attitude to this issue).

 

Yet the judge accepted the politically correct viewpoint that the school was persecuting the Sikh child for her religious beliefs.

 

Overturning previous precedents at other PRIVATE schools in very similar cases regarding Christians wanting to wear crucifixes.

 

As a top lawyer said, if this legal decision becomes the norm, then PRIVATE schools have no right to tell children what to wear before they sign up to pay their fees, so long that it is reasonable. In short completely undermining the authority of the individual schools to set up rules and regulations.

 

The simple fact is if that child felt so strongly then she could have left the school to go to another one who are more tolerate of any religious iconography, but her family decided to challenge the authority of that school to have a ban on religious iconography.

It was being discussed on Radio 5 Live at time between 10PM & 11PM. :rolleyes:

 

The overwhelming viewpoint 93% of the Radio 5 Live poll.

 

Was that the judges decision was WRONG!

 

The Headmaster of the school was on the programme stating that they have had a clear ban on ANY religious iconography at this PRIVATE school for over 20 years without it being challenged as that school has a deliberate Non religious stance (Something I thought you would fully approve of, so I'm very surprised by your attitude to this issue).

 

Yet the judge accepted the politically correct viewpoint that the school was persecuting the Sikh child for her religious beliefs.

 

Overturning previous precedents at other PRIVATE schools in very similar cases regarding Christians wanting to wear crucifixes.

 

As a top lawyer said, if this legal decision becomes the norm, then PRIVATE schools have no right to tell children what to wear before they sign up to pay their fees, so long that it is reasonable. In short completely undermining the authority of the individual schools to set up rules and regulations.

 

The simple fact is if that child felt so strongly then she could have left the school to go to another one who are more tolerate of any religious iconography, but her family decided to challenge the authority of that school to have a ban on religious iconography.

 

then i fully agree here.

 

if the school had a 'non religious iconography' rule BEFORE any child was admitted then they have to abide by that rule or go elsewhere.

 

The Headmaster of the school was on the programme stating that they have had a clear ban on ANY religious iconography at this PRIVATE school for over 20 years without it being challenged as that school has a deliberate Non religious stance (Something I thought you would fully approve of, so I'm very surprised by your attitude to this issue).

 

In the light of this, I completely change my views.. The girl should go elsewhere, and the Judge is an arse.... The article printed on this post is clearly distorting the evidence here and misleading readers, as it states the reasons given for not allowing the girl to wear her bangle was because of a simple "no jewellry" ban (which shouldn't be used as a caveat to stop people wearing crucifixes or other items of religious significance cos they aint the same thing as "jewellry", even I can see that) which was itself rather contradictory in its enforcement .... I mean, if this is the case, why didn't the school emphasise its "no religious iconography" stance in court as part of its defence....? Or did they, and the article just leaves that fact out....? :unsure:

 

If the school pointed out to the girl's parents that there was a deliberate non-religious stance within the school they can't really call foul.... I hope this ruling gets overturned on appeal, because this is bad for the whole ethos of separating church and state.... It's clear to me that if the authority of individual schools is going to be flouted by rulings such as this, we NEED a French-style, all-encompassing ban in schools to sort this out once and for all, something that NO ONE could challenge....

I've been thinking about this issue a bit more....

 

And I have to wonder if the school did emphasize its 100% Non-Religious aspect to the girl's parents at the admission interview.... I mean, I cant believe for a minute that the school did NOT know that the family were Sikhs... So.... Did they do this...? Or, as I suspect with it being a PRIVATE school, they were just interested in taking the money and making themselves look good in their Publicity material... "Hey, look, we're dead Multi-Cultural we are, we have ASIAN pupils here....", that sort of Jazz.... Probably what they didn't count on was the girl being as wilful and headstrong as she was.. Whoever did the interview probably had no idea what the "Kara" was, probably thought it was just some pretty bangle... Why else would they ban her from wearing it under the rather ambiguous "no jewellry" rule as opposed to the "no religious iconography" one....?

 

I dunno, there's just something about this school I dont like.... Sure, it's great that they have this sound Secular policy on the one hand, but on the other, it seems to me that they were more interested in their own public image and taking the folks' money than making them totally aware of what their policies were....

 

Nah, we need an actual LAW in this country like in France I reckon, which explicitly bans religioius iconography from schools.... Then there can be no "misunderstandings" such as this...

I've been thinking about this issue a bit more....

 

And I have to wonder if the school did emphasize its 100% Non-Religious aspect to the girl's parents at the admission interview.... I mean, I cant believe for a minute that the school did NOT know that the family were Sikhs... So.... Did they do this...? Or, as I suspect with it being a PRIVATE school, they were just interested in taking the money and making themselves look good in their Publicity material... "Hey, look, we're dead Multi-Cultural we are, we have ASIAN pupils here....", that sort of Jazz.... Probably what they didn't count on was the girl being as wilful and headstrong as she was.. Whoever did the interview probably had no idea what the "Kara" was, probably thought it was just some pretty bangle... Why else would they ban her from wearing it under the rather ambiguous "no jewellry" rule as opposed to the "no religious iconography" one....?

 

I dunno, there's just something about this school I dont like.... Sure, it's great that they have this sound Secular policy on the one hand, but on the other, it seems to me that they were more interested in their own public image and taking the folks' money than making them totally aware of what their policies were....

 

Nah, we need an actual LAW in this country like in France I reckon, which explicitly bans religioius iconography from schools.... Then there can be no "misunderstandings" such as this...

 

trouble is scott... we will never know the truth. you might be right...

 

yep, i agree with a national law.

trouble is scott... we will never know the truth. you might be right...

 

I've actually known of instances of some Private Schools doing stuff like this, not making parents fully aware of rules, codes and policies, taking the money and when little Rupert or Saffie accidentally runs afoul of some paragraph or sub-section, it's "well, you've broken our rules".... "But you didn't tell us"... "Well, we're telling you now..", and of course they've already paid for the year innit....? A bit dishonest.... I dont like Private Schools much, you can probably tell.... :lol:

 

You're right though, we probably never will know the truth... I'm just a tad suspicious of a couple of issues surrounding this case... Like if the school really DID make plain its Non-Religious stance to the parents of the girl, why they would even send her there..... I dunno man, summat just doesn't smell right.....

I've been thinking about this issue a bit more....

 

And I have to wonder if the school did emphasize its 100% Non-Religious aspect to the girl's parents at the admission interview.... I mean, I cant believe for a minute that the school did NOT know that the family were Sikhs... So.... Did they do this...? Or, as I suspect with it being a PRIVATE school, they were just interested in taking the money and making themselves look good in their Publicity material... "Hey, look, we're dead Multi-Cultural we are, we have ASIAN pupils here....", that sort of Jazz.... Probably what they didn't count on was the girl being as wilful and headstrong as she was.. Whoever did the interview probably had no idea what the "Kara" was, probably thought it was just some pretty bangle... Why else would they ban her from wearing it under the rather ambiguous "no jewellry" rule as opposed to the "no religious iconography" one....?

 

I dunno, there's just something about this school I dont like.... Sure, it's great that they have this sound Secular policy on the one hand, but on the other, it seems to me that they were more interested in their own public image and taking the folks' money than making them totally aware of what their policies were....

 

Nah, we need an actual LAW in this country like in France I reckon, which explicitly bans religioius iconography from schools.... Then there can be no "misunderstandings" such as this...

 

Recalling back to the debate on Radio 5 Live, I do recall that one was one of the things that the judge accepted against the school that they did not make themselves clear regarding this Rule before the student started. Whilst that pupil was happily wearing that Kara, as the school thought it was a miminalistic type of bangle before discovering its religious significance......

 

However, the Headmaster, did offer to refund the pupil for that year's education & offer to pay a term at her next school as compensation.

 

So in my view & most of the listeners the school acted reasonably....

 

Tbh, no matter what school it was, or about it's Jewellery rules, everything is explained in the first sentence in the first post.

 

"A 14-year-old Sikh girl has won her High Court discrimination claim against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule."

 

Everything above aside, all it comes down to is the fact that this girl has won a law battle for breaking a rule. Now, I find that very strange myself. :blink:

Recalling back to the debate on Radio 5 Live, I do recall that one was one of the things that the judge accepted against the school that they did not make themselves clear regarding this Rule before the student started. Whilst that pupil was happily wearing that Kara, as the school thought it was a miminalistic type of bangle before discovering its religious significance......

 

However, the Headmaster, did offer to refund the pupil for that year's education & offer to pay a term at her next school as compensation.

 

So in my view & most of the listeners the school acted reasonably....

 

If they didn't make the rules clear to her family regarding religious expression before she was admitted, then how can they be said to be "reasonable"... ? Sorry mate, it's just another example of this school's ambiguities with its own codes and rules.... Saying "No Jewellry" on the one hand, and then allowing ear studs and watches is also contradictory..... The girl was suspended for wearing "jewellry", but the Kara is NOT jewellry any more than a Crucifix worn by a person of the Christian faith is.... So, banning it under a "No Jewellry" clause (which is what they DID....) is entirely wrong....

 

It's just typical of a bunch of people listening to some radio talk-in show (you know, the sort of shows which tend to attract utter loonies, fascists and bigots anyway to go on and spout off...) to judge that this school acted "reasonably" against a girl of an ethnic background though innit....? As far as I am concerned, if the school failed to make itself plain at the beginning as to what the rules are regarding Religious Iconography, then THEY are in the wrong, NOT the girl or her family. Whether or not they offered her a refund is IRRELEVANT, they were only too happy to take the money in the first place to make themselves look good for their publicity material.... As I said - "Hey, look at us, we are, like SOOOOO Multicultural at this school, we have an ASIAN GIRL...." -_- I don't like this school, I dont like their attitude or how they treated this girl (especially given that they didn't give her or her parents the FULL picture). At all. In fact, I dont like Private Schools full stop....

 

 

Tbh, no matter what school it was, or about it's Jewellery rules, everything is explained in the first sentence in the first post.

 

"A 14-year-old Sikh girl has won her High Court discrimination claim against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule."

 

Everything above aside, all it comes down to is the fact that this girl has won a law battle for breaking a rule. Now, I find that very strange myself. :blink:

 

The rule's nonsense though mate... A Kara is NOT jewellry, it is a religious symbol.... We aint talking 'Bling' here, which is probably what the rule was brought in to counter-act.... And in the second place, the school has no problems allowing kids to wear fukkin' EAR STUDS or watches (both of which are classed as "Jewellry" by any sensible person), so, it's contradictory innit.....?