Um. Did you not note something fishy about that?

Ah-ha! So there are some times you can take the kara off.

It’s privileging religious beliefs over other putatively deeply-held beliefs.

Essentially, it’s saying “I’ll feel distressed without my bangle, so bugger the school rules. My stated opinion counts for more”.

Bah. I refer readers to Pat Condell, who covers this theme.

—

I’m sure John will correct me if I’m getting this wrong

Well, it’s only ever my opinion – I might at any time be wrong and would hope to be corrected.

However, one thing that struck me about the original post but (since this seems to be wrapping up) I might as well bring up now:

14 year old Sarika Watkins-Singh won the right to wear her plain steel kara to school.
The school she attends had excluded her due to her insistence on wearing the kara which contravened its rule disallowing all jewellery.
[...]
I don’t see the harm in her wearing her kara, except perhaps for sport or metalwork classes for which she is apparently happy to take it off.

Um. Did you not note something fishy about that?

Suzanne,
I don’t think there is a specific law covering the freedom of religion in the UK (although I haven’t looked into it in detail). The following BBC article on the religious hatred law is probably the nearest thing. The reason is that officially we have an established religion, The Church of England. Until last year blasphemy was technically illegal, which would have in theory forbidden the practising of other religions. However, in practice the blasphemy law had not been enforced for years (which is why it was repealed). In practice the CoE is fairly irrelevant to most people’s lives in this country (even some who would write C of E on the census form). Most people are kind of ambivalent about religion here. Having strong opinions on religion seems somewhat taboo.

I’ve heard it said that in the US, the many churches operated like a free-market and competed aggressively with each other (because none were given official government backing). So as you say ironically the separation of church and state is in effect less effective than in the UK. Or at least you can get elected in the UK without mentioning that you’re a Christian every five minutes. Although to be fair to the US, I think there are more people of ethnic minorities reaching higher positions in politics than in the UK.

So any concessions to “foreign” religions (obviously Jesus was English ;-P), is not for legal reasons, but in the interests of keeping everyone happy (political correctness – which also covers things like saying “Person with a disability” rather than “Cripple”). (I’m sure John will correct me if I’m getting this wrong). As an example, a few years ago Birmingham (which has a large Muslim population), sent out a leaflet promoting its winter celebrations in the city. This was neutrally-titled “Winterval” not “Christmas”. So the conservative “Britain for the British” brigade claimed this was “Political correctness gone mad”. They were concerned we were becoming a Muslim country by the back door, or pandering to the needs of whichever minority seemed most uptight and easily offended. “Political correctness gone mad” is a phrase used with alarming regularity on the letters pages of right-wing tabloids. That’s hardly surprising given the incendiary headlines they manage to generate. (then again I did just write a post titled “Going bonkers over a bangle”…)

As for the cry of “PC gone mad”, that’s just the Daily Mail readers. It’s a knee-jerk reaction Middle-Englanders have whenever they encounter something that doesn’t involve them persecuting a minority, killing an animal or getting away with traffic offences.

So far as school uniforms go, I used to have to dress in the most horrific orange blazer/blue-and-red tie combination when I was a kid, so I’m not a passionate advocate of school dress codes. I think they garbed us like that to teach us survival skills – once you left the school gates, every other kid in the vicinity would laugh at you and try to set you on fire.

So given that, I don’t understand all the “PC gone mad!” headlines. Can you explain? How is that an issue of political correctness and not a clear-cut issue of law? Is it just me and my American brain that automatically looks at an issue like this as a no-brainer? Certainly she should be allowed to wear her jewelry, and I agree that if someone has a strong sentimental connection to a piece of jewelry they should also be allowed to wear it.

Maybe this is where my lack of understanding about the whole school uniforms issue kicks in. I understand it’s supposed to level the playing field in terms of societal & wealth status, but really? A steel bracelet?