To think that the mother/daughter duo who took Michaela to court should face some natural consequences?

@Gonnagetgoingreturnsagain I did not even comment on the case. But threads like this bring out the racists. Just read the thread.

'Natural consequences' sounds a bit violent, so I wouldn't go that far. The mother should learn that she could send her children to a religious school instead of trying to force a secular school to change its ethos to fit her personal beliefs.

IMO, it's wrong to knowingly send your child to a secular school and use them to challenge that secularism. It smacks of a kind of entryism and an attempt to impose religion on an institution. IIRC, one of the main problems here was once one girl started praying in the school grounds, others started to join in and this created an environment of obligation and judgement for those Muslim students who didn't pray. It was a clear challenge to the atmosphere of academic primacy the school had successfully created.

I agree - I am a practising Christian (and in fact, a lay minister in my church), but would never claim that religious dogma had a place in our schools (or other institutions).

I did sent my children to a faith school- but it was because the discipline and ethos of tolerance were what I wanted for them. It was this strict disciple which gave good results.

But this school is secular so there is no need to hear the student voice or preference regarding their religious observations in school because there shouldn’t be any.

I’m intrigued by the idea that the children should be encouraged to see an individual and not a member of a religion, and I can see the pros and cons of this

I am glad the court case was heard and a judgment made because we live in a fair and democratic society and we should be able to question and challenge the laws of our country. (I am also a supporter of financial aid because challenging laws and rules shouldn’t be the preserve of the wealthy).

If history has taught us anything it’s how dangerous religious extremism is, so I think it’s right we do question how do we balance the rights of the individual to practice their faith against the rights of those with other faiths /no faith and also the state’s secular laws.

Correct decision. Michaela is a secular school. The student knew this when she applied and was accepted. The so-called prayer ban occurred because of pupils' (including the claimant) intimidating and aggressive behaviour towards staff and other same-faith pupils whom they deemed less observant than they considered acceptable—in other words, bullying others via their (shared) religion. The claimant admitted that not having designated prayer time in school didn't bother her until the ban became absolute (directly linked to and because of her 'gang's behaviour); she'd just prayed at home after school instead. The school was forced to act after large groups began praying outside on the school grounds in direct contravention of school rules and as part of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation, including death threats against staff and a bomb hoax targeting the school. The only criticism of the school was that the claimant was summarily excluded from the school while he involvement was investigated.
And yes, the claimant was funded by Legal Aid

Link to judgement https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Judgement-R-v-Michaela-Community-Schools-Trust.pdf

@mids2019 / your last line is rather dubious! Secular schools do not have to accommodate religion. Other schools may. This whole case proves exactly what the limit is. If religious observance is the priority then religious people can find schooling to support that.

Our society is not overtly religious and that battle is hard won over centuries. Man made arrangements over another set of man made arrangements

Racism on threads like this?

What about the racism which the mother and daughter brought to the door of a black teacher, including vandalism (criminal act) of this school? You could also say they were racist towards other Muslim students who weren't as haram as they were, didn't pray as many times a day as they did, and who wanted to 'shock horror' sing in a choir.

I suppose in your eyes, it's only really racism if it's towards a brown or black person, by a white or other colour (but not by a brown or black person) race.

I agree. Religion is a personal matter, not a public one.

This was a matter of priority.

(And, like Puzzled, I also mentioned the vegetarian food in one of my posts - it was one of the ways that the children were encouraged to share their lunchtimes because it stopped the "Oh - you're eating pork" sort of divisiveness. )

The aggression wasn't the starting point - but rightly, it was made the finishing point. "This far and no further. It stops now!"

Schools have RE lessons to teach the factual aspects of faith and how to critically question them. The lessons are part of opening young people's minds and expanding perspectives.

Ritual group prayer can be viewed as dogma. The prayers are done unquestioningly and the frequency and ritual is dictated to by religious authority and parents

I think schools have to question the suitability of the latter when it is known the children praying are not doing it out pure choice (or indeed having a personal communication with God) but out of adherence to dogma with all the associated suppression of free thought and will.

Many strict Muslim families are extremely anxious that the ritualistic parts of their religion can be suppressed as to them it is showing that social forces are more powerful than God. When your religion teaches damnation is the result if lack of faith (bible too) if you are devour you would naturally worry about your children intensely.

The perpetuation if faith is obviously helped by faith schools to limit questioning if faith or external influences but there is quite rightly restrictions on the number of new faith schools being established.

If devour parents aren't given the option of faith schooling there may be a lot of anger towards secular ethos schools; possibly with really bad results

This.

There are a lot of mosques which I know of, near to schools or certainly within a walk or public transport ride away. Muslims can also pray at home.

If e.g. I'm a Catholic and wish to pray after work/school, then I go to my nearest Catholic church or my local church or I pray at home.

It does seem a bit sledge hammer to crack a nut, to ban praying because it caused bullying

Have you seen the distress - in fact sheer misery - bullying can cause @Sandwichblock ?

There is thread after thread on MN about children being bullied at school, adults being bullied at work - and nothing is done.

Many schools seem to be ineffectual at implementing a bullying policy, many HR departments shrug complaints off, and children and adults alike have their lives made a misery, their confident destroyed and often their mental and physical health shattered by bullying.

Mrs Birbalsingh didn't tolerate it. She found the root cause and stopped it as soon as she could.

EVERY bullying situation should be taken just as seriously.

Good post.

And you never compromise with aggressors - because no matter how much you concede, it will never be enough.

🙄

No. But you can compromise around matters of priority (Puzzled gave a fair example around vegetarian food).

The aggression which followed is unacceptable, absolutely. But that's not the starting point.

Totally agree - I only mentioned it because folk implied that the mum "must have known what the school was like"

It's also true, as another PP suggested, that initally allowing the pupils to pray outside was another attempt at compromise - and look where that got them

How do you get to that question from KtheGrey’s post?? She didn’t mention anything to do with being Muslim.

I don't get the controversy.

The challenge was reasonable and the judgment was reasonable. There was a difference of opinion and the school's view prevailed.

Generally, freedom of religion is protected - see art 9 EHRC: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.

But obviously this right can be restricted in certain scenarios and the judge found that the school had the right to restrict it in the situation at issue.

Ultimately, I don't understand why the student should be vilified for daring to challenge the school. We should all be vigilant when we think there has been an illegitimate infringement of human rights - even if this is not found to be the case, being on the alert and protective of our rights is the best way to preserve them.

Yes it was noted one of the teachers was black and said it was important to note

Unfortunately they were faced with a group who demanded further compromise from others but reacted with violence when expected to demonstrate it themselves, and as the court have underlined that's not acceptable in this context

@Puzzledandpissedoff

I do take this point & agree with you.

Unfortunately they were faced with a group who demanded further compromise from others but reacted with violence when expected to demonstrate it themselves, and as the court have underlined that's not acceptable in this context

Or in any context @Puzzledandpissedoff .

And you never compromise with aggressors - because no matter how much you concede, it will never be enough.

It also caused threats to the school including a bomb threat and a brick through a teachers house

What's Albania got to do with it?

They don't need to be educated 'separately from therest of society'.

Lots of ordinary secondary schools choose to support multi-faith practices- so will have assemblies that are from the points of view of different faiths, an RE programme that explores different faiths, allow clothing from different faiths, provide foods at lunchtime to cater to different faiths. Other schools are single faith schools eg Roman Catholic, C of E, Jewish, Muslim. Some schools are secular and religion plays no part. People have a choice. You wouldn't choose a Jewish school if you were strict RC and expect them to provide daily Mass or ring an Angelus bell to remind you to go and pray. Similarly, if you sign up to a secular school why should the school change to suit your religious practices?

This school has been set up on a premise that religion has no part in the daily life of the school. It is unusual to find schools like this that are wholly secular. So why choose it and sign up to its very clear offer then take it to court to change it? Choose a school where practising your religion is acceptable at school. DH is a Head and if any child wanted to they could pray at lunchtime- no one does though.

Every school should aspire to work on the basis of compromise and mutual respect, notwithstanding the need for some non-negotiable rules

I agree completely, @EarringsandLipstick, and that's precisely why the school aim for everyone to value/respect each other as individuals regardless of which religion they happen to follow, celebrating unity and the common good rather than diversity

Compromise is a worthwhile aim too, and we see an example of this in the school's move to vegetarian-only food to avoid non meat eaters being marginalised at mealtimes so that unity can be maintained

Unfortunately they were faced with a group who demanded further compromise from others but reacted with violence when expected to demonstrate it themselves, and as the court have underlined that's not acceptable in this context