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

The consequences should be that if the school does’t meet the faith needs of the parent/pupil who brought the case, the child should leave if they’re not happy with the ruling. Other than that I’m not sure what other consequences would be warranted.

I am Jewish but atheist. I know many Jewish parents who are happy to send their kids to non-faith based state schools. The ones who want their kids to have more religious education and practice in school hours, send them to Jewish schools. Same with Catholic and Muslim parents I know. My parents were happy for me to go to the local CofE primary and state comprehensive and to sing hymns in assembly, take part in nativities etc. They felt religion and education don’t belong together. I totally agree. I’d like all faith schools abolished completely.

The school hasn’t overridden anyone’s individual rights to practice religion.

There’s a big difference between one’s beliefs and practices, and demanding space and accommodation within an institutional setting for every desired religious practice.

Protections under the equality act, for example, require “reasonable adjustment”. So reasonable adjustment in accommodating aspects of religion that are essential aspects of the religion is one thing; but a demand to have all religious desires catered for is not necessarily “reasonable”, and not accommodating all desires is not necessarily discriminatory.

For example, many Muslims have said that it is perfectly permitted to make up prayer times missed at school later in the day, especially in the case of children. Some schools or employers might provide a prayer room as a gesture; but they are not discriminating against Muslim students by not doing so, especially when no religious accommodation is offered to any other students. (FWIW, I’m a governor in a large academy trust of secular schools with many Muslim students, and none of our schools provide prayer rooms either. All the usual dietary, clothing, etc. religious requests are allowed; but there are no prayer spaces for any faith.)

That’s normal in lots of secular state schools across the country; conversely, if one set of students are commanding the playground or any other communal school space to pray in groups publicly, isn’t that also a infringing the rights of other students to a secular OR to a multi-faith communal space? And if you provide indoor prayer rooms for up to half the school, then you’d need to be providing the same for every religion. And secular spaces too. Unworkable in a school setting, no?

I think it’s absolutely right that religious belief may require reasonable adjustments under the law. But the key word here is “reasonable”. That’s why the judgement is as it is: the desired “adjustments” were not considered “reasonable”. In the same way that adjustments for every protected characteristic need to be reasonable. It’s reasonable to require disabled access to a building, for example; but not in each and every circumstance (you can’t destroy a listed historic building to install a ramp, for example). I’m sure you can think of many more examples where everyone’s different rights must be negotiated in order that things are fairer for all.

No it wasn't a mistake, I used the word mob on purpose because when we agree with the majority they are a great bunch but when we disagree there is trouble. My point was can you really not see a situation where you might be the one seeking to access justice?

Why do you assume I have any religious views?

I have strong views that it is right the courts are used to determine the answer to questions like this. I do not want decisions made by a 'majprity of taxpayers'. Taxpayers/citizens choose the government, the government makes the laws, the courts pass judgements.

Some Muslims are naturally less devout and more private in the way they practice their religion.

I know of at least one female Muslim friend who if you met her in the street, she could pass for Mediterranean in her looks. I worked with her a long time ago. If I ever asked her questions, e.g. about Eid, she'd tell me about it, but say "oh it's a bit like Christmas really, we eat delicious food for Eid, there are lots of sparkling lights like fairy lights and we exchange presents". We all really liked to go out into the community where we worked which was Spitalfields, and at Diwali time we'd see the Diwali lights and celebrations as the area is predominantly Bangladeshi and we all ate at the Brick Lane curry houses, it was so pretty and you saw the whole community come together to celebrate. There was another Muslim colleague at our workplace at the time who would constantly criticise her, saying things like 'she wasn't being a good Muslim, she'd come to a bad end with her behaviour' (drinking and dating other men) and things along those lines. The other Muslim colleague wasn't as attractive as the first one was, so I think there was some sort of jealousy there and luckily she wasn't loudly vocal about it, but she would say these comments to anyone who wanted to listen and considered herself to be a devout Muslim but didn't wear hijab.

The first colleague and her friends did all the things Muslims shouldn't really do, drink alcohol, married a non Muslim man, had an affair away from her DH, wore clothes which were very Westernised. The second colleague finally got married and we were all surprised to hear that she was marrying a white, non religious man as opposed to a Muslim man, obviously this was her choice.

They don’t need to pray in school to fulfill religious requirements! They can catch up perfectly well either side of the school day as thousands of children have done for years.

It’s a shame Sharia law is still so prevalent in certain communities. Almost as if the usual judicial process is only relevant on occasion.

Boomer55 · Today 15:55
We should be like France. No faith schools, any faith, ,and all education to be secular.

This

France do have faith schools. They are private but they are very cheap to attend should you wish.

Why should it be made? It’s a school, not a Mosque.

I'm really shocked by the comments on this thread.

You are really saying you have an issue with religions where praying at set times of the day is required being allowed to express their faith?

How, practically speaking, would someone get to a mosque in the working day / school day in order to fulfil their religious requirements?

And what if the ruling had been different. All of the school children would be disrupted up to five times a day to accommodate this in a secular school of all places. And this would have been replicated countrywide. I am very glad common sense has prevailed with this ruling.

We actually have very little access to justice now, used to have far more and it was much better for all citizens when we did.

It is vital courts hear cases and make judgements - it protects us all to have general access to justice.

It didn't. The rule that a prayer room won't be available was always in place. This girl and her chums decided to take it into their own hands. They disobeyed the rules, started a whole bullying tactic, took over the playground (this school has no playground is a car park) picking on other Muslim kids who wouldn't join them in their prayers on the playground, making them look like lesser Muslims. Spread dangerous misinformation in the community. Put tons of people at risk. The school banned what they were doing. They didn't need to before because kids obeyed the general rule that there's no prayer room. This girl had no issue with this before and didn't just quietly go and pray. She literally caused chaos. If anything, should've been asked to leave but wasn't. But anyway cause this lot didn't, the school had to introduce an additional policy specifically banning what they were doing as the general policy of no prayer room clearly wasn't working anymore. That's like case law when statute law isn't enough.

It's an absolute disgrace that taxpayer funded legal aid was used to push this claim. What a waste of money!

I don’t think you did make a mistake.

I think you are referring to everyone that doesn’t follow your religious views. It’s an offensive term for ‘everyone else’ The mob - interesting term. Well The Mob on this occasion decided we are not going to allow our schools to turn into hot beds of coercion and intimidation for any religion. It was a good and well supported decision.

I think there is a fear from some families that are observant if an erosion of their religion by secular liberal values but het this is the UK and in general we have liberal secular values in general.

There may be Muslims that wish to become less devour as many Christians have become over the decades and maybe showing that prayer doesn't need to be enforced and doesn't lead to personal ostracism is a good thing ?

I think you misunderstood my point - it is irrelevant whether 'the majority of taxpayers' support a case. The majority could be right or wrong. That is why it goes to court.

I think the probability of the other child also being religious is quite high, don't you?

And if the mother bullies and intimidates other pupils and teachers at the school, god knows how she behaves as a mother towards her other child, I can well guess.

By punishing the other child, do you mean not allowing her to attend the school or to obey the rules, which are no praying in public spaces there? Of course the other child is not the sin of it's parents, but it can be influenced by their belief system around religion and culture.

The UK doesn't have a secular system, including in education, unlike France.

Regardless of what this specific school states its religious ethos to be (secular or any religion) the question asked was a legitimate one - did this rule change breach pupils' rights.

That question was answered by the courts. If there is an appeal, it will be re-answered.

This is my view too. It's a sensible ruling aimed at stopping further division.

School policy changed after they joined. They brought a very reasonable legal challenge to that. Why on earth would that make you a racist? Unless you think reasonable legal challenges should be limited to those who are white and Christian, in which case I suspect you were already a racist…

@calligraphee The problem is, in this case, they are the mob.

Yes. Soap box stuff isn’t it. Annoying.

The other child might not be as religious.
And how would 'punishing' her make any sense. She's not her parents 'sins'.

@EarringsandLipstick why is it an ‘appalling’ post? 😂 congratulations on being offended. The truth hurts I guess?

You can leave any school if it makes changes you don’t agree with.