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

[KTheGrey]

Apparently the mother involved wants to send her younger child to the school she finds so unsatisfactory in September. I don't think this is reasonable. I understand the logic of leaving a child at a school where they are established, but she should be expected to find a school she likes better for a younger sibling, surely.

She also intends to bring another suit, presumably tax payer funded again. I think that she should be expected to pay in full for any further suit she brings against the school. She could apply for costs if she wins.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

This

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But there has been access to fair justice and this is available to everyone.

We can’t possibly offer free justice to everyone and anyone for anything - there has to be a limit because we would be bankrupt very quickly, the court system would collapse.

There are public interest criteria stipulations for good reason.

I would encourage everyone to read the judgement PP posted. It’s very enlightening about the context and why Michaela school banned prayer.

The crux of the judgement seems to be if you don’t like it you can find another school. I’m glad this was brought to court and clarified. The abuse one of the teachers received was extreme, racist and disgusting (I assume from the language that she is black).

Honestly past being able to wear articles of faith (crosses, Kippans, turbans, hijab) people shouldn’t be asking schools to organise themselves around individuals faith. It may be the most important thing to an individual but it doesn’t mean society or institutions have to organise themselves around your personal beliefs.

If you wouldn’t want your own child intimidated into a prayer group you shouldn’t want it for other peoples children either regardless of their background. The judgement explains why the actions of the claimant undermined school cohesiveness and is worth a read.

Thank you for your measured and thoughtful post. I think we need a consensus to banish all religions from education settings.

Well said.

This!

All the people on the thread going on about the ‘right to pray’ are missing the point. It was allowed until the group doing it starred bullying and intimidating other children of the same faith for not upholding the same views. It was then banned to protect these children against this bunch of intolerant students (and their mothers).

We have never had unlimited access, for obvious reasons. And no one is suggesting we should have unlimited access.

But access to justice has been vastly cut back by the present government, and that is not a good thing.

Of course it’s ok. She is challenging a policy, it doesn’t mean she thinks the quality of teaching is poor or that her children should be forced out of the school.

She won’t be able to do the same thing again, the judgement has been made. She would have to appeal the judgment to the high court.

If they’re doing that to deliberately annoy people of religious faith they’re pathetic.

If it’s entirely atheist, not pushing Christmas and Easter etc they’re fine. But mum also had the right to challenge it. Which she did.

Mummy wants the best education for her children and the best school is Michaela. Mummy thinks the school would be perfect if only it would drop its secular stance.
She could,of course, attend one of the several schools in the area which accommodates Muslim prayers.
But their results are not stellar like Michaela's.
So, Mummy can have an academically successful school but no religion or a school which prays but little chance of a superior education.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to her that it is her responsibility to ensure that her girl received proper religious training by attending the mosque regularly and sending her to the equivalent of our Sunday School.
She should also teach her daughter.by example, by being the perfect model of a Muslim woman.

It would be interesting to know whether posters would be as supportive if a large group of Pentecostalist children commandeered part of a small school playground to hold a session of testimony and speaking in tongues while other students were just trying to eat lunch!

I don’t think that would be reasonable either, and the school would be right not to allow that too.

I wasn’t sure whether it was the right decision at first, but I then read more about the wider situation. To me it seems the right decision for the Michaela school and can see why the head made it.

I don’t think anyone else has mentioned that the court felt the student had not written the statements entirely herself!

I think we need a consensus to banish all religions from education settings

I think we need a consensus to banish all religions from STATE education settings. An independent school can be faith based, but this should be funded by that institution/individual parents. As it is in France.

Also, I think this legal case should have been funded by Muslim leaders, not the tax payer.

I am not shocked at the comments on this thread. MN is always full of racism on threads like this.

It was made clear. I understand that there had been difficulties with this particular pupil and the girl had boasted that she'd "bring her (Mrs Birbalsingh) down" when she had been disciplined because of rudeness.

Teachers and pupils had been physically threatened regarding the praying ban.

Apparently applicants to the school are told about the very strict discipline enforced, that there is no overt prayer of any faith in the school (though if a pupil chooses to pray silently then they can do so), and that all meals are vegetarian so that there is no argument about meat being Halal, Kosher etc.

The whole ethos of the school is to bring all children together in an atmosphere of tolerance and friendship.

A Muslim community leader explains here that the Koran requires prayer, but does not insist on particular themes - these are culturally imposed.

I get fed up of people who want their children in particular schools because they get good educational results, and then make demands to change to discipline/ teaching methods etc - the very things that are producing those results.

We have it with our local church schools - the applications list is huge - but then half of those parents object to X.Y and Z and don't want their children to be disciplined when they misbehave etc. If you don't like the school, don't send your child.