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.

I actually do think (though it sticks in my gullet a bit) that yes, this mother and daughter should have been allowed to bring this case to court with legal aid funding, as that is a right of theirs to be able to do so (don't quote me on which or what, so long since I studied law, not as a lawyer!) and a while ago since I worked with lawyers).

If we had a blanket rule of not allowing people to bring cases to court, this would not be right.

There are many things which taxpayers' money is wasted on which could be brought up for debate.

"The question asked in court was whether they had a right to pray."

That was not the question that was asked. Don't twist the case into a strawman issue.

That question was rightly asked in court and answered.

So it is good it went to court.

Well done to the complainants and it is great we live in such a system where this is possible.

Exactly.

School should be a protected space away from religious teachings of any kind so the students may remain open minded about all aspects of life, and given the chance to develop their own ideas and evolution.

Then why not tackle the intimidation and bullying seeing as they claim to be so successful at engendering a climate of respect and kindness rather than just banning the prayers? I'm not religious and have no dog in the race, but while I'm all for discipline I do wonder quite how inclusive their much-vaunted "zero tolerance" for any deviation from the extensive rules is for some children with special needs or who are neurodiverse.

It cost the taxpayer millions, most of whom will not support this case.

They can't as Msulims though. The compulsory prayers need to be said out loud.

The case was brought that the prayer ban was interfering with their right to practice their religion, wasn't it?

Why not, if it doesn't affect anyone else? Lots of schools are happy to make a room available during break times for non-denominational prayers, and it works fine. Michaela's reasoning was something to do with not wanting children to be allowed to come into the school building during break times, but if it's much-vaunted disciplinary methods aren't up to policing that then clearly they're not as great as they make out.

The fact is that, in Islam, just closing their eyes to pray anywhere isn't enough. So if you're not prepared to make easy arrangements to accommodate their reasonable requirements, isn't that discrimination?

I don't much care whether the majority of taxpayers support it, there are cases I don't support at times, that is what an advanced legal system is all about.

Do you not understand why this matters - do you think you personally will always be in agreement with the mob?

Of course it didn't cost millions. You're making that up.

I have worked in 2 different Local Authorities which allow Muslim staff to have prayer time on Fridays and Jewish staff to leave work early on Fridays for Sabbath.

There is a lot of competition for places at Michaela school. Muslim families often prefer it due to the strictness of the uniform and the harsh behavioural policies-silence in corridors etcetera. I think the family should have opted for a faith school if this was important to them.

No it was not. The question before the bench was whether they had a right to pray in that specific location. The issue was location/situation not right to pray.

@gloriagloria

I think in reality a lot of religions aren't really live and let live at core and certainly can be used as tools of oppression if allowed

I think allowing space for effectively ritual sets a tone for the school and is a diversion from a good open learning environment. I also think it is not up to parents to dictate to a school how it should be set up and it's overall ethos.

Rigid prayer timings may be eventually time tabled for logistical reasons and you have a de facto faith school altering a secular ethos you aim for

The problem with that is that there are now so many different religions within a school that banning them all is the only way to avoid the chaos of pupils coming and going all day. Can they not find a school which promotes their religion, there's no shortage?

I am glad we live in a tolerant, welcoming country and I also appreciate our wonderful legal system. The fundamental right to live without fear, and the right to learn free of all coercion and intimidation is absolutely vital to a successful democracy.

We need to do more to protect schools, universities and other spaces from the erosion of these values.

The bigger issue for me is the culture of religious intimidation and fear. I would like to see more robust legislation around this.

It cost the taxpayer millions, most of whom will not support this case.

That's irrelevant and not how legal aid or the justice system work. It's not a popularity contest.

The school was not wanting to ban praying because it caused bullying.

As I see it, this mother and her daughter enlisted other hardline Muslim pupils to intimidate and bully the less hardline Muslim pupils who were happily doing activities like singing in the choir or following their faith in the way they wished to do so. This mother and daughter wanted them to pray 5 or whatever times a day and wanted to preach at them for not being haram. They also threatened and bullied teachers (a black teacher being one of them) and attacked that teacher's house, therefore inciting racial hatred. The headteacher, quite rightly so then chose to ban the praying which was being done as a protest, presumably to stop them doing so. The headteacher could see how things could escalate into further violence so she banned praying. Then the mother and daughter brought this case.

In one sense, having been a teenager myself, I understand totally how emotions can get heightened and how you can be stirred up into fervour about causes you believe in, Joan of Arc and other teenage figures through religion have gone through this and fought for their beliefs and religion. The mother, to me, is the person in the wrong here. She's supposed to be an example as an adult parental role model to her daughter in how to behave correctly in public (outside home and in school) and to have encouraged her to study at school. She is not supposed to encourage her daughter and other pupils to bully, and intimidate other pupils and teachers, and certainly not to incite racial hatred and violence involving a criminal act of a brick being thrown at/into the window of a teacher's property. The mother knew when she sent her daughter to this school what it's policy was around prayer, she also knew it was a very strict school, which is partly why she chose to send her daughter there.

As I understand it, these students wanted to pray during breaks, not during lesson times. They were prevented from doing so.

Who on earth are the ‘mob’??

France has a totally different relationship between church and state.

You may have heard that the head of CofE is also head of state.

A pp said, I believe in France, that another girl at a school was beaten to death (or something like that) for not wearing a hijab by other hardline Muslim pupils. That is absolutely disgusting and abhorrent behaviour by any people of any race, culture or belief system. I hope these pupils were charged with manslaughter or worse.

There was much more to it, bullying and intimidation of other students by a vocal minority.

It is a secular school. It doesn’t need to accommodate any religious practice.