Schoolgirls banned from wearing purity rings.

[spidermama]

I'd be very interested in opinions on this story which I'll summarise ....

A group of schoolgirls are threatening legal action against their school as they're being told they're not allowed to wear their rings because they don't allow jewellery as part of school uniform. (These are rings worn by teenagers, usually Christians, which symbolise their religeous belief in chastity before marriage.)

The girls at a school in Horsham have been told to take them off or they'll have to sit their GCSE's on their own.

They say it's a breach of their human rights.

Remember Shabina Begum? The 17-year-old Muslim, who was excluded from School in Luton for wearing a jilbab in contravention of uniform regulations. She took the school to the High Court two years ago, claiming that the staff had contravened her right to manifest her religion. Judges at the House of Lords eventually found in favour of the school earlier this year after two appeals.

If here is a no jewellery rule, then there's no jewellery and that's it, in my opinion. My school had the same rule and it applied to everyone. The only exception would be bracelets worn by those with vital medical information in them.

I think these girls need to learn that if they are making a pledge or a promise or whatever it is, they don't need to broadcast it to the world.

This is not a breach of their human rights and it is in bad taste for them to claim it is, when so many people have real issues to deal with.

Does anyone really believe that their religion requires them to wear a purity ring? Unless the schoolgirls believe that, I would have thought their case was very weak indeed.

Hmmm.

I think there's a difference between those two cases though. If the argument is that muslim women are instructed by their religion to cover themselves up (give or take a huge furore about the extent), that's a bit different from pledging to stay chaste and deciding to wear a ring to show you are chaste.

They can still pledge to be chaste without wearing the ring.

But I can't see why schoolgirls can't wear simple rigns anyway. Some sitting GCSE's wil be old enough to be married - would they be asked totake wedding rings off? presumably yes, because they aren't a religious or legal requirement!

Horrible American evangelistic craze (with dubious success judging by follow-up from the U.S), anyway - of course the rings should be banned!

Agree with Edie - I mean it's getting to the point now were schools will have no say over kids for fear of infringing their 'human rights'.

IMO the rings can't be compared with the Muslim girl's case - these rings are not a worldwide symbol of christianity they are merely a symbol of the decision some girls have choosen to make.

I wonder whether the school are concerned that conceding could spark a backlash of girls demanding to wear items of jewellry to demonstrate thier intention NOT to remain chaste....

I think it can be compared with the case of Shabina Begum ... she wanted to wear full jilbab .... to express herself and her religeon.
It was her .
Before the case she had already been wearing shalwar kameez (trousers and tunic).

I don't think you can have it both ways.

her own choice. Not that of the scripture.

IIRC sikh girls at the chastity ring school are allowed to wear a bangle and muslims can wear a veil even though that's not "uniform".

A chastity ring isn't required by the Christian faith at all, anymore than Christians have to put a fish on the boot of their car.

don't know if the school thinks it's a slippery slope from silver rings to other "sentimental" pieces of jewellery, but the quote I saw in the news was more about them not liking the chastity message - their own sex ed is more about safe sex etc.

I garee that the two can be compared but I feel they come down to the same thing - that some schools have strict codes of dress/shoes/jewellery and will not make exceptions unless on medical grounds. In both examples, girls are seeking to display their religious beliefs and in this country they are completely free to do this out of school hours.

the Playboy bunny symbol perhaps...

No jewellery means no jewellery, but if the school allows jewellery 'for genuine religious reasons' eg karas, crosses/stars etc on chains, then they have to expect people to start pushing the boundaries of what's considered genuinely religious or not.

Totally agree with ediemay - couldn't put it any better myself.

That's right carolina. The parents are furious about it. They don't want their kids being taught about sex on the one hand, and then being refused the right to express their own passionately held religeous views about it on the other hand.

They've also called ROSPA who've said there have been no reports of injuries caused to people because of others wearing rings.

"her own choice. Not that of the scripture".
But that's hotly debated, isn't it? Different interpretations. PLenty of people DO believe that that is what the Hadith says.

Nowhere does the Bible say '2:2and God SPAKE unto Chardonnay and said "thou must wearest a band of gold on thine finger as a symbol of thine chastist 2:3 and THUS did Chardonnay take a pretty ring in defiance of the RULES of the schooleth and so did she FLAUNT the slenderness of her finger. 2:4...."

Apologies to all offended by anything at all in this post....

I think you make a very good point edie but where does that leave the case of Shabina Begum and does it not mean we're making different rules for different people.

It's a minefield and could play right into the hands of people who already feel hard done by because they think 'immigrants are taking over' etc etc etc. I think these decisions have to be considered so carefully for all parties.

Blu!

Hi spidermama, I think the point is that "we" are not making rules - the individual schhols are making their own rules, so there will be infinite differences in the enforcement and interpretation.

if the school says no to the rings then its no imo its just evangelical mumbo jumbo. keep it for out of school - it has nothing to do with their education

I think that there is an element of not allowing new things, either.
it's one thing to ban a long-existing religious observance, and another to allow a brand new springing-up of a habbit. (ask the devout rastafarians who are denied ganja in prisons!) It could well be a fad - and what's the difference between the purity ring, and those coloured rubber 'cause' bracelets, through which people passionately demonstrated their belief in something or other?

I think these young women should look more carefully at some other messages from Christianity (pride? meekness?) and stop stirring up an 'oooh, it's all right for the ethinics, but look how our human rights are abused' argument.

bet this will end up in the Daily Mail.

If these girls lose their battle, or continue to lose their battle, I predict a great deal of resentment which will be seized upon by the right wing press.

I remember myself feeling real resentment about the play at Birmingham Rep which had to close because an increasingly violent mob of Sikhs was gathering each evening threatening the theatre and cast. A few weeks later the BBC screened that Jerry Springer as Jesus show despite record numbers of protests from christians.

For the record I believe in freedom of speech and I agreed with the BBC's screening. I was, however, outraged that this mob had managed to stop the show at Birmigham rep.

You see pashima, you feel comfortable calling it 'just evangelical mumbo jumbo' because these are white christian girls. Would you be so glib about the religeous expressions of any other group?

I feel Christians would be justified in feeling discriminated against.

This is a slightly different issue but I can't help thinking, ffs you already have them wearing identical clothes, can't you at least allow them some small means by which to express themselves. Lighten up.

Oh yuk, it's not a religious expression, it's an immodest flaunting of virginity.

I don't want to know if a 15 year old is a virgin or not, or whether she intends to stay one until she's married. What about my human right to not have the finer details of a 15 year old's sex life or lack of it inflicted upon me?

Bleurgh.

no - i dont think there was a debate around the muslim girl. it was straight forward as far as i am concerned. the quoran didn't require it, she wanted to do it as an expression of faith.

same with the rings.

so let them wear christian " i am a virgin look at me" rings.

and then johnny tithead from 8b will wear an eminem ring - as an expression of his personality - human rights doncha know

no its not - there is a uniform in place for a reason - if you dont like it - then feck off to another school. take the rings off - or be home taught.

we have the right to education int his country - a free education a fcking good education for the most part - and some students just take the fekking piss.

I think that this is a good example of an issue which could have been sorted out on its local scale by the school and families involved, (as so many similar disputes are, on a daily basis), but the media have got hold of it and I agree, it could well turn into an ill-informed us/them issue which tries ti imply that this is a nationwide 'problem'.

Personally, I am exasperated by the whole Shabina Begum thing, and wish that women were NOT fighting for the right to cover themselves up in this day and age, but try not to dismiss anyone's beliefs as mumbo-jumbo.

There is a Hindu festival called holi, where people throw gags and bags of coloured pigemnt over each other. This is a religious custom, but not a decree. If i was head of a school, I would not alow it - it isn't a 'compulsory' part of religion.

Broadly, we'd be better off if we didn't constantly monitor how hard done by we are in relation to other people, wouldn't we? I bet the Head of this school is a white cultural-christian person, and i bet the court of human rights they take thier purity ring argument to will be largely white Christian folk. Not totally devoid of power and influence in this unjust world, white christian folk.