Michael Henderson suggests

Email registration

Free weekly email update

Great products and special offers for Spectator readers

Click here for great value events

Click here for exclusive articles, offers, tasting notes and discussion

So much pure nonsense over a ring

Monday, 25th June 2007

I have a piece in today's Times on Friday's High Court action by Lydia Playfoot. Here's an extract:

The claim of religious significance should not, in a secular school, privilege a hajib over a silver ring or over a T-shirt proclaiming “I’m a stud”. All are simply forms of self-expression, and it is not relevant which is religious.

We have been here before. Last year Shabina Begum claimed that she should be able to wear a hajib at school because of her faith. The House of Lords correctly held that no such right existed.

Both these cases are, at root, the same. They stem from the dangerous belief that self-described religiously observant behaviour should, for that reason alone, be granted special status in secular areas.

But we do not live in a theocracy. We live in a democracy in which all sorts of differing beliefs share public space. That works only if all claims to special treatment through religion are held in the same regard – as being entirely without merit. I should no more be allowed to behave as I wish because I claim that my religion – the Finchley Church of Pollard Observants – compels me to than should Miss Proudfoot be able to wear her silver ring.

Previous Back to Stephen Pollard Next

Blogs: Clive Davis | Melanie Phillips | Americano | Coffee House | Trading Floor

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Toby Belch

June 25th, 2007 11:12am

Er, hang on. Don;t we have an established church in this country? In constitutional terms, America is a far more secular place than we are.

Anon

June 25th, 2007 11:16am

We're not Turkey! Surely freedom contains the right to practise your religion?

June 26th, 2007 1:49pm

"We're not Turkey! Surely freedom contains the right to practise your religion?" 1.So who is stopping her practising her religion? No recognised

Steve

June 26th, 2007 1:54pm

"We're not Turkey! Surely freedom contains the right to practise your religion?" 1. So who is stopping her practising her religion? 2. The christian religion doesn't require her to wear a ring. 3. This is a commercial action, not a religious one. 4. There must be limits to the freedoms associated with religions. Human sacrifices are generally not acceptable for example.

Ian

June 26th, 2007 3:29pm

Yep. I agree Stephen but the politically correct school have muddied this one by allowing the headscarf for the muslim students as acknowledgement of the claimed requirement of their religion. So you argument is incomplete. While the ring patently does not come into this category the school has made a rod for its own back. Remove the headscarves and the ring - stop schools from being made a medium for any sort of religious statement through dress/jewellery.