The Spectator’s Notes | 27 January 2007

How can a single state school defend itself in court? The question arises because of the 14-year-old Muslim pupil at Wycombe High School who has been forbidden by the headmistress from wearing the niqab, a veil which leaves only her eyes visible. The girl’s father is seeking judicial review. The father gets government money, in the form of legal aid, but the school does not necessarily get anything. The local education authority of the Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire County Council indicates that it will not put its money behind its school. This is cowardly and against its own interest. If the school cannot afford to fight, then the county’s entire policy about school uniforms will have to change, and religious fanatics will start putting pressure on all Muslim girls to dress according to their whim. This is a test case for Tories who want to draw a line between legitimate religious freedom and oppressive zealotry. The local MP, Paul Goodman, has come out quickly on the side of the school, but where are the others?

***

During the 1983 election, a letter appeared in the Daily Telegraph from a retired wing-commander. He said that when voters heard the phrase ‘unilateral nuclear disarmament’, they did not know what it meant. Once they were told that Labour favoured ‘one-sided nuclear disarmament’, they knew they were against it. With untypical aplomb, the Conservatives immediately ordered all their spokesmen to attack ‘one-sided disarmament’. This was successful among working-class voters and contributed significantly to Labour’s terrible result. There may be a similar problem with the phrase ‘the Union’, currently celebrating its 300th anniversary in relation to England and Scotland. I suspect that the English simply do not know what it means, a fact which, in itself, tells you something. I remember my own confusion when, as a teenager, I first heard the Union mentioned: I thought it was something to do with trade unions.