As we approach Christmas, it is heartening to know that Nanny never lets up on her anti Christian Crusade (there's a bit of tautology in there for you folks:)).It seems that Nanny's friends at Sinfin Community School, Derby, have got themselves in a bit of a state over the wearing of a crucifix.
Sam Morris, 16, was sent home from Sinfin Community School after she refused to remove a gold cross on a necklace.
Nanny's rationale being that wearing a crucifix was not compulsory for Christians, so the necklace breached dress codes (which ban the wearing of jewellery).
Now that is fine to have a jewellery ban. However, as with Nanny there are always exceptions.
In this particular case other pupils are allowed to wear kirpan daggers and metal bracelets, as they are classed as religious symbols.
Ann Widdecombe MP said:
"To persecute a young girl like this for her religious beliefs,
whatever they are,
is unacceptable."
Sinfin's deputy head Howard Jones said:
"Most of our pupils understand allowing Sikhs to wear a bracelet is a compulsory part of their religion.
Christianity does not require followers to wear a specific symbols."
Tell that to the Pope!
As Derby City Council said, whilst the ban may be lawful, is it was not "desirable".
Nanny, by enforcing different rules between different groups, has ensured that instead of bringing people together she has pushed them apart.
A very foolish policy.
Hmm, Sinfin.
ReplyDeleteProbably very wise of the school to ban "jewellery" to be frank. Not the mopst salubrious part of the country.
A former neighbour of mine used to (maybe still does) teach at a school there. Well, not so much teach as 'look after the needs of'.
They had a big problem with one 13year old who insisted on her right to take a mobile phone into class and have it on at all times. Apparently she would get a lot of stick from her "minders" if she didn't - she was one of the voices of a premium rate sex chat line service and had to be available to take a call at any time.
I like the idea of compulsory religious objects getting a free pass.
So if I formed a religion that required me to carry, say, a hand grenade for possible self defence, would that be acceptable? How about a bomb on a belt to be used in the case of a sudden enlightenment and urge to meet the object of worship?
No?
I thought not. Defining politicaly correct bans is such a difficult thing to do these days.
Grant
I recall there was a court case a few years ago where a guy was prosecuted for carrying a sword in public. He claimed to be an Odinist, which meant he had to carry the sword at all times to guarantee his place in Valhalla. The result? A conviction for carrying an offensive weapon. Never heard of a Sikh prosecuted for carrying a dagger tho. So it's not just this school where some religions have more rights than others.
ReplyDeleteI don't know where else to raise this question but can anyone please tell me the answer.
ReplyDeleteYesterday I was watching a news item on the BBC in which the new leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, was posturing in front of the TV cameras. However, he was at a school for black children!!
Now a school for black children - is that not discriminatory??
I get so confused about this, seems to me that Nanny views things as being discriminatory when it suits her, yet doesn't when it suits.
Nanny, by enforcing different rules between different groups, has ensured that instead of bringing people together she has pushed them apart.
ReplyDeleteA very foolish policy.
A very deliberate and well-crafted policy. What better way to exercise total control over the masses and hinder collective resistance than to keep them at one another's throats? A classic example of divide and conquer.