Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean
It's not a piece of traditional garb that's required by her religion or anything like that.
|
In this case, it is. Sikhism requires adherence to the five k's (articles of faith), one of which is wearing this iron bracelet, the kara. In that sense, it's more tied up with her [parentally-imposed] religion than, say, a Christian using their faith to justify why they should wear a small crucifix, or a Muslim wearing a hijab, neither of which are required in the Bible/Quran. That's how I understand it anyway.
For me, the silliness of it all is exposed by the fact that the other four k's of Sikhism require the carrying of a strapped blade, uncut hair tied back with a kanga (wooden comb), and "special underpants". Well we can only speculate about that one, but the first three clearly haven't been adhered to. I think that kind of calls into question the argument about this bracelet being
that important, and really we're left with the argument of freedom of expression and of the rights and wrongs of school uniform in general.
Because in all honesty, I can't help but wonder if she would have been quite so eager to fight for her right to wear a religious symbol if that symbol happened to be, shall we say, less 'cool' (e.g. a 1950's beige cardigan, thick-rimmed spectacles, a red comedy nose.... )