Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Thursday, March 3, 2005

Religious Freedom in the UK

[Gerry Whyte, a constitutional scholar who teaches at, and was recently dean of, the Trinity College, Dublin, Law School, thought that readers of this blog might be interested in the item below.  mp]

'I could scream with happiness. I've given hope and strength to Muslim women'

Schoolgirl tells Guardian of her battle to wear Islamic dress

Dilpazier Aslam
Thursday March 3, 2005

Guardian

A schoolgirl who yesterday won the right to wear the Islamic shoulder-to-toe dress in school said the landmark ruling would "give hope and strength to other Muslim women".

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian, Shabina Begum, 16, described the court of appeal verdict against Denbigh high school in Luton as a victory for all Muslims "who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry".

After a two-year campaign by Shabina, Lord Justice Brooke found her former school had acted against her right to express her religion by excluding her because she insisted on wearing the jilbab. The ruling, overturning a high court decision which dismissed her application for a judicial review last year, will affect every school in the country.

Almost a year after the French government banned "conspicuous" religious symbols, including the hijab, in schools, the judge called on the Department for Education to give British schools more guidance on how to comply with their obligations under the Human Rights Act. "I really feel like screaming out of happiness," said Shabina, who was represented at the court of appeal by Cherie Booth QC.

"I don't regret wearing the jilbab at all. I'm happy that I did this. I feel that I have given hope and strength to other Muslim women.

"I also feel a bit sad when I think why couldn't this judgment have been made two years ago? In the end it's my loss. No one else has lost anything."

Shabina had worn the shalwar kameez [trousers and tunic] from when she entered the school at the age of 12 until September 2002, when she decided it was against the tenets of her religion. When Denbigh refused her request to wear the jilbab, she was excluded, becoming the reluctant poster girl of a campaign that has been reported in 137 countries.

"I thought it would be acceptable to wear because most people at the school are Muslim," she said. "Then when I was refused I thought a month maximum. Then it just carried on. I get recognised when I go out and other people point to me. They say, 'Are you that girl?'"

Denbigh high school, which has a 79% Muslim intake, said it had lost on a technicality and the school was proud of its multi-faith policy. It said in a statement that it takes into account the cultural and religious sensitivities of pupils.

Girls at the school were permitted to wear skirt, trousers or a shalwar kameez and headscarves, which complied with school uniform requirements. The statement said: "The policy was agreed by the governing body following wide consultation with the DfES, pupils, parents, schools and leading Muslim organisations."

The local education authority, Luton borough council, said all schools would now be advised to take pupils' religion into account when imposing dress rules.

Shabina, who was forced to switch to a school that did not prevent Muslim girls from wearing the jilbab, said her campaign had taken its toll.

"I can't be normal with friends if I do not go to school with them. I feel like my social skills have really been lacking. I do not really have many friends at my new school."

At times, even some of her peers cast doubt on her case. "Some of my friends said to me, 'It's not an obligation, why are you going to get yourself excluded because of it?' I said that it is - look at verse number 3.59," she said referring to the Qur'anic passage which she believes obliges Muslim women to cover their bodies bar their hands and face.

In April last year Shabina's mother died, a month before she lost her case at the high court. Excluded from school and fighting a daunting legal battle, she said the 12 months leading up to her mother's death were the worst of her life.

Her initial defeat did not come as a complete surprise. "Our solicitors told us we only had a 5% chance of winning the case because it's a radical judgment. They would prefer the court of appeal to do that. After I heard that I felt like I had nothing else to lose."

In a statement after the judgment, Shabina added: "Today's decision is a victory for all Muslims who wish to preserve their identity and values despite prejudice and bigotry."

She said the school's decision has been "a consequence of an atmosphere that has been created in western societies post-9/11, an atmosphere in which Islam has been made a target for vilification in the name of the 'war on terror'."

She told the Guardian: "I hope in years to come policy-makers will take note of a growing number of young Muslims who, like me, have turned back to our faith after years of being taught that we needed to be liberated from it.

"Our belief in our faith is the one thing that makes sense of a world gone mad, a world where Muslim women, from Uzbekistan to Turkey, are feeling the brunt of policies guided by western governments. I feel I've made people question the jilbab issue again.

"Both France and Britain are calling for freedom and democracy, but something as simple as the jilbab still takes two years to get okayed."



Wednesday, March 2, 2005

"Debate Club": Rehnquist's legacy

It's not "Catholic legal theory," but MOJ readers might be interested in a conversation I am having with Professor Kermit Roosevelt, over at the Legal Affairs website's "Debate Club", about Chief Justice Rehnquist's constitutional vision and legacy.

Rick

Tuesday, March 1, 2005

Two Cheers for Roper v. Simmons

Like Susan, I oppose -- although, I admit, with some mixed feelings -- capital punishment.  And so, like Susan, I am pleased by the fact that, as a result of the Court's decision today in Roper v. Simmons, no jurisdiction in the United States may impose the death penalty for crimes committed by persons under 18.  Still, I am unable to avoid feeling some disappointment over the ruling.  In my judgment, the reasons offered by the five-Justice majority for overruling the Court's earlier decision (Stanford v. Kentucky) permitting States to execute 17-year-olds who commit capital crimes are both weak and troubling. 

To be clear:  the result of today's ruling accords with my policy preferences and, I believe, with morality.  Still, it is not plausible to me that the 8th Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the people of a particular State to decide, through their elected representatives, that some 17-year olds are capable of committing and intending acts that warrant capital punishment.  That is, it is not clear to me that the five-Justice majority was constitutionally authorized to deliver this result -- even this happy result -- to me and those who agree with me about the death penalty.   Nor am I persuaded that the practices of, and changes in, other countries -- invoked admiringly by the majority -- are relevant to the meaning and application of the 8th Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment.

A few years ago, I voiced similar reservations about the Court's decision in Atkins, which prohibited, on constitutional grounds, the execution of developmentally disabled persons:

I like this result. It strikes me as humane, if not democratic. I would vote for it as a legislator and campaign for it as an activist. But I also live under a Constitution. And I am quite convinced that my likes and dislikes are irrelevant to the question of whether the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitutions forbids those who disagree with me from enacting and enforcing laws that reflect their likes and dislikes. . . .

None of this is to deny that, in many respects, our constitutional regime is "counter-majoritarian" with respect to fundamental individual rights. And I see no reason to disagree with [the] statement that "the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man." Still, our Constitution quite clearly reflects the judgment — one with which good and reasonable people can disagree — that capital punishment is, or at least can be, consistent with that dignity. The death penalty, then, is a problem whose resolution is left to the public square, not the courtroom.

Rick

Catholic Legal Theory and the Parenthetical

Reviewing edits undertaken by a 3L on a forthcoming essay of mine, I just discovered the following parenthetical added to my citation of John Noonan's now-classic essay Development in Moral Doctrine:  "(describing evolution of Catholic Church)."  Res ipsa.  A distant second is this parenthetical added to "explain" the meaning of par.  831 of the Catechismus Catholicae Ecclesiae:  "(explaining that Catholicism is for entire world)."  Not only is the Church sent to the whole world; now she has an -ism that's for everyone. 

In my experience, student editors do the conscientious job expected of them, and my current engagement is no exception.  The trouble is the hegemony of the Bluebook and its lack of sensitivity to what's really going on in the use of sources and authorities.  Which is why I live in fear of the day of the Restatement (Third) of Everything

Another Small Step on the Death Penalty

The Supreme Court just rendered its decision (5-4) that those who are younger than age 18 when they commit a crime cannot be executed for that crime.  I am obviously happy with the Court's decision, but I can't help but feel that there is not much to congratulate ourselves about in the snail's pace at which we are determining that there is  a problem with the death penalty.  The fact that it is taking so long to reach agreement (and only 5-4 at that) that there is something wrong with executing those whose age (or mental state, in the case of the last Court decision) makes them less culpable for their crimes, suggests we are a long way away from putting an end to this practice.

Susan