If the British were like the French, we would not be able to scoff at them. This is the main reason for not imitating them, unless by imitation you mean singing bad pop music in a silly accent. Another reason is their insistence on rigid secularism. This is not, and should not be, our way.
The recent decision to allow a Welsh Sikh girl to wear a kara (steel bangle) at school was correct, in my opinion. Sunny Hundal writes in The Guardian on this; while it is not often I agree with Hundal or The Guardian, today I will make an exception on both counts:
The most interesting aspect to this whole case was the fact that the judge took advice on whether the kara was a central tenet to the Sikh faith (it is). And while some might find that potentially dangerous and bizarre, I believe this to be a good development. It means that while people do have some leeway on religious matters, they have to be in proportion. In other words, you can't take the piss and claim your religion sanctions it. For this reason I believe rejecting the claims by Shabina Begum and Lydia Playfoot were the right decisions to make. The line has to be drawn somewhere and religious people cannot get away with anything just on the basis of belief.
Shabina Begum was the Luton schoolgirl who “wished” to wear a jilbab – or rather her brothers and Hizb ut Tahrir wished it for her. Lydia Playfoot wanted to wear a “chastity ring”.
The second important point to note in these cases is that the law is a very blunt instrument. The case went to court but I'm glad there isn't a specific law that bans or fully allows such symbols. It's a very British position to take, admittedly, but these decisions must be devolved to local authorities and schools. For example, if the kara was being used as a weapon by Sikh gangs (as used to be the case in West London), then I'd fully support the decision by a school to ban it locally. The local context is important.
This legal grey area might annoy those who want a complete ban or a law allowing religious symbols, but that would be counter-productive and a bad case of nanny-statism.
In France, the ban on religious clothing in schools was a direct response to Islam, and Jews, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs suffered as a result, in the name of consistency. All religions were punished because one behaved badly. Times journalist Minette Marrin’s unthinking response to the publicly expressed hostility of Muslims is to disestablish the Church. Why should we? Antidisestablishmentarianism rules OK – and UK. Fortunately Marrin is only a journalist and does not make the law.
Muddling through is the British way, and it has a distinct advantage in this context. Conspicuous, rigid and petty enforcement of secularism in schools and offices is an understandable, but wrong-headed response to the territorial encroachment of Islam. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. If Britain purges religion from public life, it will be a victory, not for secularism and enlightenment, but for Islam.
