The Right to Hold a Specific Religion or Belief - Essay Example

Case Discussion Table of Contents Introduction 3 Analysis of Begum Case 3 Analysis of Playfoot Case 5 Conclusion 7 References 8 Introduction It is widely accepted that the right to hold a specific ‘religion or belief’ is regarded as an absolute one to any individual. However, in this context, the right towards manifesting that particular ‘religion or belief’ is subjected to broader limitations. Generally, this implies that claiming a right based upon ‘religion or belief’ is not sufficient without considering the notion that rights act as a dynamic balancing procedure, fulfilling the requirements of common people belonging to a society. Additionally, rights become much limited in certain circumstances wherein it is proportionate for safeguarding public health, morals or order and freedom (British Humanist Association, n.d.). By taking into concern the above discussed aspects, the statement "Begum and Playfoot show that the law is based on fair procedures and tests that respects human rights and justly determine the way in which people of different (and no) faith interrelate with each other in school environments” would be discussed. It would be vital to mention that R (Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School and R (Playfoot) v Millais School Governing Body are two separate cases relating to equality and human right that would be analysed for discussing the above statement. Analysis of Begum Case The case of Begum can be apparently observed to examine the phenomenon of expressing religious belief through the selection of specific dresses or outfits. In this similar concern, Begum desired to wear a conservatively styled garment, referred as ‘jilbab’ in the school, which was however disapproved by the school management. Shabina Begum was a student at Denbigh High School in a secondary school in her comunity. The school provided shalwar kameeze specifically for the Muslim girls as school uniform. The disapproval of the school in wearing ‘jilbab’ and its refusal to permit Ms. Begum for attending school unless she wore the proper school uniform, eventually became a ground to bring the lawsuit against the school authority. According to Ms. Begum, she was forced to sue the school arguing that her liberty towards manifesting her ‘religion or belief’ and right to education, as was assured under the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), were infringed (Butcher, 2011). Notably, the right of an individual towards their conscience, thought and religion is fundamentally assured by Article 9 of the ECHR. This also encompasses the liberty of manifesting one specific ‘religious or belief’ in observance, worship and teaching (Butcher, 2011). In this similar concern, Ms. Begum strongly believed that her desire to wear ‘jilbab’ as school uniform and attend school was a manifestation towards a particular ‘religious or belief’ and this has been violated by the school in refusing and disapproving her attending the regular classes wearing ‘jilbab’. On the other hand, it can also be apparently viewed that based upon the Article 2 of the ECHR, no individuals can be denied towards having the right to education. In this scenario, Ms. Begum realised that the school unduly restricted this particular right owed by her by suspending her from attending school wearing the ‘jilbab’ (Butcher, 2011). In order to discuss about the statement that the law is based on fair procedures along with tests that respect human rights and justly determine the way in which people of different (and no) faith interact with each other in school environments, it can be affirmed that the rights of Ms. Begum were not infringed. This can be justified with reference to the fact that in accordance with Article 9 (2) of the First Protocol of the ECHR, it is not required or essential for any individual to manifest a specific ‘religion or belief’ at any particular place and time. Moreover, it can be affirmed that no infringement had been done towards the claim made by Ms. Begum concerning her right to education based upon Article 9 (2) of the First Protocol of the ECHR. This was owing to the reason that Ms. Begum was permitted to attend or visit other schools wherein they allow wearing ‘jilbab’ as a school uniform (Abou-Hamad, 2012). Thus, from the above discussion, it can be affirmed that the law relating to the case of Ms. Begum is fundamentally based upon fair procedures as well as tests that respect human rights. It is worth mentioning that the law linked with the case of Ms. Begum considers certain significant factors that determine the ways in which, people belonging to diverse (and no) faith interact with each other in school settings. In this regard, the factors typically comprise securing enhanced along with high education standards, serving the requirements of a diverse community, evading manifest inequalities relating to ‘religion or belief’ and fostering an optimistic sense of communal identity. Specially mentioning, the urge towards addressing the above discussed aspects effectively would ultimately make the people of different (and no) faith to interact with each other particularly in school environments (House of Lords, 2006). Analysis of Playfoot Case Similar to the case of Begum, the case of Playfoot inspects the phenomenon of expressing religious belief in the form of selecting an appropriate dress code. Relating to the case, a minor of 16 years age, named Lydia Playfoot was registered as the appellant, who was a student at a non-denominational girl’s school based in West Sussex, i.e. Millias School. As observable in this case, the restriction to wear a ‘purity ring’ bestowed on Ms. Playfoot, became the centre point of disagreement with the reasoning of the plaintiff. ‘Purity ring’ acts as a sign of a promise made towards celibacy prior to marriage, which was however not allowed in the school and thus, was protested by the governing bodies of the institute. In this respect, Ms. Playfoot claimed that her ‘right to freedom’ of conscience, religion as well as thought was violated as per Article 9 and as per Article 14 of the ECHR besides the provisions of anti-discrimination. It can be apparently observed that the school possesses its own universal dress code, which does not allow students to wear jewellery outside of plain ear studs. In this respect, Ms. Playfoot strongly believed that she has not breached the regulations followed by the school relating to dress code, specifically wearing jewelleries outside of plain ear studs. This might be owing to the reason that the purity ring was worn by her as a sign of pledge to abstinence, which she further claimed was a component of her religious beliefs (Abou-Hamad, 2012). With regard to discuss about the statement that the law is based on fair procedures along with tests that respect human rights and justly determine the way in which people of different (and no) faith interact with each other in school environments, it can be affirmed that the rights of Ms. Playfoot were not infringed. Moreover, her claims cannot be supported from a legal viewpoint. This can be justified with reference to the fact that Article 9 of the ECHR does not necessitate one individual towards manifesting a particular religion at any place as well as time. Moreover, Article 9 of the ECHR does not tend to safeguard every act, which is inspired or motivated by a particular belief or religion. These aspects ultimately depict that wearing a purity ring is not associated with the promise of abstinence and thus, Ms. Playfoot was not obliged to wear the purity ring. It would be vital to mention that there lay other significant reasons for which the claim of Ms. Playfoot cannot be supported from a lawful perspective. Ms. Playfoot was quite aware about the non-denominational nature of the school and its uniform policy, which banned wearing jewellery. It can therefore be affirmed in this similar concern that by knowing these aspects, Ms. Playfoot was not obliged to wear the purity ring and hence, her claim cannot be supported. In relation to determine that the law associated with the case of Ms. Playfoot is based on fair procedures that respect human rights, it can be affirmed that Article 9 of the ECHR facilitates the availability of an alternative school, which permits wearing a purity ring. In such case, the rights of Ms. Playfoot are not breached or infringed, resulting in respecting human rights by an extensive level. After the determination of the law to be based upon fair tests and procedures, it can be affirmed that the law determines the ways through taking into concern certain decisive factors wherein people of diverse (and no) faith interact with each other in school settings. These factors encompass promoting the sense of diversity, supporting the interactions of the individuals and assisting them to follow effectual regulations among others (Abou-Hamad, 2012). Conclusion Based on the above discussion and analysis, it can be comprehended that the law relating to both the cases of Ms. Begum and Ms. Playfoot is fundamentally based upon fair procedures along with tests that respect human rights wit due regards to their personal beliefs and religious viewpoints. The laws applicable in this context can be recognised as ECHR 1950 and HRA 1998. It can be apparently observed that the claims made by Ms. Begum and Ms. Playfoot in the cases were not infringed due to the attention of the above depicted laws in treating individuals with equality and respecting their human rights. Specially mentioning, the ways wherein people of different (and no) faith interact with each other in school settings include evading manifest inequalities relating to ‘religion or belief’, fostering an optimistic sense of communal identity and promoting the sense of diversity among others. References Abou-Hamad, M., 2012. R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School.United Kingdom Case Law Database, pp. 1-52. British Humanist Association, No Date. The Findings. The ‘Religion or Belief’ Equality Strand in Law and Policy: Current Implications for Equalities and Human Rights, pp. 1-81. Butcher, R., 2011.Facts of the Case.R (on the application of Begum) v Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School [2006] UKHL 15. [Online] Available at: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/download/attachments/50888706/Begum+Case.pdf?version=3&modificationDate=1295604808000 [Accessed February 05, 2014]. House of Lords, 2006.R (on the Application of Begum (by Her Litigation Friend, Rahman)) (Respondent) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School (Appellants).Opinions of the Lords of Appeal for Judgment in the Cause. [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060322/begum.pdf [Accessed February 05, 2014]. Read More