LAW

Law



Law

Introduction

The case inspects the fact of expression of spiritual or religious faith from the selection of dress. In the selected case Begum (Shabina) wished to be dressed in her possess more traditional kind of hijab. On the other hand, that met with her with a disapproval of her school. The House of Lords initiated that her educational institute was not at error as her expression of spiritual faith was concerned.

Facts

As far as the case is concern, Begum was a student at Denbigh High School, a well maintained secondary school for girls and boys aged 11to 16. This school presented a uniform for girls who are Muslim the uniform consist of shalwar kameeze. This uniform was worn by Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu female students including Begum. In the month of September in 2002, Begum insisted that she be permitted to wear a garment a long court called as jilbab.

On this request the school rejected her request to permit her to be present at school until she was wearing a proper uniform. She sued her school on the views that her liberty to patent her belief as well as right to schooling certain under the act of 1998 called the Human Right Act or (HRA) in addition to the 1950 ECHR a European convention for human right were being violated. The school row that this uniform was selected after cautious consideration with input from the religious leaders and parents. For her case on the school the lower court not agreed with her, who after that appealed. After her appeal the court initiated that there was obviously a violation of her civil rights. After that the case was subsequently plead to the House of Lords where it was sought that the court agree with her school discovering that there is no violation of Begum's rights.

Analysis

According to the Article 9 of ECHR, the restriction of religious free will might be justified through other interests. Lord Bingham, Lord Scott, and Lord Hoffman have the same opinion that there was no requirement to reflect on such justifications for the reason that there was actually no limitation, even though they chosen to utilize the word interference here. Lord Bingham sum up the position very clearly by saying that the Strasbourg institutes have not been in any way ready to discover an intervention with a right to patent religious belief observance or in practice where an individual has willingly accepted a service or role that does not accommodate observance or that practice in addition to there are further ways open to an individual to observe or practice her or his religious devoid of undue inconvenience or hardship. Given that Begum had identified of the uniform at what time she started at school, and certainly had obeyed with it for 2 years earlier than she experienced the required to be dressed in the jilbab, in addition to that there were some schools in that area which allowed the jilbab also there was no proof to demonstrate that ...