On with my life...
i think the school was wrong in both cases.
Although I sympathise more with Ms Scott and her right to political speech, whereas I have no sympathy for Ms Playfoot and her slavish pandering to a faddish, showy, hypocritical cheapening of faith exported from the USA, I think Ms Playfoot has the stronger legal case.
It all hinges on whether other forms of jewellery are allowed. Ignoring my prior example of the wedding ring, what of other rings? If other forms of jewellery are allowed, then this too must be allowed.
This does not excuse the fact that the ring stands for the externalisation of a faith that the wearer barely understands, is too immature to practice, and lacks the spiritual strength and dignity to bear. Wearing an emblem in an attempt to make up for lack of true spiritual substance doesn't cut it.
I think in the end the case will be thrown out. Ms Playfoot has now left the school after completing her exams. She is only continuing the case due to the "wider significance" for Christians. But there is no justiciable remedy available here if she is no longer at the school. The entire case has become moot, and if I were the High Court I would through it out without even addressing the merits. What remedy does she seek? The right to wear her ring at a school she no longer attends? She has suffered no wrong - she was never excluded, she was not prevented from taking her exams. There is no remedy, so no need to make a decision.
As for Ms Scott, she has the misfortune of attending a school with a uniform policy. As the school has set a uniform policy, it is legally entitled to decide what is acceptable for the pupils to wear when on school property, ie school uniform. Even on those days when the school grants the privilege of a non-uniform day, because it has a uniform policy it is still entitled to determine the limits of appropriateness, and in this case they felt that political slogans were inappropriate. Whilst other girls t-shirts might have been inappropriate for other reasons, none of the others were divisively so by concentrating on an emotive political statement.
When Ms Scott leaves school, she will discover that dress codes apply as much to the workplace, and form part of the contract of employment. I can be disciplined, even fired, for wearing denim to work. How much more so for potentially hurtful and divisive phrases?
Commenting by HaloScan
