Addressing your points:

1) The Aberdare Girls school does indeed allow two items of jewellery. These are a wrist watch and stud ear-rings. This prohibits crucifixes on necklaces. Does that mean the Christian children are being oppressed? Page 7 of the school code of conduct is quite clear:

Pupils are allowed to wear a wristwatch and one pair of plain metal studs in the ear. No other jewellery is permitted.

Was this a code of conduct brought in after this girl started studying, or was it something she should have been aware of in advance?

2) The debate becomes is the bracelet a required form of religious attire. What religions are allowed to have religious attire?

3) What has the turban got to do with anything? This is a girls school.

I am aware of the other pertinent facts you mention. It is quite likely that the governing body of Aberdare Girls School are institutionally racist (given its location, I would have said this was certain but…), and this is something that should be addressed. Creating a false controversy about non-issues is not the way to do this. It plays into the hands of racist organisations and, should the case be lost, destroys hope elsewhere.

If it doesn’t worry you that the only ethnic minority pupil in a school is taught in isolation for nine weeks because of her religious beliefs, then it does worry me.

Well, as it does worry me does that mean it doesn’t worry you?

That said, I would be more worried if the only ethnic minority pupil at a school was taught in isolation as a result of their ethnic origin, which is more likely in this case. Sikhism is a largely pragmatic religion (at least by the standards of other monotheistic religions), so I am surprised that this is an unflinching point. While I would never want to condone institutional racism, I would question the judgement of her family in sending her to a school which prohibited an item that her religion demanded she wear. Nothing beats background research, unless the parents were hoping to get her in the school then force the school to change its policy. Always possible.

All these cases need a full investigation of the facts before reaching a judgement,

Well, I am not sure I agree. Cases like this crop up all the time. The reductio ad absurdum cries out for this to be false. When children who claim to be Jedi’s are allowed to turn up in school in robes with toy lightsabers then we will have religious equality – until then, it strikes me that a uniform policy which prohibits all equally is the most reasonable course of action.

The school may well have been unreasonable in all this – would we be having the same debate if a Christian child had been told she couldn’t wear an item of religious dress? Do religions which are insane enough to dictate what people can wear get priority over those that dont? Should schools be a hotbed of religious expression and debate?

While I find the racism prevalent in the welsh valleys despicable, and feel that they have a long way to go with regards integration, I also think it cuts both ways. If I moved to Spain, I wouldn’t expect my children’s school to fall over itself to pander for my atheistic, non-Spanish speaking ways, I would expect my children to accommodate the cultural values of the area we were in.

If what you say is true, the school is acting in a clearly racist manner. This would seem to me to be a more seriously crucial issue than the wearing of a bangle.

Yes, I think the school is more than stupid. (School uniform is basically mainly stupid.) Teaching a child in isolation and excluding her from school on the basis of contravening uniform rules would be equally stupid whatever the infraction was. Do these people have no idea how to interact with teenagers?

All the same, making a court case of the bangle issue is so far from a good idea as to be completely counter-productive.

(a) How does it challenge the treatment of this girl? A successful case would not diminish institutional racism. It would just provide a legal basis for schools to be obliged to allow any “religious” items.

(b) I can’t believe that Liberty et al are so naive as not to see the impact of this on the growing demonisation of people of other faiths, as filtered through the Daily Mail, the Sun and so on. Their case gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Political organsiations are not stubborn teenagers who can’t see the unintended consequences of their actions.

(c) The school is primarily responsible – they have obviously failed in their duties towards this girl. They do have a right to set uniform rules (apparently seen as a mark of a good school by both parents and the government) They are the ones who have made such an unnecessary issue of it and in so doing have failed one of their students. There must be remedies for their actions. There are bodies that should have sorted this out before it became an expensive court case. (The local council. The governors. The replacement for the CRE for example.) Why are these not being investigated by those who supposedly have the girl’s interests in mind?

This is the sort of faux controversy that leads to the setting up of more and more divisive “faith schools” Ethnic minorities feel persecuted and move their children into protected enclaves. Ethnic majorities feel their prejudices are justified and get less and less contact with the very people they should be learning to live with.

(i) I have read this school’s uniform policy and it does not ban all jewelry – two items are allowed.
(ii) this school does not and could not ban all forms of religious attire
(iii) this school could not ban the Sikh turban because a 1983 case says that to force the removal of a Sikh turban would be contrary to the 1976 (I think it is) Race Relations Act

I agree with you that this court case is a waste of money, many schools already allow pupils to wear the Kara (or Sikh bracelet). It would have been common sense for this school to use their discretion and allow the pupil to wear this religious item, as many other schools do.

Just a few other pertinent facts that you should be aware of: (i) this pupil was taught in isolation for 9 weeks for her decision to wear the bangle (ii) she agreed to not wear the bangle where there were health and safety concerns, such as in metal work class and PE (iii) she is the only ethnic minority pupil at the school.

If it doesn’t worry you that the only ethnic minority pupil in a school is taught in isolation for nine weeks because of her religious beliefs, then it does worry me. All these cases need a full investigation of the facts before reaching a judgement, we need people to exercise common sense. The Sikh Federation accepts that Sikhs should not be allowed to wear the Sikh ceremonial dagger to school because of health and safety considerations. I think there position and the position of this pupil have been reasonable. The school has been unreasonable.

People who claim descent from the Pict tribes could come into school naked except for blue warpaint for example… 🙂

I can see (sort of) what you are saying here but I still really dont agree. Sikhism itself doesn’t demand the wearing of this bracelet (in the same manner that Christianity doesn’t demand wearing a cross) (http://www.sikhs.org/reht6.htm), so it strikes me this girl is arguing the prohibition is a restriction on her freedom to express her religion. This doesn’t seem to gel with racial equality laws.

I actually think that the school would have been better off to word it’s uniform policy such that the Sikh bangle is allowed, it would seem a more pragmatic solution.