Making a mockery of anti-discrimination

Religious groups on the one hand seek exemptions from having to comply with anti-discrimination legislation, yet are the first to cry “discrimination” when they can’t get their own way. Infuriatingly, they usually win.

The latest case to highlight this insanity is the case of Sarika Watkins-Singh who has today won the right to wear jewelry to school – a privilege denied to the other pupils – based on the claim that her jewelry has religious meaning.

Her supporters had the gall to protest outside 10 Downing Street calling on Gordon Brown to intervene in the matter “to show discrimination is totally unacceptable”.

But all they have succeeded in doing – the confused, stupid, morons – is demanding that discrimination is acceptable.

If the “no jewelry” rule applies to everyone, there is no discrimination. Now that the rule is ‘you can only wear jewelry if you believe in an authorised deity’ there is clear discrimination between those who would like to wear jewelery for other reasons not connected to their superstitions. Maybe they identify as “goth” or “hippie” – or just like bangles. Why should confessional reasons trump others?

Interestingly, an evangelical schoolgirl lost her case to be allowed to wear her celibacy bracelet (or some such trinket) on the grounds that it wasn’t “fundamental” to her Christian identity. So now our secular courts are to rule on matters of theology.

What we have now is the opportunity to claim – on the basis of a smorgasbord of available ‘recognised’ religions (and their sectarian variants) – that whatever it is you want to do should be allowed to you (while banned to others) because of your sincerely held religious beliefs. And now it appears the courts have to then decide how sincere you are, whether your interpretation is theologically sound, fundamental to your faith, etc, etc…

This is totally fucked up.