HAIR

I am in a state of disbelief over the latest ruling from the courts.

A 13-yr-old boy was told that he couldn't wear a cornrows hairstyle at his school because it contravened uniform rules.
The judge, Mr Justice Collins, sitting in London, ruled that the hair policy was not unlawful in itself, "but if it is applied without any possibility of exception" such as in the case of SG, "then it is unlawful".

Let's read that again: "but if it is applied without any possibility of exception" then it is unlawful".

I'm sorry but have I missed something here - school uniform rules are exactly that, rules.

With certain exceptions on grounds of religion (and I am not talknig about headscarves - pre-pubescent girls should not have to wear them whatever their belief system), uniforms and dress codes are enforced for reasons of discipline, identity and wealth.

Wealth? Well if everyone is wearing the same clothing then a poor kid without the best kicking clothes and shoes does not feel like an outsider.

Secondly, the judge ruled that the school should have taken into account individual pupils' family traditions.

The kid's solicitor told the BBC: "It makes clear that non-religious cultural and family practices associated with a particular race fall within the protection of equalities legislation."

I'm sorry but what? A fashion statement is now cultural practice? In the 70s Afro's were in, 80s, buzzcuts and so on. Where the hell is the cultural practice in cornrows?

Sikhs and Rastafari have specific religious reasons for having long hair, I honestly cannot see where a haircut can be equated with the same?

Also family practices are just that, family practices. They are not indicative of race, they are indicative of a family's way of behaving.