| Australia | 25 July 2017 | Asia Samachar |
Photo / Supplied
An Aussie school that disallowed a five-year old Sikh boy bearing a child’s version of a turban, called a patka, from joining the school argued that it did so on the grounds of ‘neutrality’.
The school’s principal told a tribunal that he was proud of the “neutrality” of the uniform, and said the case was similar to a situation where a Year 11 student was not allowed to wear a hat from sportswear brand New Balance.
“He’s identifying himself as something other than the identity of the college and that creates a difference, that takes away the level playing field for himself and other students in the school,” said Gleeson from Melton Christian College in Melbourne’s west, reports The Age.
The child’s father, Sargadeep Singh Arora, won’t take it sitting down. The incident involving his son, Sidhak Singh Arora, is now being heard at Aussie’
They are taking an issue with the school’s insistence that it has the right to set the uniform its students wear.
The arbitrator of the case will be the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, but it will be closely watched as a test case by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, the Aussie newspaper reported.
SEE ALSO: United Sikhs offer legal representation to Aussie Sikhs affected by school turban discrimination
Sagardeep says the school is breaching the Equal Opportunity Act and is discriminating against his son, by not allowing him to wear the patka – an essential part of his religious practice. He wants his son, Sidhak, to attend the Christian school because of its good reputation.
Sidhak’s cousins already attend the school, although they do not wear turbans.
“The police and the army allow Sikhs to wear the turban … why not in the classroom?” Arora was wouted in the report. “If you’re enrolling a student from a different community, you should allow them to practice their religious beliefs … they should not be forced to abandon their faith.”
In their defence, the school’s principal said racial and religious differences between students “have no relevance to the classroom, in the playground, at school events, and that’s because differences are invisible”.
“I see our students in the playground and I see them totally oblivious to one another’s racial or religious background,” he said.
“They play foursquare together, and if I picture that I have to call to mind that some of them are African and some of them are Indian and some of them are white Aussies … as a school we tend to be oblivious to that and I think that is a strength … that comes from … [the] neutrality of the uniform.”
The school argued that an exemption in the Equal Opportunity Act, Section 42, allows schools to set and enforce “reasonable” standards of dress for students, the report added.
The matter has been viewed by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission as a test case for Section 42.
The school has also relied on another exemption, that allows a school that is “wholly or mainly for students of a particular sex, race [or] religious belief” to turn away students of a different group, the report added.
Lawyer for the commission, Elizabeth Bennett, told the tribunal this exemption was designed to be inclusive, not exclusive.
For instance, the exemption would allow a school for students with disabilities to exclude students without disabilities but it did not allow for the inverse.
“It is intended to allow a group to include those it seeks to advance,” she said, arguing that even if the school enrols other Sikh students it was discriminatory to exclude Sikh students who wore turbans.
“It’s an attempt to rely on the exemption selectively.”
Ms Bennett said the school was in effect saying that “we’re happy to have Sikhs who don’t make any trouble, who don’t manifest their religion in any way that makes me feel uncomfortable … we’re happy to have Sikhs as long as they stay at the back of the classroom and don’t make any trouble.”
Sidhak currently attends a state school, where he is allowed to wear the turban.
The hearing continues.
[ASIA SAMACHAR is an online newspaper for Sikhs in Southeast Asia and surrounding countries. We have a Facebook page, do give it a LIKE! Visit our website: www.asiasamachar.com]
RELATED STORIES:
United Sikhs offer legal representation to Aussie Sikhs affected by school turban discrimination (Asia Samachar, 5 Feb 2017)
SikhChic picks Ravi as man of the year (Asia Samachar, 7 Jan 2017)
Sikhs must go beyond borders, Mejindarpal tells Pulapol Speaker Series (Asia Samachar, 10 Sept 2016)
Aussie-born Manika Kaur making a difference with music (Asia Samachar, 21 Sept 2016)
Turban is a gift of GuruJi to Sikhs which appears to have been rejected by Sikhs in many countries in the name of ‘being modern’ or convenience.
However my thinking is that another reason could be to avoid being recognized as Sikhs as happened during the Shahidi Of Guru Teg Bahadur Ji as some may visit places which they should not or be with someone they should not be or be involved in activities which may be forbidden to Sikhs.
As turban is a gift of GuruJi to Sikhs the what is a ‘phatka’? Can anyone enlighten?
Not being personal but view based on observations. Apologies if misunderstood.
Gur Fateh.
No, turban is a gift of GuruJi to Sikh.
From what I understand a PHATKA is just a head covering and thus may not be equated with a turban or Pagg.
The father should teach the son how to tie a turban as the school allows and accepts a turban as part Sikh males attire.
This dispute may bring the Sikhs to further disrepute for which other communities worldwide should not be held liable as many practising Sikhs in many countries including Punjab and cities where the five Takhats are located, are clean shaven and some refer to this as being modern when scriptures and kathakars emphasize the importance of unshaven hair and Pagg with examples of people who sacrificed their lives to honor their faith with unshaven hair.
No offense and my apologies in advance if anyone feels offended.
Gur Fateh
Comments are closed.