Michaela School, Wembly: Ban on Muslim Prayer

Last year, the High Court upheld this school's ban on Muslim prayer rituals.

The statements made by the legal professionals in this case baffled me:
     *Allowing prayers 'undermines inclusion'
     *Enrollers accept religious restrictions
     *Students can pray at home
     *Only Muslims impacted
     *Banned during breaks, also

Allowing prayers 'undermines inclusion'

This secular school said allowing Muslim prayers 'undermined inclusion'. Excluding prayers of a minority is what undermines inclusion!

Inclusion is about (hear me out) including people. 
      That is, people aren't excluded. Being female, gay, disabled, a religious minority... all are welcome when inclusion is valued. This includes accomodating people's different needs. 
      Women need the freedom to leave to change period products. Wheelchair-users need ramps. Autistic people need to be able to rock/stim without being shouted at to 'sit still'. 
      These things are important to an individual's life and wellbeing. Hence these things are also important to their overall performance at school/work (if basic human decency wasn't enough of a reason).

Saying someone can't do something that's an important part of their minority status? 
      That's saying the minority isn't welcome unless they modify their behaviour, the thing that makes them a minority/disadvantaged group. Basically, it's saying they're only welcome if they act like the majority. 
      Including the people but excluding the identity/behaviours does not count as inclusion.

Inclusion is intended to stop discrimination, not encourage it. Yet this school uses 'inclusion' as an excuse to actively persecute those that should be protected by inclusion. Then, for some reason, the court validated this!

Enrollers accept religious restrictions

The student's case is that the school discriminates against Muslim. After all, discrimination against religions (such as Islam) is illegal. 
      The High Court judge said that students accepted the religious restrictions when enrolling at this school.
      With the above statement, the judge has decided that the illegality of discrimination is acceptable because the students accepted it.

This idea does not apply to other areas of the law.
      Any illegality contained within a contract invalidates that contract, for example. In fact, it dissolves the enforceability of said contract. Whether that's a work contract or an NDA.
      That's why a Non-Disclosure Agreement can't be used to conceal illegal activity. (So a signer can't be prosecuted for breaking the NDA. Plus withholding such info from police is still obstructing justice.) 
      After all, the law is superior to criminal activity. (Which is, after all, the whole point of the judicial system.)
      
Thus there is a precedent that illegality is illegal no matter the circumstances. Thus the judge deciding that the illegality of discrimination is negated by student agreement? Nonsense.

Students can pray at home

The judge said the student could do Qada prayers at home, justifying the banning of prayers at school.

The judge is saying that, as the school isn't stopping Muslims being Muslims at home, the school isn't acting in a discriminatory way. 
      That's like saying a school not putting a ramp in for disabled people isn't discrimination because the disabled person has a ramp at home. 
      That using mysogynist, racist or homophobic language isn't discriminatory because they aren't discriminated against at home. 
      But discrimination if about how people/institutions treat disadvantaged groups. What happens elsewhere isn't relevant. Students having qada prayers at home doesn't absolve the school of its legal obligations.

[If Muslims miss one of their five schedules prayers (or three for Shia), they can make up for it with a Qada prayer later in the day. Hence yes, Muslims can catch up on missed prayers.]

Only Muslims impacted

The student's lawyer said the school's policy only stopped Muslims from prayer because only Muslim prayer is external, not internal.

This shows how little the lawyer understands religion.
     All religions have external prayer (from chanting to body movements). If any religion tried external prayer at this school, they too would be banned. So saying external prayer bans only impacts Muslims is wrong. 
     All religions have internal prayer, including Islam. So if Muslim students (or anyone else) practice internal prayer, the school can't really stop that. 
     As such, the lawyer is clearly mistaken in thinking Muslims alone are stopped from prayer at this school.

What would be a better approach?
     Yes, Muslims externally pray more times a day than in other religions. So an external prayer ban does affect Muslims more than other religions. 
      That's not the same as it only affecting Muslims. So 'this ban discriminates against Muslims more than other believers' would a much better angle for this student's lawyer to take!

Banned during breaks, too

This ban extended to prayers performed during breaks and lunch. 
     A ban on prayer during lessons makes sense. Not only does it interupt the education of those praying but all other students, too. (One person leaving for/returning from the toilet is distracting enough. Hence a group of students leaving/returning from prayer would disrupt others even more so.) 
     But to prohibit prayer during breaks, when prayers adversally affects no-one? That doesn't make sense.

Bans on break time prayers is destroying inclusion in the most discriminatory way possible.
     

Conclusion

All-in-all, the thoughts of the legal professionals (the judge and the lawyers) remain worrying. Their statements didn't reflect reality, illustrating their ignorance on these topics and concepts. This was disappointing: people can do much better than this.

The student's lawyer argued it's discrimination (which I agree with) but the lawyer's explanation failed to fit this label. As the conclusion and explanation didn't mesh, that made the lawyers credibility fall through the gaps. The judge's ruling suffered in the same way.

It's taken this long to write because I am utterly gobsmacked by the departure from logical argument. Plus the knowledge gaps were huge (if the knowledge wasn't plain wrong!) Truly an embarrassment of the judicial system.