Judge: Not everyone who sports locks is a Rasta
Published:Wednesday | September 25, 2019 | 12:11 AMNickoy Wilson/Gleaner Writer
Attorney-at-law Isat Buchanan yesterday began presenting arguments on behalf of a five-year-old girl who was blocked from entering Kensington Primary School in 2018 because of her dreadlocked hairstyle.
Sherine Virgo filed a claim last year asserting that the school’s actions against her daughter breached several of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The attorney told the Full Court panel comprising Justices Evan Brown, Nicole Simmons and Sonia Bertram-Linton that his client wears dreadlocks as an expression of herself and identity and did not received equal and equitable treatment from the school, which he describes as an organ of the State.
Despite the current principal of the school indicating in a recent affidavit that students who have dreadlocks for religious reasons would be allowed to attend school, the attorney asserted that exemptions based on religion and not conscientious thought are unconstitutional.
He was presenting arguments on the second day of the constitutional hearing at the Supreme Court in downtown Kingston.
Buchanan told the court that the principal had no authority under law to implement a rule preventing students with locked hair from accessing education at the St Catherine-based institution.
The attorney sought to point out that although the rule does not have the force of law, this does not prevent the court from finding it unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court judges took issue with an assertion by the attorney that the family did not have to disclose their beliefs and that they were protected from inquiries.
Moments before, the attorney had said that by looking at the family, the school should have been prompted to ask them about their religious beliefs.
HOW WOULD THEY KNOW?
Justice Bertram-Linton questioned how the school would know if the child’s constitutional rights were breached if it could not make inquiries of the family based on the attorney’s argument.
They also disagreed with the claim that one could be identified as a Rastafarian based on their appearance.
Justice Simmons, in particular, indicated that she does not believe this is true in today’s society, where many people who sport locks do not identify as Rastafarians.
Meanwhile, the court refused an application for leave to appeal for the child’s father, Dale Virgo, who was on Monday removed from the claim.
He was making a claim on behalf of his youngest child, who had not yet been born at the time the claim was filed.