The South African Constitutional Court has passed judgment allowing a Tamil Hindu girl to wear a nose-stud in school as a cultural practice. The Court rejected the school's argument that the request to remove the nose-stud was only a slight infringement of the girl's rights due to the fact that it would only be for a few hours during school time and that she could wear it again outside school. The Court held that the practice to which the girl adheres is that once she inserts the nose stud, she must never remove it.
[85] "Preventing her from wearing it for several hours of each school day would undermine the practice and therefore constitute a significant infringement of her religious and cultural identity. What is relevant is the symbolic effect of denying her the right to wear it for even a short period; it sends a message that Sunali (the girl in question), her religion and her culture are not welcome."
The Court also stated that differentiating between mandatory and voluntary practice falls short of Constitutional project which promotes and celebrates diversity and that diversity cannot be celebrated by permitting it only when no other option remains.
[65] "The protection of voluntary as well as obligatory practices also conforms to the Constitution's commitment to affirming diversity. It is a commitment that is totally in accord with this nation's decisive break from its history of intolerance and exclusion. Differentiating between mandatory and voluntary practices does not celebrate or affirm diversity, it simply permits it."
The Court cited case law [52] in support of its view that in order to determine if a practice or belief qualifies as religious, a court should ask only whether the claimant professes a sincere belief. Thus, it is an entirely subjective test.
The Court also held that the school, and therefore all schools, should allow reasonable accommodation so as to ensure people who do not conform to certain social norms are not relegated to the margins. [106]"Asserting that the nose-stud should not be allowed because it is a fashion symbol fails to understand its religious and cultural significance and is disrespectful of those for whom it is an important expression of their religion and culture. To uphold the school's reasoning would entail greater protection for religions or cultures whose symbols are well known; those are in fact often the ones least in need of protection. It would also have the absurd result that if a turban, yarmulke or headscarf became part of popular fashion they would no longer be constitutionally protected, while they have constitutional protection as long as they remain at the fringes of society."
The full judgment can be read by clicking HERE.