‘I won’t cut her hair!’

[Lazie]

Lice & Junjo LOL. Welcome to 2020 Jamaica. I wonder which party is apprehensive that this judgement sticks to them ? Could be why the leader........ Nah couldnt be, being a bit too cynical there Rudi.

It is noticeable how you eagerly jumped over this .... but now that the written ruling is out you been hiding.

[Rudi]

Errr this came out after the written ruling. My post above addresses the written ruling which echos concerns about lice etc. Get your facts straight. Holness understands this much better than you guys which is becoming a regular occurrence .

[Lazie]

Errr this came out after the written ruling. My post above addresses the written ruling which echos concerns about lice etc. Get your facts straight. Holness understands this much better than you guys which is becoming a regular occurrence .

...but you didn't address the judgement? You hide and like a teef in the night yuh come post. Why not address the incompetence of the attorney?

[Bricktop]

nope...he prefers to go the dummy route...lambasting supreme court judges as racist for interpreting the law...

[Rockman]

I think the Justices of the Supreme Court are acting like law professors on a University campus, and that is the part of the written decision you are harping .
Why shade the attorney, was it in anticipation of the backlash stemming from the decision?
Evidently,the lawyer believes there is sufficient merits to the grounds on which ....
What bothers me is the constitution should be inclusive and not exclusive, special provisions given to a sect should be also given to everyone.
My question to you Lazie,why are you not taken aback by a decision that restricts a citizen and empowers an entity that has no voting power, especially when it has everything to do with having the financial means to hire great representation?

[Rockman]

Your explanation logically sound.

[Sir X]

I think the Justices of the Supreme Court are acting like law professors on a University campus, and that is the part of the written decision you are harping .
Why shade the attorney, was it in anticipation of the backlash stemming from the decision?
Evidently,the lawyer believes there is sufficient merits to the grounds on which ....
What bothers me is the constitution should be inclusive and not exclusive, special provisions given to a sect should be also given to everyone.
My question to you Lazie,why are you not taken aback by a decision that restricts a citizen and empowers an entity that has no voting power, especially when it has everything to do with having the financial means to hire great representation?

That is the contradiction and irony of their ruling. If the jutices acknowledge expression for rastafarians, then why not the common african folk, to not do so is prejudicial ?

If it is to be believed that the defence presented that the law should look at all with locks to be treated as rastafarians, then the question should be why not given the issue of hygiene /lice/junjo being associated with locks ?

It would require justices to rule on the science of locks being disprortianetly associated with locks, which they did and it shows prejudicial bias and that bias can be enforced across the land which again puts it against "rastafarian locks" or the constitution which covers the rastafarin faith to wear locks.

The justices erred in that religion should not be an issue but the expression of an african hairstyle that is clean and well kept is the issue. Blaming the lawyer is nothing more than an attempt to cover their asses.

[Lazie]

In a space of 2 weeks this lawyer exited the courts and made pronoucements regarding a decision which turned out not to be so. Bricktop came here and said to wait on the written judgement, but ...seeing that people round here know more than everyone else people now trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Now, I am of the view the child should have been allowed to attend school, it should not have come to this. However, the parents decided to go to court. Well, it had nothing to do with discrimation, nothing to do with religion. In the judgement the judges spoke of the case presented. Now if the arguments presented are conflicted and weak, how can you not look at the attorney? They claimed the child was discriminated because of rastafarianism, but the mother said the child wasn't a rasta, it was just a hairstyle.

What is even more comical is 20,000 retards signing a petition for the PM to overturn the court's decision.

[OJ]

I woudnt call them retards . X is suppose to be intelligent and I bet he would be one of them who dont know the PM has no jurisdiction over the Judicial.

[Sir X]

In a space of 2 weeks this lawyer exited the courts and made pronoucements regarding a decision which turned out not to be so. Bricktop came here and said to wait on the written judgement, but ...seeing that people round here know more than everyone else people now trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Now, I am of the view the child should have been allowed to attend school, it should not have come to this. However, the parents decided to go to court. Well, it had nothing to do with discrimation, nothing to do with religion. In the judgement the judges spoke of the case presented. Now if the arguments presented are conflicted and weak, how can you not look at the attorney? They claimed the child was discriminated because of rastafarianism, but the mother said the child wasn't a rasta, it was just a hairstyle.

What is even more comical is 20,000 retards signing a petition for the PM to overturn the court's decision.

Did the Justices not state the child can be barred because of the potential for lice/junjo infestation because of locks,the implication is anyone including rasta children can be banned because of their locks, isnt that discrimination ,doesnt that relate to people of faith. A ruling by the justices does not mean it is right ,just or righteous. Dont forget there was a time when they ruled slavery was legal,also their ruling can be appealed to the privy council.


People have a right to appeal to whoever,the fact that the person might be the wrong one is irrelevant. It is their right.

[Bricktop]

Did the Justices not state the child can be barred because of the potential for lice/junjo infestation because of locks

no...they didn't state any such thing...

[Rockman]

The reason why that "hairstyle' isn't allowed...
You are being silly, how crucial is alcohol to a (drunk)drink driving conviction?

[Sir X]

“There is no dispute that the school established this policy, not as a way to maintain discipline and order in the school, but as a preventative measure in the case of an outbreak of 'lice' and 'junjo'. It is clear from the evidence that the school had sanctioned this policy on the basis of its own experiences with unhygienic students in the past,” she said.

Look man leave this alone,stick to the name calling and tribal politics. that is your level.

[Bricktop]

that is the Court explaining why the policy was instituted by the school...now show me where the Court said "the child can be barred because of the potential for lice/junjo infestation because of locks"...the court ruled on the evidence that was provided...they didn't rule on the validity of the lice claim...it was up to counsel to refute the evidence...he didn't...once again the Court rules on constitutionality...

[Sir X]

Please leave this alone. The explanation was a factor in the ruling and the justices stated the school had a history of infestation or unhygienic hair issues to implement the policy. The statement proved the school had a reason and the justices believed it to be valid in that they quoted them.

I am done with you.