Thank goodness I am sitting down. The English Law Lords have actually made a ruling that stands up for common sense! More than that, they have stamped all over the Court of Appeal for its truly appalling, supine, morally back-to-front judgment -- which I commented upon here -- when it ruled against Denbigh High School for forbidding its 16 year-old pupil, Shabina Begum, from wearing a full length jilbab that covered her entire body apart from her face and hands. As I said then, it was clear to all but the Court of Appeal that Ms Begum’s campaign to wear the jilbab to school was a political stunt backed by Hizb ut Tahrir, an act of cultural aggression and intimidation against both moderate Muslims and the British state. The Appeal Court judges, however, who like most of the English judiciary have had their brains addled and their values turned inside out by their obsession with human rights law and victim culture, totally failed to grasp just whose rights were being threatened by whom, and upheld Ms Begum against the school.

Now the Law Lords have restored intellectual and moral order. As they point out at the start of their judgment this was a school with a very high percentage of Muslim pupils, a high proportion of Muslim governors and a Muslim head teacher. This was not a school that was indifferent to the genuine needs and religious requirements of Muslim pupils. It offered girls the option of wearing shalwar kameez as part of its uniform code. Accordingly, it suspended Ms Begum for refusing to comply with this code by insisting on wearing the jilbab, not least because of its perception that wearing this garment would coerce and intimidate other pupils towards religious extremism.

That is why the Appeal Court’s judgment was so pernicious. At a time of extreme threat from religious extremism, English judges took the side of the extremists and left their potential victims defenceless – and all courtesy of ‘human rights’ law. Now the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, has put the lesser judges firmly in their place:

On the agreed facts, the school was in my opinion fully justified in acting as it did. It had taken immense pains to devise a uniform policy which respected Muslim beliefs but did so in an inclusive, unthreatening and uncompetitive way. The rules laid down were as far from being mindless as uniform rules could ever be. The school had enjoyed a period of harmony and success to which the uniform policy was thought to contribute. On further enquiry it still appeared that the rules were acceptable to mainstream Muslim opinion. It was feared that acceding to the respondent's request would or might have significant adverse repercussions. It would in my opinion be irresponsible of any court, lacking the experience, background and detailed knowledge of the head teacher, staff and governors, to overrule their judgment on a matter as sensitive as this.

Even Lord Hoffmann (who famously opined in a previous judgment that terrorism was not as great a threat to Britain as laws that were passed to deal with it) agreed, laying into that well known ‘human rights’ lawyer and Prime Ministerial spouse Cherie Booth in the process:

In criticizing the school's decision, Miss Booth QC (who appeared for Shabina) said that the uniform policy was undermined by Muslim girls being allowed to wear headscarves. That identified them as Muslims and it would therefore make no difference if they could wear jilbabs. But that takes no account of the school's wish to avoid clothes which were perceived by some Muslims (rightly or wrongly) as signifying adherence to an extremist version of the Muslim religion and to protect girls against external pressures. These are matters which the school itself was in the best position to weigh and consider.

Those unfamiliar with the English judiciary might wonder what all the fuss is about, since such comments are merely statements of the blindingly obvious and just. So they are. But given the mindset of the English judiciary, to find them issuing statements of the blindingly obvious and just is as startling as finding a house-plant still alive after years of being shut away and forgotten in a broom cupboard.

For years, the English courts have been using 'human rights' law to plunge the concepts of right and wrong, truth and lies into darkness. And while one should not exaggerate the significance of this judgment, it surely signals an acknowledgement by the judiciary of the way the climate in Britain has begun to change, especially after the July bombings in London last year. The judges have almost certainly finally become aware that the public takes an exceedingly dim view of the irresponsible role played by an activist judiciary using the weapon of ‘human rights’ law to pass judgment after judgment that has defied common sense and helped make Britain a sitting duck for terrorism.

A new realism? Not yet. But it’s a start.