# Sikh Garda not allowed to wear turban



## redbhoy (23 Aug 2007)

Can anyone tell me what the big deal is? Would it offend anyone who was dealing with the Gardaí. I cant imagine it would although i could imagine him getting stick off the numbskulls he'd be dealing with most days.


----------



## Sn@kebite (23 Aug 2007)

I think it's just Ireland is quite racist, and we're so bored over here we need to entertain ourselves with pathetic obnoxious arguments. i think they should be allowed into the force, turbans and all. We complain about crime then when someone wants to join the force we get all racist and deny them access, it's so 'Irish'.


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

I don't see why special allowances/exceptions should be made for any religious clothing or other paraphenalia in this sort of situation to be honest. I don't consider this to be a racist or sectarian stance. Religious beliefs and affiliations are one's own personal business and should not impinge on such situations. If some people have beliefs that prevent them from making this separation between state secularism and personal religiosity then that's their own problem not the state's or its institutions'.


----------



## z109 (23 Aug 2007)

According to the five Ks thing (of which the wearing of the turban and having unshorn hair is one), Sikhs should also wear the Kirpan (or small sword). If it is a religious symbol, then we should allow this one aswell...


----------



## DublinTexas (23 Aug 2007)

When I deal with a Garda I don't want to know what his/her religous belief are, I want him to enforce the law and his personal believe (what ever it might be) is secondary to his job function. 

If the Gentlemen would like to wear his turban, than we would need to allow everybody else to wear his/he religous symbols as well.

So we are going to have woman officers wearing Hijab if they are followers of the Quran or members of the christian splinter groups wearing crosses on their uniform.

Than we give all jewish guards off on Shabbat, allow the pagan worshippers to have their statues on the office desk and maybe we throw in some special symbole for the Atheists.

Were will the line be drawn? If the symbole is below x cm in diameter, than yes, otherwise no? If it's a religion that is mainstream, than sure, but if you are part of the Rastafari movement than no?

And than who says what a relgious symbole is? 

What if I believe that the gods of kobol are real and demand that the scripture is followed (even that it might not really exists)? Is that a religon that would allow me to wear a Battlestar Galatica symbol on my uniform?

It's not just a sikh gentlemen wearing his turban, it's about equal treatment for all groups and in the Gardi that means NO religous symbole.

And please, if I hear the "but it works in england" excuse ... Why do we always have to look to them?


----------



## z109 (23 Aug 2007)

Could he not wear a patka (under-turban) under his hat? English and Indian crickets wear such a turban when batting (with a helmet on).

Sikhs in dangerous industries in India also wear them under hard hats (by choice, as the turban is generally considered full headgear in India).


----------



## shanegl (23 Aug 2007)

I think his main problem is that he was told while in training that they would accomodate him, and that now after investing all of that time it turns out they won't.


----------



## room305 (23 Aug 2007)

redbhoy said:


> Can anyone tell me what the big deal is? Would it offend anyone who was dealing with the Gardaí. I cant imagine it would although i could imagine him getting stick off the numbskulls he'd be dealing with most days.



It might do. Why take the chance? Next we'll have passionate Dublin supporter Gardai demanding to be allowed wear Dubs jerseys while on duty. As DublinTexas say, where would you draw the line?



Sn@kebite said:


> I think it's just Ireland is quite racist, and we're so bored over here we need to entertain ourselves with pathetic obnoxious arguments. i think they should be allowed into the force, turbans and all. We complain about crime then when someone wants to join the force we get all racist and deny them access, it's so 'Irish'.



I don't think "we're getting all racist" unless you imagine the Sikh religion is only practised by one particular race.



shanegl said:


> I think his main problem is that he was told while in training that they would accomodate him, and that now after investing all of that time it turns out they won't.



Well I can understand why he'd be disgruntled with although I wonder what form the reassurance took - did he receive confirmation in writing?


----------



## Sn@kebite (23 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I don't think "we're getting all racist" unless you imagine the Sikh religion is only practised by one particular race.


I see what you mean. It could be the Catholisism of ireland is being intimidated by the Sikh religion looking for independence or leeway.


----------



## Caveat (23 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I don't see why special allowances/exceptions should be made for any religious clothing or other paraphenalia in this sort of situation to be honest. I don't consider this to be a racist or sectarian stance. Religious beliefs and affiliations are one's own personal business and should not impinge on such situations. If some people have beliefs that prevent them from making this separation between state secularism and personal religiosity then that's their own problem not the state's or its institutions'.


 
Very well said Clubman.


----------



## MugsGame (23 Aug 2007)

> we get all racist and deny them access, it's so 'Irish'.



Actually, I think that very statement is so racist!


----------



## DrMoriarty (23 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Very well said Clubman.


Hear, hear. Isn’t it rather the point of a uniform to be, eh, uniform?


----------



## ClubMan (23 Aug 2007)

Yes - anything else would be a multiform!


----------



## dodo (24 Aug 2007)

think it is the right decicion, lets not lose our own Irish ways and culture that is loved throughtout the world and envied by many, If he was allowed to wear his head gear then I believe it would be PC gone all togethter mad. I want him to be an honest garda and then I will be happy, if we all left our religion at home the world would be a better and safer place for it.I dont care for religion ,but I do for the law of this Country and a  garda is welcome as long as they do a good honest job,


----------



## Sn@kebite (24 Aug 2007)

Caveat said:


> Very well said Clubman.


ClubMan does make sense. But if you went on holiday to a country that made alcohol consumption or transportation illegal, would you be fine with that? (Being Irish) I just don't see the big importance to follow the iniform code. Is it not his perfomance as a gard that should be the deciding factor and not how he looks? - My opposition has very good points but if i really wanted to holiday in the M.E. i would like to dress like a westerner and not wear robes and sandles. If they forced me to dress like them or leave i would be uneasy. Would this not be the same thing, or is totally different?


----------



## almo (24 Aug 2007)

When a Muslim police officer says "I'm sorry, but I won't stand guard outside the US Embassy because of what they do in Iraq etc"  do we accommodate them?  If we do isn't that making the Gardai a completely irrelevant and pointless force, or lack of.  A very good article in the Indo (yes, I said that) asks what is the fuss.  Would Mr. O'Leary mind someone turning up in a a full burka because the Ryanair uniform was against their belief?

Snakebite, if you've been to a country where alcohol is outlawed you wouldn't write such nonsense.  How many Irish and westerners have worked in Saudi Arabia?  Drink was available when you made it yourself, but making an issue out of having no odd-bins nearby?  When you're in a foreign country you try to respect the laws.



Sn@kebite said:


> ClubMan does make sense. But if you went on holiday to a country that made alcohol consumption or transportation illegal, would you be fine with that? (Being Irish) I just don't see the big importance to follow the iniform code. Is it not his perfomance as a gard that should be the deciding factor and not how he looks? - My opposition has very good points but if i really wanted to holiday in the M.E. i would like to dress like a westerner and not wear robes and sandles. If they forced me to dress like them or leave i would be uneasy. Would this not be the same thing, or is totally different?


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> I see what you mean. It could be the Catholisism of ireland is being intimidated by the Sikh religion looking for independence or leeway.



What I'm saying is that it is only _your_ presumption that a practising Sikh will be of a different race that makes this a racism issue in your eyes. If a white female devotee of Islam joined the Gardai and demanded to wear a Burka and was denied how could it be a racism issue?

Religion and race are two separate issues. If the colour of this man's skin was denying him entry into the Garda forces then that would be racism. Allowing him entry but not allowing him to wear a turban can at best be characterised as religious intolerance (I would characterise it as common sense).



Sn@kebite said:


> ClubMan does make sense. But if you went on holiday to a country that made alcohol consumption or transportation illegal, would you be fine with that? (Being Irish) I just don't see the big importance to follow the iniform code. Is it not his perfomance as a gard that should be the deciding factor and not how he looks? - My opposition has very good points but if i really wanted to holiday in the M.E. i would like to dress like a westerner and not wear robes and sandles. If they forced me to dress like them or leave i would be uneasy. Would this not be the same thing, or is totally different?



Well if you don't think people need show any respect for local dress codes, how comfortable would you be knowing your wife/daughter/sister was wondering around Tehran dressed in hot pants and a belly top? Nor will you object I'm sure, to the Gardai from my area walking the beat wearing their own ethnic regional dress code complete with white trackie bottoms, hoodie and a baseball cap.

You respect the laws of the country you live in. If you don't like them then you vote to change them or move to a more suitable climate.


----------



## almo (24 Aug 2007)

I have no problem with the Offaly ethnic dress, but I agree that on Gardai it would not look great.



room305 said:


> Gardai from my area walking the beat wearing their own ethnic regional dress code complete with white trackie bottoms, hoodie and a baseball cap.


----------



## Ceist Beag (24 Aug 2007)

I think Keelin Shanley made a good point last night on Prime Time - what about Catholics on Ash Wednesday? Currently they're allowed to have the ash on their forehead but surely this is a religious symbol? I'm all for one law for everyone but it has to be for everyone - not a case of some religions being more acceptable than others.


----------



## MrMan (24 Aug 2007)

Well you could pass off the ash on ones forehead as a dirt mark, a turbin might be harder to conceal. The beauty of this and many western countries is that you have the freedom to wear what you want and do what you want (within the law), but the issue at hand should only be seen as what it is and that is members of an organisation conforming to its rules and regulations. The man in question has a choice, join and conform or stay as you are. The 'race' card is used so often now its starting to become boring and the english officer how started the row should know better, or is that the problem - he knows better than them irish


----------



## Caveat (24 Aug 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> But if you went on holiday to a country that made alcohol consumption or transportation illegal, would you be fine with that?


 
Err... yes?!  

I would like to think I would have researched the cultural idiosyncrasies of any potential holiday destination, and would make my decision (to go or not to go) accordingly.

If I had made the decision to go, I would, when relevant, respect the laws/customs of the country in question.


----------



## shnaek (24 Aug 2007)

Also ash only lasts for a day. I am in agreement with Clubman here. A uniform is a uniform, and it is there for a purpose. Once an exception is made, the door is opened for chaos.

Also, religion has no place in a Police force. Their job is to uphold the law. They can practice what they wish when off duty.


----------



## Ceist Beag (24 Aug 2007)

My point is shnaek that you are straight away making an exception by saying ash is ok, it's only for a day. Either we say no religious symbolism is allowed at all, not even a bit of ash for one day, or we don't - we can't have it both ways. I think the Gardai will be addressing these over the coming year now that they have taken a stance and I'm in agreement with that stance but just think we need to make sure we're not becoming hypocritical here saying ah sure a bit of ash is like a bit of dirt, that's ok but turbans are a no-no.


----------



## shnaek (24 Aug 2007)

Ceist Beag said:


> My point is shnaek that you are straight away making an exception by saying ash is ok, it's only for a day. Either we say no religious symbolism is allowed at all, not even a bit of ash for one day, or we don't - we can't have it both ways. I think the Gardai will be addressing these over the coming year now that they have taken a stance and I'm in agreement with that stance but just think we need to make sure we're not becoming hypocritical here saying ah sure a bit of ash is like a bit of dirt, that's ok but turbans are a no-no.



Fair enough. No ash then!


----------



## MrMan (24 Aug 2007)

At least you won't here cries of 'racism' when the ash is forbidden from their foreheads.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

Sn@kebite said:


> ClubMan does make sense. But if you went on holiday to a country that made alcohol consumption or transportation illegal, would you be fine with that?


Yes. In fact I have been to such a county (_USA_) but just not the parts in which these laws applied!


----------



## ney001 (24 Aug 2007)

The point of the garda uniform is that the gardai are instantly recognisable as being gardai and the hat is the most important part of this uniform.   The gardai can wear just their shirts in the summer, or the new jackets etc but one thing is always constant with the gardai and that is the hat.  This means in heated/confused situations where people require assistance and reassurance such as bad accidents etc they will instantly recognise that a garda is present - this would not be the case with a Sikh Garda wearing a turban, I believe it would confuse people and as stated a uniform should be uniform.


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

Ceist Beag said:


> I think Keelin Shanley made a good point last night on Prime Time - what about Catholics on Ash Wednesday? Currently they're allowed to have the ash on their forehead but surely this is a religious symbol? I'm all for one law for everyone but it has to be for everyone - not a case of some religions being more acceptable than others.


I don't think that this should be allowed either. They can wear ash on their own time but not on duty.


----------



## almo (24 Aug 2007)

If a Sikh wants to ride a motorbike, do they then have to wear a helmet?  If the SIkh lad gets caught on duty during a riot, does he wear head protection or will he go without as rioters rage in the streets of Gorey?  Or will he just stand back and carry the water bottle?


----------



## polaris (24 Aug 2007)

The head of the Metropolitan Police Sikh Association in London, who has been all over the news recently, stated on "The Last Word" that Sikh officers do remove their turbans if the situation requires it; if they are members of a sub-aqua unit for example.  

This is the same guy who is expressing outrage, calling the decision racist. Some posturing going on here IMHO.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

almo said:


> If a Sikh wants to ride a motorbike, do they then have to wear a helmet?



Might be a good time to scrap those ludicrous helmet laws as well ...


----------



## almo (24 Aug 2007)

Agreed, I mean, I see kids here bombing around on Vespas sans protection, all they're good for is gathering in the fragments afer being ploughed out of it by a truck.  Better to go quick and easy (sorry, bad taste).

I know it's been said before and leaves the field open to racist nutcases, but how far do we have to go for integration?  And do we actually need a Minister for such?  It's usually just a natural kind of thing where people just get along in their new country, keeping their yearning for home within their four walls.  I have been getting more concerned on visits home (especially last time in the Blanch Centre) where I saw a Muslim woman wearing full cover (black) with gloves, I know this is choice and nothing to do with religion (it's actually against the teachings of the Koran),  and it made her stand out even more.  Having endured, and partially enjoyed, 2 years in Saudi I thought I'd left that stuff behind, but then it follows me home!



room305 said:


> Might be a good time to scrap those ludicrous helmet laws as well ...


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

almo said:


> how far do we have to go for integration?
> 
> ...
> 
> I have been getting more concerned on visits home (especially last time in the Blanch Centre) where I saw a Muslim woman wearing full cover (black) with gloves, I know this is choice and nothing to do with religion (it's actually against the teachings of the Koran),  and it made her stand out even more.  Having endured, and partially enjoyed, 2 years in Saudi I thought I'd left that stuff behind, but then it follows me home!


Why exactly does what clothes other people choose to wear concern you? I'm not mad about beards and double breasted suits but I don't consider it an integration issue or worry unduly about others that sport them.


----------



## Superman (24 Aug 2007)

almo said:


> it's actually against the teachings of the Koran...


Aah - no it's not.


----------



## elefantfresh (24 Aug 2007)

> The head of the Metropolitan Police Sikh Association in London, who has been all over the news recently, stated on "The Last Word" that Sikh officers do remove their turbans if the situation requires it; if they are members of a sub-aqua unit for example.


 
LOL! I'd hope so!!!


----------



## Sn@kebite (24 Aug 2007)

Am i allowed go in to hypothetics?
Anyway,
The impression i'm getting is: people think that a uniform is a uniform, and another, other ethnic groups may see the leeway as a weakness in our system and start inventing their own acceptions for other occupations. Is that it?
The way i see it is, some people's lives have been saved by a police officer or garda happening to be near them when they get stabbed or whatever. And what i see is, what if something bad happens and there is by chance a Sikh standing near by and calls for an ambulance or backup and resolves a deadly situation?  If my life is possibly to be saved, i don't give a damn what he's wearing on his head. But with no Sikhs being allowed into the force that means less garda on the streets. It's just point of view, and i know the other points make perfect sense.


----------



## Vanilla (24 Aug 2007)

> But with no Sikhs being allowed into the force that means less garda on the streets.


 
It doesn't mean that at all. I'm quite sure any vacancies can be filled quite easily from other applicants.

I am not against religious freedom but in this context think it is wrong to allow a variation on the normal uniform in order to accommodate a religious belief.


----------



## bond-007 (24 Aug 2007)

almo said:


> If a Sikh wants to ride a motorbike, do they then have to wear a helmet?



In the UK:
* Riding Motor Cycles *

Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A *"exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.*


----------



## ninsaga (24 Aug 2007)

So if they allow a sikh to were his turban then where do you draw the line...what if one of these characters shows up in Templemore some day as a new recruit....


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

almo said:


> I know it's been said before and leaves the field open to racist nutcases, but how far do we have to go for integration?  And do we actually need a Minister for such?



I do wonder about the choice of minister for this extremely unnecessary ministry. How much of it was motivated by a desire to salvage his reputation post-kebab incident ("What, me racist? Sure, wasn't I in charge of the Ministry for Integration").

With this ministry and the various quangos it is sure to spawn, the very best we can hope for is that it will be completely ineffectual. In the worst case scenario, it actually prompts some kind of a backlash through its meddling. The more you run around shouting that everybody should ignore each other's differences the more you simply highlight that differences exist.


----------



## room305 (24 Aug 2007)

bond-007 said:


> Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A *"exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.*



That's hilarious. First they pass a ridiculous law mandating that everybody has to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then they have to pass an exemption if that happens to offend your religious sensibilities!


----------



## ClubMan (24 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> I do wonder about the choice of minister for this extremely unnecessary ministry. How much of it was motivated by a desire to salvage his reputation post-kebab incident ("What, me racist? Sure, wasn't I in charge of the Ministry for Integration").


As I said at the time here on _AAM _whatever about that comment being ill judged I hardly think that it represented a racist slur.


----------



## almo (24 Aug 2007)

A woman has to have her face uncovered in the presence of Allah, also it is personal choice of covering to such extremes.



Superman said:


> Aah - no it's not.


----------



## almo (24 Aug 2007)

That's unbelieveable, apart from costing a packet for insurance, it creates an us and them problem.  It's like the right to walk topless in Ottawa - they had to amend laws to allow women to do it, and since it's been passed the people who were behind it haven't gone topless in the street, they said in a CBC interview that they wanted to do it as it needed to be done.  I mean, come on, for the one good (joke) month a year, doesn't make sense!



bond-007 said:


> In the UK:
> *Riding Motor Cycles *
> 
> Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A *"exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.*


----------



## jmayo (24 Aug 2007)

Jaysus mountain and mole hill come to mind.  
Just because a sikh garda is wearing a turban, we suddenly now will have Islamic women with burkas in the guards, followed by Arnott jersey wearing individuals.  The last one could also be used undercover I suppose.

Since we are getting so santimonous about the garda uniform, maybe we should also look at what great Irish examples we have filling or should that overfilling their garda uniforms.

Anyway he can always get one of Trotter Independent Traders Sikh crash helmets for when there is a riot in Gorey, probably due to the blow-ins suffereing incredible neagtive equity.


----------



## Jaid79 (25 Aug 2007)

**Deleted**


----------



## MrMan (27 Aug 2007)

> Since we are getting so santimonous about the garda uniform, maybe we should also look at what great Irish examples we have filling or should that overfilling their garda uniforms.



The point is its a uniform, not a garment of fashion. If you choose to join the guards, you are directed by there rules and regs. I don't understand what your point is regarding great irish examples overfilling their uniforms, should we let all and sundry decide whats best for us cause sure our fat guards are useless?. In fairness alot of the guards on the street don't meet that old sterotype anymore, if you took a spin round the training college you might be surprised at the levels of work being put in


----------



## ubiquitous (27 Aug 2007)

Ceist Beag said:


> I think Keelin Shanley made a good point last night on Prime Time - what about Catholics on Ash Wednesday? Currently they're allowed to have the ash on their forehead but surely this is a religious symbol? I'm all for one law for everyone but it has to be for everyone - not a case of some religions being more acceptable than others.



Keelin Shanley is talking rubbish. Ash, dust or dirt on one's forehead or chin does not form part of one's dress, uniform or otherwise.

Why confuse uniforms and religious symbols in the first instance. Most religious symbols I can think of are not items of clothing. So what is the problem?


----------



## contemporary (27 Aug 2007)

i dont agree with the ash on ash wednesday thing, but that is for one day, considering garda reserves (which this lad wanted to join) only do 8 hours a month couldnt he take it off for that short period of time?


----------



## Guest111 (27 Aug 2007)

This all comes down to whether you believe integration is either a one-way or two-way street...personally I believe the man in question should not be allowed wear his turban as the onus should be on him to adapt to our ways. Alternatively, as a Sikh avoid situations where you cannot wear the turban.
It is a difficult and emotive topic where it's hard to see if there is a right or wrong.


----------



## michaelm (27 Aug 2007)

ClubMan said:


> I don't see why special allowances/exceptions should be made for any religious clothing or other paraphenalia in this sort of situation to be honest. I don't consider this to be a racist or sectarian stance. Religious beliefs and affiliations are one's own personal business and should not impinge on such situations. If some people have beliefs that prevent them from making this separation between state secularism and personal religiosity then that's their own problem not the state's or its institutions'.


This sums it up nicely.





ClubMan said:


> Why exactly does what clothes other people choose to wear concern you [*almo* - I saw a Muslim woman wearing full cover (black) with gloves . .]?


I don't think adults should be allowed to completely cover their face in public places, be it with a balaclava or a burqa.





ubiquitous said:


> Keelin Shanley is talking rubbish. Ash, dust or dirt on one's forehead or chin does not form part of one's dress, uniform or otherwise.


Agree with this.





room305 said:


> I do wonder about the choice of minister for this extremely unnecessary ministry. How much of it was motivated by a desire to salvage his reputation post-kebab incident ("What, me racist? Sure, wasn't I in charge of the Ministry for Integration").
> 
> With this ministry and the various quangos it is sure to spawn, the very best we can hope for is that it will be completely ineffectual. In the worst case scenario, it actually prompts some kind of a backlash through its meddling. The more you run around shouting that everybody should ignore each other's differences the more you simply highlight that differences exist.


The would-be minister's comments were buffoonery not racist.  I assume that the ministry is one of 'Integration' rather than 'immigration' or 'multiculturalism' as the government realises that multiculturalism doesn't really work anywhere, and rather than the Irish bend over backwards to accommodate all comers the new Irish should endeavour to adjust to custom and practice here.


----------



## room305 (27 Aug 2007)

michaelm said:


> The would-be minister's comments were buffoonery not racist.  I assume that the ministry is one of 'Integration' rather than 'immigration' or 'multiculturalism' as the government realises that multiculturalism doesn't really work anywhere, and rather than the Irish bend over backwards to accommodate all comers the new Irish should endeavour to adjust to custom and practice here.



I agree - I don't think they were racist either but the Orwellian-bent of a "Ministry for Integration" disturbs me greatly.


----------



## SarahMc (27 Aug 2007)

I understand Lenihan and Justice Ministry have rejected British multiculturalism and French integration and want to go for assimilation.  

I don't understand the distinction between integration and assimilation.  Is assimilation the US model?


----------



## noilh (30 Aug 2007)

I would support the decision of the Gardai not to allow the wearing of any religious symbols while on duty as a Garda.  I think it is better that the Gardai represent only the force and not their own individual private faith/organization. I also hope a neo-nazi who lives down the road does not suceed in joining the Gardai and demand to display his swaztika armband while on duty.


----------



## Superman (31 Aug 2007)

almo said:


> A woman has to have her face uncovered in the presence of Allah, also it is personal choice of covering to such extremes.



First, it depends on the country and the interpretation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6596933.stm

Secondly, there is no limit in the Qur'an itself to the amount of covering (which your original post implied). Indeed, it is the Hadith that discuss the amount of covering in much more detail.


----------



## Superman (31 Aug 2007)

bond-007 said:


> (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A *"exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.*


Isn't that religious bias against all non Sikhs - I assume one can take a case to the ECHR about it?


----------



## RainyDay (8 Oct 2007)

Killter said:


> if you dont like the rules, go home. simple.simple.simple.
> .


Just like our Minister for Integration, Kebabs Lenihan, you are making the mistaking of assuming that a Sikh person is not already at home in Ireland.


----------



## carpedeum (9 Oct 2007)

I was quite open to the views of the Sikh community until, I heard a Sikh policeman on Prime Time's report from London say that he wears a turban because he _"is a Sikh first and a policeman second"._ 

Sorry, but when you join a police force, you are a policeman first and foremost! 

To further clarify the point I am making, I wouldn't want a Garda with strong Catholic beliefs, putting his Catholic ethos first when dealing with me or my family, no more than I would be in favour of a Protestant or Hindhu or Muslim or Jewish Garda putting his religious beliefs first! In most police forces across the USA, religious symbols and dress are not allowed infringe on the standard issue uniform.

When you migrate to a country, you become a citizen of that country. This has been the bedrock of the USA, for over 200 years. The Irish, Italians, Greeks and other nationalities, when they went to the USA didn't try and retain or promote original languages, native dress and other traditions that would collide with the more pluralaistic values of their new country. England and France are examples where too much leniency has led to problems in later generations. 

We are not being racist if we ask new migrants to adapt at least some of the long established values and standards of living that should be common to all citizens. All of us should be free to continue to practise our religions and other traditions in private and also invite each other to share these traditions at other times e.g. in multi-cultural schools where all our children should be educated together, religious festivals etc. 

The Gardai have got the balance right.

Having travelled to other countries, especially Asia and the Middle East, I am only too aware of how intolerant these countries are to our traditions and even our codes of dress. We are given no choice, but, to conform! We used to have an Ireland like that!


----------



## RainyDay (9 Oct 2007)

carpedeum said:


> When you migrate to a country, you become a citizen of that country. .....
> We are not being racist if we ask new migrants to adapt at least some of the long established values and standards of living that should be common to all citizens.


And what if the Sikhs in question are not migrants, and have (for example) been living here for a generation or two?


----------

