Patrick Devine loses pants in Senegal

connundrum

Patrick Devine can't keep his pants on apparently.Linky

Was doing a quick search for his bebo but can't find it yet, apparently he's become a worldwide hero

A story came on the news about how sikhs are wanting to wear their turbans as part of the Guarda reserve uniform - and we want them to play by our rules therefore they probably won't be allowed wear them.

Then the next story was about this lad and how unjust it was and that he should be let go from prison because after all, it was only a prank.

While I agree that his sentence hardly fits the crime, is it playing the 'our rules when it suits us' game?

godtabh

connundrum wrote:

Patrick Devine can't keep his pants on apparently.Linky

Was doing a quick search for his bebo but can't find it yet, apparently he's become a worldwide hero

A story came on the news about how sikhs are wanting to wear their turbans as part of the Guarda reserve uniform - and we want them to play by our rules therefore they probably won't be allowed wear them.

Then the next story was about this lad and how unjust it was and that he should be let go from prison because after all, it was only a prank.

While I agree that his sentence hardly fits the crime, is it playing the 'our rules when it suits us' game?

The sentence doesnt fit the crime by our standards but he didn't do it here.

Its his own tough luck he got caught and now he has to deal with it. If situations had been reversed and a foreigner did something he considered harmless but was against Irish law but not his own law should he get off?

digitally-yours

They will be allowed to wear turbans

Its a part of their religion. They dont take off their turban.

seamus

No it's not. We don't pull down our pants to moon as a matter of routine.
Pretty tenuous link
The Garda uniform doesn't include turbans, crosses, or any other religious nick-nacks. Your religious orientation is irrelevant, you're a Garda first and foremost when you wear the uniform.

DarkJager

Exactly. This whole religious clothing debate is getting ridiculous. If its not part of the standard uniform, then you're not wearing it. Plain and simple.

As for that Patrick Devine fella: How stupid can you get? He probably thought he was hilarious showing his pale scraggy arse in public. Not so funny now is it Patrick?? How many times do you think he's been back door burgled in prison already?

Terry

connundrum wrote:

While I agree that his sentence hardly fits the crime, is it playing the 'our rules when it suits us' game?

Indeed it is.

When in Rome...comes to mind.

This guy did an idiotic thing and ignorance of the law is not a defence (I know there was nothing there about him not knowing it was against the law, but just wait).

As for the Sikhs looking to wear turbans; wear the standard uniform or don't take the ****ing job. This is not an Islamic state (or a christian one or any other religion for that matter), so just play by the rules and get on with your life. You can wear the turban when you get home.

tallus

Terry wrote:

Indeed it is.

When in Rome...comes to mind.

This guy did an idiotic thing and ignorance of the law is not a defence (I know there was nothing there about him not knowing it was against the law, but just wait).

As for the Sikhs looking to wear turbans; wear the standard uniform or don't take the ****ing job. This is not an Islamic state (or a christian one or any other religion for that matter), so just play by the rules and get on with your life. You can wear the turban when you get home.

Seconded on both counts.

digitally-yours

seamus wrote:

No it's not. We don't pull down our pants to moon as a matter of routine.
Pretty tenuous link
The Garda uniform doesn't include turbans, crosses, or any other religious nick-nacks. Your religious orientation is irrelevant, you're a Garda first and foremost when you wear the uniform.

yes i know it does not includes. But if you want to incluge people who have turban as a part of their religion you cannot ask them to remove it

It will be discrimination.

Have a read here
http://www.garda.ie/angarda/pub/equality.pdf

I know its new thing here as foreign people are now getting into jobs in which there was never a foreign person.

In future i see loads of changes will be made. Same in UK Sikh people are allowed to carry "Kirpan" with them in public as its a part of their religion.

http://www.pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=9667

I am sure some of this will be reading this first time but its true.

connundrum

seamus wrote:

No it's not. We don't pull down our pants to moon as a matter of routine.
Pretty tenuous link
The Garda uniform doesn't include turbans, crosses, or any other religious nick-nacks. Your religious orientation is irrelevant, you're a Garda first and foremost when you wear the uniform.

I thought it was a lovely link


/runs off to moon a statue of Seamus

seamus

digitally-yours wrote:

yes i know it does not includes. But if you want to incluge people who have turban as a part of their religion you cannot ask them to remove it

No, you can't ask them to remove it, but you can allow them to make that decision.

You remove the religious garb, or you don't get the job. It's quite simple really. I'm pretty sure that if I was a Garda and I wanted to leave a whole host of piercings in my face, there'd be an issue. What's the difference?

I'm sick and tired of religion being used as an excuse to be treated differently.

Terry

digitally-yours wrote:

yes i know it does not includes. But if you want to incluge people who have turban as a part of their religion you cannot ask them to remove it

It will be discrimination.

Have a read here
http://www.garda.ie/angarda/pub/equality.pdf

I know its new thing here as foreign people are now getting into jobs in which there was never a foreign person.

In future i see loads of changes will be made. Same in UK Sikh people are allowed to carry "Kirpan" with them in public as its a part of their religion.

http://www.pluralism.org/news/article.php?id=9667

I am sure some of this will be reading this first time but its true.

So Muktar is running after Anto and his turban falls off.
One of two things can happen here.

1. He stops to pick it up and Anto get away, meaning the turban is impractical to wear if oyu are a Garda.
2. He keeps running after Anto, meaning his job is more important to him and he didn't need to wear the turban in the first place.


Connundrum, you opened this can of worms. Don't try running away now.

Kintarō Hattori

I have to agree here. The Garda uniform does not display any religous items. You either deal with that fact or as other posters have said, you don't take the job.
Religion is such a cause of strife these days, that it should be left at home and not brought to the workplace, particuarly one where your highly visible and dealing with members of the public.

digitally-yours

Terry wrote:

So Muktar is running after Anto and his turban falls off.
One of two things can happen here.

1. He stops to pick it up and Anto get away.
2. He keeps running after Anto, meaning his job is more important and he didn't need to wear the turban in the first place.

How about anto running after Muktar and his trouser falls


Its easier to TYPE isnt it !

My friend if you dont understand a turban u cant comment on it.
I am not Sikh my self but i have friends and for your information if you check Airline Pilots or airforce in INDIA or UK they are allowed to wear it.

Your all theoury is based on the thing that you dont know about them.
Turben is not something that is placed on the head.There is a special way you wear it and it cannot come off easily.

You need travel to India or Canada or UK loads of Sikh people there.Very friendly people.If you dont judge the book by its cover you will learn more.

Terry

digitally-yours wrote:

How about anto running after Muktar and his trouser falls


Its easier to TYPE isnt it !

My friend if you dont understand a turban u cant comment on it.
I am not Sikh my self but i have friends and for your information if you check Airline Pilots or airforce in INDIA or UK they are allowed to wear it.

Your all theoury is based on the thing that you dont know about them.
Turben is not something that is placed on the head.There is a special way you wear it and it cannot come off easily.

You need travel to India or Canada or UK loads of Sikh people there.Very friendly people.If you dont judge the book by its cover you will learn more.

I'm not judging anyone here.
I'm sure they are nice people.

Pants are part of the standard Garda uniform. Turbans are not.

This is not India, Canada, the U.K. or anywhere else.
I'm drawing a ****ing line in the sand here.
We bowed to religion for too many years. That time is over now.
Religion will no longer dictate to us. We will dictate to religion.

digitally-yours

Terry wrote:

I'm not judging anyone here.
I'm sure they are nice people.

Pants are part of the standard Garda uniform. Turbans are not.

This is not India, Canada, the U.K. or anywhere else.
I'm drawing a ****ing line in the sand here.
We bowed to religion for too many years. That time is over now.
Religion will no longer dictate to us. We will dictate to religion.

Respect your opinion and you have every right to have your opinion.

Those people who wana respect their religion should have a right to do so.
I know Ireland is an Independent country and has its own law.I agree with it.

But time will come u will see Garda with turban
*Mark my words

Ghost Train

http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=919543688
even has a few nice senegal photos

digitally-yours

http://www.metroeireann.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=426&Itemid=50

A SIKH man training to become a Garda Reservist was told to remove his turban by a high-ranking garda if he wanted to commence station duty, Metro Eireann has learned.

The episode has led to a meeting between representatives of the Sikh community and An Garda Síochána.

A source from the Sikh community explained: “He was selected for training as a Garda Reservist – he passed all the exams and took the training, and now at the end of the training they told him he has to put on a cap rather than the turban.

“This person is working as an IT professional but he wanted to work as a volunteer in the Garda Reserve to give some service back to the community.”

The turban is a garment worn on the head by all practising Sikh men, for whom it is not an optional element of their religion (Sikh women can choose whether or not to wear the turban).

Turbans are worn by Sikh police officers in many other parts of the world. Police forces in the UK and Canada, for example, have specially-adapted turbans which incorporate their organisation’s insignia

In London in particular, the Metropolitan Police has been facilitating Sikh officers to wear turbans since the early 1970s.

“It will be an interesting topic to raise because at the first step of integration of the communities they [gardai] are failing,” said the source.

The news comes at an embarrassing time for An Garda Síochána, which is due to release its new booklet – Your Police Service in Intercultural Ireland – next week.

The booklet will be launched at Garda Headquarters in the Phoenix Park on Monday 23 July by Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy.

Under new rules introduced in 2005, applicants to An Garda Síochána must prove they are competent in two languages, at least one of which must be English or Irish. The rule alteration therefore removed the requirement for a qualification in Irish, a move aimed at encouraging more ethnic minorities to join the force.

At press time, a Garda spokesperson was unable to confirm whether or not the force have begun developing a turban to be worn by potential Sikh members.

Kintarō Hattori

digitally yours, as Terry has said, while they maybe allowed to wear the turban in the Uk and other places that shouldn't be the case here. Not because we don't respect their religion or anyone else's but because the workplace shouldn't be a place for religion.
The Garda don't promote or display religion in their professional role in any way, why should that change for ANY person or group? Political Correctness has to be stopped somewhere and this is as good a line to draw as any.

DarkJager

You know what they call that in China? :Tough ****. This is not an Islamic state and the gardai are not here to pander to believers of any religion. Turban may be required by their religion, but it is not and will never be part of the Garda uniform. You have to love how every single time this headress/burka/turban arguement pops up, some Muslim group has to have meetings with whoever banned it.

Kintarō Hattori

DarkJager wrote:

You know what they call that in China? :Tough ****. This is not an Islamic state and the gardai are not here to pander to believers of any religion. Turban may be required by their religion, but it is not and will never be part of the Garda uniform. You have to love how every single time this headress/burka/turban arguement pops up, some Muslim group has to have meetings with whoever banned it.

sikhs aren't muslim or islamic.

Slothy

If i created a new religion. Where you have to wear a phalic symbol on your head like , say a dildo or something.
Although it would offend some people........ but it was my religion could I wear it when wearing my Garda Uniform (if i was a garda).

Would the constitution protect me? as I am protected to carry out my religion.

DarkJager

Slothy wrote:

If i created a new religion. Where you have to wear a phalic symbol on your head like , say a dildo or something.
Although it would offend some people........ but it was my religion could I wear it when wearing my Garda Uniform (if i was a garda).

Would the constitution protect me? as I am protected to carry out my religion.

Maybe not but it could make a good replacement for a baton! Imagine the headline "Cop stops robber with 13 inch dildo to the head"

Terry

“It will be an interesting topic to raise because at the first step of integration of the communities they [gardai] are failing,” said the source.

Wait.
So the Gardai are failing to integrate?
This is a joke, right?

It's the Sikhs who are failing to integrate.

seamus

Allowing a person to wear their religious garb is discrimination. Plain and simple. Applying the same rule to all officers, regardless of religion, sex or any other basis is the fairest way of doing it because nobody gets treated differently.

What other countries do is irrelevant.

These men do have a choice to wear the turban. Nobody is forcing them to wear it. If they decide, through their own free will, that wearing a turban is more important to them than joining the Gardai, then that's their decision to make.

Again, I make the point - if someone wanted to wear a pink tutu over their Garda uniform, they wouldn't be allowed. What's the difference?

Exit

Can we assume then that nobody in the Garda wears a cross around their neck? And that anybody that has been found with one has been told to remove it, or leave the force?

Kintarō Hattori

Exit wrote:

Can we assume then that nobody in the Garda wears a cross around their neck? And that anybody that has been found with one has been told to remove it, or leave the force?

A cross wouldn't be visible underneath their shirt and tie, unlike a turban. It's hardly the same.

seamus

Exit wrote:

Can we assume then that nobody in the Garda wears a cross around their neck? And that anybody that has been found with one has been told to remove it, or leave the force?

Any Garda who wears a cross outside of their uniform should have a choice - hide it, remove it, or leave the force.

jor el

I was just about to post something similar to what exit said, but as has been said in reply, everyone is free to show religious devotion as long as it doesn't interfere with their duties. The problem is that a Sikh's religious symbol (the Turban) is an externally worn item and rather hard to hide under your shirt. Should exemptions be made for them? Perhaps a special Turban with the Garda shield on it? Personally, I don't care for religions at all and I'm not bothered about any of this.

Now, back to the topic in hand, Paddy Pantsdown in Senegal. What he did was pretty stupid, mooning a Governor's house in an Islamic state. Spending the bones of a month in jail for it (and now in a prison) is a bit over the top. Sure he should have had more cop on but the authorities in Senegal don't seem to be cutting him any slack at all. Perhaps they're making an example of him so that other tourists/backpackers/etc will think twice before doing as the please in their country.

CantGetNoSleep

is there any sign of him getting out no? has he had any sort of trial or is he just looked of indefinately?

seamus

From a safety POV, anything whatsoever which singles out a Garda as a Sikh could only be a bad thing in this country. They'd be a target for scum.

Now, back to the topic in hand, Paddy Pantsdown in Senegal. What he did was pretty stupid, mooning a Governor's house in an Islamic state. Spending the bones of a month in jail for it (and now in a prison) is a bit over the top. Sure he should have had more cop on but the authorities in Senegal don't seem to be cutting him any slack at all. Perhaps they're making an example of him so that other tourists/backpackers/etc will think twice before doing as the please in their country.

While it seems harsh, and without knowing anything about the Sengalese legal system, IMO it's pretty much tough ****. Other countries have different laws. We know this, and we know that you won't get away with some of the stuff you'd get away with here. People can feel hard done by because it seems more harsh than what they're accustomed, but the simple fact is that it's not Ireland.

Other countries would put you to death for things which aren't even crimes here. By going to those countries, you accept these things.

There was a call yesterday for a "Hardship fund" for people imprisoned overseas. "They're isolated". Of course they are, they broke the ****ing law, now they have to deal with the consequences. It's not the Government's place to bail out people who've ****ed up in foreign countries.

Ghost Train

CantGetNoSleep wrote:

is there any sign of him getting out no? has he had any sort of trial or is he just looked of indefinately?

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2859349.ece

Mr Devine will remain in custody until August 29.

Don't know if that means he'll be released then though

impr0v

seamus wrote:

Allowing a person to wear their religious garb is discrimination. Plain and simple. Applying the same rule to all officers, regardless of religion, sex or any other basis is the fairest way of doing it because nobody gets treated differently.

What other countries do is irrelevant.

These men do have a choice to wear the turban. Nobody is forcing them to wear it. If they decide, through their own free will, that wearing a turban is more important to them than joining the Gardai, then that's their decision to make.

Again, I make the point - if someone wanted to wear a pink tutu over their Garda uniform, they wouldn't be allowed. What's the difference?

The difference is that the constitution protects, subject to a number of provisos, the free profession and practice of religion. The document is curiously silent on the wearing of pink tutus, though one could of course argue doing so constitutes a US style 'symbolic speech', bringing it into freedom of expression or the right to communicate.

While I'm not for one second saying that the Sikh Garda reservist would have a rock solid constitutional case, he would at least have an arguable one, whereas I think you'll agree that the fictional pink tutu wearing reservist would be laughed out of court.

seamus

This is where "religion" becomes an issue. I'm not going to go into specifics, but I have a problem with the law deciding what is an isn't a religion.

Slow Motion

We spent far too long seperating church and state to want to go back down that road. A lot of people in the UK put Jedi down as their religion in the census, does that mean they should be allowed to bring light sabers to work ? "These are not the criminals you are Seikhing".

As for the lad in Senegal, caught with his pants down ! Tough, as has been said ignorance is not an excuse !

impr0v

seamus wrote:

This is where "religion" becomes an issue. I'm not going to go into specifics, but I have a problem with the law deciding what is an isn't a religion.

Fair enough, but we are within the realm of the law here, and if he did decide to challenge the decision of the senior officer (who presumably has the backing of the Commissioner) the law would have to decide, in the absence of any better method.

There is little jurisprudence in Ireland on what constitutes a religion, though US decisions suggest a difference between religion and a personal philosophical choice, which would probably get us around the theoretical and newly invented 'cult of the dildoists', if I may be so bold as to suggest a name for Slothy's new faction, or those who profess Jediism.

On balance I think it's safe to say that it's unlikely that the High or Supreme Courts would pronounce Sikhism as being outside the constitutional definition of religion. If they did, it's likely that it would only require a quick return trip to Strasbourg to clear that preliminary issue up.

Having crossed that hurdle, we have to decide if, by wearing his turban, he's professing his religion. Again, safe enough to say he is, given that his relgion requires it.

Then we're into (to keep it simple) a standard enough proportionality test. The aim, presumably, of the state in banning any outward displays of religious faith by a Garda reservist could be myriad, but we can lump them into the general public order proviso in article 44.2.1. Included in that would be the safety/incitement aspect you mention, the aim of avoiding the appearance of religious bias by a member of the force, et al.

In my view the measure to achieve the objective, i.e. the banning of wearing of religious emblems, is not in proportion to the objective, in that it completely excludes any adherent to Sikhism from joining the reserve (and presumably the 'proper' Garda) force. It would also have the effect of denying a Muslim man the opportunity of joining the force if he was required to cut his beard, etc.

The critical difference here between the turban and the wearing of a cross, for example, is that the latter is optional, whereas in order to adhere to the tenets of his religion, the Sikh is required to wear the turban. The state's objective could be achieved by a measure that didn't go as far as to completely deny the right to profess religion, e.g. by banning the display of any religious emblems that were not absolutely required by a particular religion, or requiring their modification, as per the example given above of the modified turbans used in some forces in England.

The above is somewhat simplistic, and there are ancillary arguments that could be made in support of the man's case, such as the right to earn a livelihood, and equality arguments, but in my view the above is the ground on which he would have the best chance of success, in either the domestic courts, or the ECHR.

Again, I reiterate that it's not clear cut, and there are valid arguments to be made to the contrary, but I have no doubt that the man would have an arguable constitutional case to bring to the courts.

Reku

Terry wrote:

Indeed it is.

When in Rome...comes to mind.

This guy did an idiotic thing and ignorance of the law is not a defence (I know there was nothing there about him not knowing it was against the law, but just wait).

As for the Sikhs looking to wear turbans; wear the standard uniform or don't take the ****ing job. This is not an Islamic state (or a christian one or any other religion for that matter), so just play by the rules and get on with your life. You can wear the turban when you get home.

Agree completely.

People want to cry "discrimination" then:
1. I can tell my workplace to stuff their damned dress code, it discriminates against my personal tastes.
2. The anti-hoodie movement is discriminatory too, anyone they try prevent from entering for said reason can sue them.

Dress codes apply to all or none, simple as that, otherwise they are discriminatory.
Catholics will have to be allowed to wear any and as many crosses as they wish.
Muslim women who join will have to be permitted to wear the Hijab.
Unionists will have to be allowed their orange wraparound thingy (can't remember the name at the moment:o ).
etc...



Throw in the fact that anyone who insists on not taking off the turban can't wear riot gear and so is effectively neglecting their duties should an event arise requiring them to do so...


I'm sorry, but there's being PC (while attempting to dress it up as equality) and being stupid...

impr0v

farohar wrote:

Agree completely.
People want to cry "discrimination" then:
1. I can tell my workplace to stuff their damned dress code, it discriminates against my personal tastes.

You can, but firstly your personal tastes aren't protected by the constitution to the degree that religion is and, secondly, you would more than likely have agreed to follow their dress code when you signed your contract. Asserting constitutional rights against private bodies and and against the state are different things, in that the constitution primarily functions vertically, i.e. between the state and citizens.

farohar wrote:

2. The anti-hoodie movement is discriminatory too, anyone they try prevent from entering for said reason can sue them.

No, private individuals are generally allowed to restrict entry to their premises on their own criteria. This is modified in certain circumstances by equality provisions, etc. but Mr. or Mrs. Nightclub owner is generally entitled to refuse a licence to enter their premises on dress code if they so wish.

farohar wrote:

Dress codes apply to all or none, simple as that, otherwise they are discriminatory.

Actually, it's not as simple as that.

farohar wrote:

Catholics will have to be allowed to wear any and as many crosses as they wish.

Refer to my post above, cross wearing is optional in terms of the catholic religion, and I don't think anyone would be obliged to remove any cross that wasn't visible. Someone who turned up for work bejewelled like a latter day St. Baracus, weighed down by a collection of crosses, is not professing his or her faith with respect for other's faiths, he/she is being provocative.

farohar wrote:

Muslim women who join will have to be permitted to wear the Hijab.

The hijab, or similar Islamic prescriptions for female dress, are arguably an exception. The ECHR has upheld English and Swiss bans on wearing of same in educational institutions. The court stressed, in Dahlab v Switzerland (wearing of a headscarf), among other matters 'the powerful external symbol' which wearing the headscarf represented, and considered it potentially inflammatory as it appeared to be imposed on women by a religious precept that seemed to be contrary to the principle of gender equality. It's certainly arguable, but I don't think that a similar argument applies in the case of a turban.

farohar wrote:

Unionists will have to be allowed their orange wraparound thingy (can't remember the name at the moment:o ).
etc...

Again I would say that this is an exception, given the obvious historical context (the ECHR took cognisance of same in Murphy v IRTC, in allowing the Irish state a margin of appreciation in terms of religion) and the potential for such an item to be inflammatory. Again, I don't think that the orange order obliges the wearing of a sash at all times.

farohar wrote:

Throw in the fact that anyone who insists on not taking off the turban can't wear riot gear and so is effectively neglecting their duties should an event arise requiring them to do so...

I'm sure that with a little thought such practical difficulties could be overcome. Perhaps guidance could be sought from the English practice in this regard as well.

farohar wrote:

I'm sorry, but there's being PC (while attempting to dress it up as equality) and being stupid...

..and there's being in accordance with law, which could fall into either of your first two categories, depending on your viewpoint.

tallaght01

Sikhs wear turbans as part of their uniforms over here in the UK. I don't see it causing any problems. The Sikh community appreciates it, so it seems like a win-win solution to me.

I really don't see how it's a problem.

Mind you, in my experience, the police force in Ireland is a joke compared to that of the UK, so their actions don't surprise me a great deal I have to say.

Reku

impr0v wrote:

You can, but firstly your personal tastes aren't protected by the constitution to the degree that religion is and, secondly, you would more than likely have agreed to follow their dress code when you signed your contract.

Just like sikhs when they CHOOSE to join the Gardaí. It's a choice, tough sh*t if they didn't look into it fully first.

impr0v wrote:

The hijab, or similar Islamic prescriptions for female dress, are arguably an exception. The ECHR has upheld English and Swiss bans on wearing of same in educational institutions. The court stressed, in Dahlab v Switzerland (wearing of a headscarf), among other matters 'the powerful external symbol' which wearing the headscarf represented, and considered it potentially inflammatory as it appeared to be imposed on women by a religious precept that seemed to be contrary to the principle of gender equality. It's certainly arguable, but I don't think that a similar argument applies in the case of a turban.

The turban is "imposed on" men "by a religious precept that" seems "to be contrary to the principle of gender equality" here, same damn thing, so they can once more use this arguement to tell them to follow code or the path to the door.


Example:
Sikh male applies for an acting job as a muslim extremist (knowing full well what the part was) in one of these post 9/11 films or shows, refuses to remove his turban and gets sacked, is this discrimination or an example of an individual insisting on the majority to do whatever needs be to suit them JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY?

impr0v

farohar wrote:

Just like sikhs when they CHOOSE to join the Gardaí. It's a choice, tough sh*t if they didn't look into it fully first.

No, not 'just like'. Firstly I doubt he would have joined up if it stated the prohibition in any contract he signed. If it did state it, the argument would have hit the airwaves before now. Secondly, it's a job with the state, which is obliged to abide by the constitution, arguably more than private bodies. Thirdly, it's choice he can't make if a prohibition on him practicing or professing his religion, possibly contrary to the constitution, exists. You aren't obliged by your faith, whatever that may be, to wear a hoodie and jeans to work.

farohar wrote:

The turban is "imposed on" men "by a religious precept that" seems "to be contrary to the principle of gender equality" here, same damn thing, so they can once more use this argument to tell them to follow code or the path to the door.

Possibly, but I don't think their reasoning will be that linear. Yes, the obligation is on males only, but I personally that think the angle from which the ECHR approached it owes much to the traditional model of gender inequality, i.e. males dominating females. A reverse inequality, if you like, would weigh less heavily in my opinion. The Islamic headscarf hides a females face, in line with male espoused values in a male-centric religion. Sikhism, and I'm no expert on it, is also male-centric, but the obligations regarding headdress are on males and only hide the hair. There's no question of the tradition arising from force exerted by the dominant sex, in line with values considered archaic by a proudly post-enlightenment Europe.

farohar wrote:

Example:
Sikh male applies for an acting job as a muslim extremist (knowing full well what the part was) in one of these post 9/11 films or shows, refuses to remove his turban and gets sacked, is this discrimination or an example of an individual insisting on the majority to do whatever needs be to suit them JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE A MINORITY?

Do you honestly think the above is an analogous situation? Do you think the casting director would note the actors insistence upon wearing his turban during his audition, and perhaps decide that he was consequently manifestly unsuitable to playing a Muslim extremest? It's a sophistic construction.

For the sake of argument I'll address it anyway. As before, obligations on the private and public sector are somewhat different as concerns the constitution. The situation you outline is one in which a ban would be justified, in line with the proportionality test which I outlined a number of posts ago. The actor manifestly can't fulfill the role while wearing the headdress and given that it's a very specific role, as opposed to acting generally, I don't think the courts would consider the decision to fire him unreasonable.

edit: typo

ScumLord

Don't Sikhs have extremely long hair (they never cut it) meaning they have to wear their turban thingy out of practicality as much as religious issues.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Let him wear a navy turban with a badge on it.

Now the worry here is that if say female Muslims wanted to join they'd insist on wearing headscarves. Which is also fine once it's simply a navy headscarve with a badge/logo & not a niqaab type thing. We could draw the line saying "garments must not impair vision or mobility of acting officer"


Someone mentioned wearing piercings but this would impair the ability of the copper as it's a target for someone in a scuffle. If it can be shown that Turbans or headscarves impair then I'd be happy to ban them.

Reku

impr0v wrote:

No, not 'just like'. Firstly I doubt he would have joined up if it stated the prohibition in any contract he signed. If it did state it, the argument would have hit the airwaves before now. Secondly, it's a job with the state, which is obliged to abide by the constitution, arguably more than private bodies. Thirdly, it's choice he can't make if a prohibition on him practicing or professing his religion, possibly contrary to the constitution, exists. You aren't obliged by your faith, whatever that may be, to wear a hoodie and jeans to work.

You aren't obliged by your faith to choose a specific profession either now are you. Religion is a matter of choice, not something beyond your control, as such a job which has requirements prior to your joining is not discriminating against you if your CHOICE of religion prevents you from adhering to the requirements of that job. If the requirements were to change after a person had joined then they would have a valid complaint.

impr0v wrote:

For the sake of argument I'll address it anyway. As before, obligations on the private and public sector are somewhat different as concerns the constitution. The situation you outline is one in which a ban would be justified, in line with the proportionality test which I outlined a number of posts ago. The actor manifestly can't fulfill the role while wearing the headdress and given that it's a very specific role, as opposed to acting generally, I don't think the courts would consider the decision to fire him unreasonable.

edit: typo

Fine, I demand equality, there should be wheelchair bound Gardaí performing beat patrols! Dwarves as prison officers! The age requirement for government jobs should also be removed, if a kid wants the job let them have it.
Just accept it, if a person is clearly unsuitable to a job due to the job's pre-established requirements they can't just hide behind the overly PC and scream discrimination.


What's next from you overly PC types, cries of discrimination because single denomination schools get the same government funding as their multidenominational counterparts?

ScumLord wrote:

Don't Sikhs have extremely long hair (they never cut it) meaning they have to wear their turban thingy out of practicality as much as religious issues.

And the beangardaí do what exactly? I've seen them with ponytails.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Let him wear a navy turban with a badge on it.

Now the worry here is that if say female Muslims wanted to join they'd insist on wearing headscarves. Which is also fine once it's simply a navy headscarve with a badge/logo & not a niqaab type thing. We could draw the line saying "garments must not impair vision or mobility of acting officer"


Someone mentioned wearing piercings but this would impair the ability of the copper as it's a target for someone in a scuffle. If it can be shown that Turbans or headscarves impair then I'd be happy to ban them.

And headwear which will require you to hide your head until you get another isn't an impairment in a fight?!?!?

Bottle_of_Smoke

farohar wrote:

And headwear which will require you to hide your head until you get another isn't an impairment in a fight?!?!?

I don't know for sure but I'd imagine neccessity would override obligation in the above situation

Reku

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

I don't know for sure but I'd imagine neccessity would override obligation in the above situation

Was sooo hoping someone would bite...:D
So it's ok to go without because of a fight, but not because it's a job requirement?:rolleyes:

InFront

Originally posted by seamus:
Allowing a person to wear their religious garb is discrimination. Plain and simple. Applying the same rule to all officers, regardless of religion, sex or any other basis is the fairest way of doing it because nobody gets treated differently.

By the way, the current Garda logo is a traditional Irish depiction of a Christian crucifix.

And it was suggested or implied a few times that Sikhs are Muslims. They're not, they're Sikhs.

tallus

I dont see anything christion about the logo, it looks Celtic yes, but I wouldn't say christian, I mean you could also say it resembles the jolly roger because it also has 4 corners in an X shape.

InFront

Tallus, it's a crucifix. I don't think you would seriously contest that?

I don't care that every police officer in the country wears it, I'm just trying to point out that a crucifix is a religious motto specific to Christians, and seamus's argument above, were he to stick to it, would in principle support granting the permission for wearing a turban.

Personally, I don't care if he wears a turban, I can't imagine how it actually effects anyone, or the quality of his work.

seamus

InFront wrote:

By the way, the current Garda logo is a traditional Irish depiction of a Christian crucifix.

That was its basis, but it no longer really implies christian beliefs. Much of Irish design is based upon the Irish artwork of the middle ages, which while christian in basis, no longer implies christian beliefs.

If the Garda logo specifically implied, "The Gardai are Christian", then I would agree with you.

tallus

InFront wrote:

Tallus, it's a crucifix. I don't think you would seriously contest that?

I don't care that every police officer in the country wears it, I'm just trying to point out that a crucifix is a religious motto specific to Christians, and seamus's argument above, were he to stick to it, would in principle support granting the permission for wearing a turban.

Personally, I don't care if he wears a turban, I can't imagine how it actually effects anyone, or the quality of his work.

A christian crucifix does not have equal horizantal and vertical length, so the argument doesn't hold water. The knights templar however, did have a cross of equal dimensions.
Personally, I think he should be wearing the same uniform as the rest of the force. I dont give a fiddlers **** what religion he is, and as stated on the radio today if he wants to do the community a service, there's more than one way to skin a cat.

humbert

InFront wrote:

Tallus, it's a crucifix. I don't think you would seriously contest that?

I don't care that every police officer in the country wears it, I'm just trying to point out that a crucifix is a religious motto specific to Christians, and seamus's argument above, were he to stick to it, would in principle support granting the permission for wearing a turban.

Personally, I don't care if he wears a turban, I can't imagine how it actually effects anyone, or the quality of his work.

It is a crucifix and is an anachronism from a more religious Ireland(or you could argue that it's simply traditional) but doesn't symbolise anything for today's guards wearing it. I think wearing religious paraphernalia isn't consistent with the idea of wearing a uniform in the first place and I think there is a good reason for guards to wear a uniform.