Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Snickers Man

daithifleming wrote:

Again, for the millionth time, this is not about being against immigration. I would oppose an Irish Catholic, whose roots can be traced back to the first human to set foot on this island, wearing a Catholic cross over his uniform.

Get that into your head.

It is absolutely about how we deal with the consequences of immigration. The gobsheen minister made that clear in his statement.

it is a given that people from overseas will come here as long as we have a successful economy. it's how we handle the implications that is at issue here.

Snickers Man

Wicknight wrote:

Again Snickers you are missing the entire point.


The objection is altering the uniform to suit the religious beliefs of one particular group in society. If you do that for one group you have to do it far all groups, no matter how big or small. .....

..This is nothing to do with the turban or the Sikhs. It has nothing to do with the practicalities of wearing a turban. It is to do with religious discrimination, and not opening the door to it.

Where in his statement did the minister in charge make any reference to the need to maintain a secular uniform? I actually think the secular argument is a valid one, but it is not the one the minister made. He basically said: "Do it our way or don't do it at all."

I personally think that this will be resolved by some sort of silly compromise involving a bandage or cloth of the right shade of blue with a garda crest that is not recognisable as a turban but which is very different from the current garda cap. The sort of thing that will be lampooned in later years.

These things breed reactions. why do white golfers dress like black pimps? Because of the "dress code" on most courses which forbids casual trousers.

So they keep to the letter of the law but infringe good taste and the original intention behind that law every day.

This is a really stupid issue over which to be getting into a fight with a perfectly law-abiding participative immigrant community. Keep the powder dry for more important issues.

Ekancone

Snickers Man wrote:

It is absolutely about how we deal with the consequences of immigration. The gobsheen minister made that clear in his statement.

it is a given that people from overseas will come here as long as we have a successful economy. it's how we handle the implications that is at issue here.

Agreed, i think even the government are making a mountain out of this debate, even they are turning it into a immigration issue. They should be just as opposed to a catholic Garda whose name is Wolfe Daniel O'Connell-Collins from wearing a catholic religious symbol over his/her uniform as they are opposed to a Sikh wearing a turban.

seamus

Snickers Man wrote:

it is a given that people from overseas will come here as long as we have a successful economy. it's how we handle the implications that is at issue here.

Agreed. And if we allow immigrants to segregate themselves based on faith and creed, then it only serves to limit integration. If we treat everyone equally, regardless of religious beliefs, then it promotes integration.

One feature that's pretty common in immigration is segregation. While this can largely be driven by socio-economic factors (such as the cost/availability of jobs & housing), it is also often driven by the immigrants themselves. This is natural - we all want to be comfortable. If you go to some event, for example, where there are a lot of people you've never met, but you bump into one person that you do know, you'll probably spend most of the rest of the day with them, even if you've never really known them that much beforehand. This occurs with immigrants too, but on a larger scale. This is what we need to combat to get better integration.

If we allow religious discrimination by immigrants, we are allowing them to unreasonably distinguish themselves, only creating more segregation.

Now, this is gone a little off-topic because ultimately this is not an immigration issue. As daithifleming says, it's doesn't matter if the Garda is from Dublin, Cork, Iran or Bangladesh - they are a Garda first and foremost and should not be aiming to separate themselves from the rest of the force.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Once again I find it bizarre that myself, as an atheist, is defending the idea of religious freedom from State interference, against theists who wish to narrowly define, and therefore restrict and box in, religious expression.

It's bizarre because it's ultimately not what you are doing. Catering for someones religious requirements is not something that should be taken lightly or compared to a football team of all things. There is no comparison whatsoever. We are going to have to go through other roadblocks in different elements of Irish society or even the police again with the hijab or other items of clothing. So why not cater for them all now instead of worrying what to do in the future? Surely that seems the practical thing to do.

Boxing in religious expression? I said the Census was a good guideline but other faith groups should also be catered for if they wish to be. Actually I think denying the Sikh applicant to the Garda reserve his turban is restricting religious expression.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

The objection is altering the uniform to suit the religious beliefs of one particular group in society. If you do that for one group you have to do it far all groups, no matter how big or small. And then you no longer have a uniform, so this clearly isn't practical so at some point you have start saying "NO! You cannot change that" And then you are discriminating against Garda based on religion. Both yourself and Jakkass seem to be constantly ignoring that fact, or claiming common sense will work that out. That is religious discrimination, and is unacceptable in a secular State.

Let the Gardaí review their situation taking all religious creeds into account. Or even a period to let the relevant church bodies discuss what is obligatory and put it forward to the Gardaí if they have any items to put forward for a reformed uniform. I don't see that as discrimination. As for "unacceptable in a secular State", it's becoming too secular for my liking with this move. It's akin to what France did with the education system.

philologos

Boggle wrote:

Why is that? Why can a state not be run on reason instead of faith? Reason allows any person to follow his own religion. Reason also prevents a public servant from publicly endorsing a faith. Like I said before, I don't care what religion a garda is, I just don't want to have to know.
(I want one garda in uniform to be the same as the next garda in the same uniform - be he male, female, black, white, asian, muslim, catholic, Sikh, etc...)

Because people will always be faithful and they will always vote in terms of their own moral beliefs (usually religion contributes to those). Even politicians with religious beliefs will be guided by them at times. That is why I say State and faith can't be seperated totally.

Boggle wrote:

The church used to run Ireland too - is that really the kind of mindset you want to go back to? And seriously, why should we insist on copying a failing democracy? Next you'll want a system where you dare not get sick without health insurance and where the insurance companies will effectively seek out any reason not to pay you even if you can get that insurance!! (See Sicko if you want an opinion of how that good christian country treats its people!)

That isn't the church running the country. Thats people grouping together from different groups to influence the vote in a larger way than they could have done previously. Note, how I said it wasn't the best example. But people will always vote according to beliefs and values.

Boggle wrote:

How would you take it if a Rastafarian garda, who was possibly permitted the use of smoke on religious ground, busted you for doing it on recreational grounds? Do we just throw open the floodgates and let people make up their own rules or do we democratically (ish) legislate and then follow this legislation with zero bias towards any group?

Not that I would ever, but it's a rediculous notion. He'd basically be under the influence on the job. Surely you could get out with that assumption, that the Garda himself was stoned on the job. Also thanks to the glories of wikipedia, I found this out.

Wikipedia wrote:

While there is a clear belief in the beneficial qualities of cannabis, it is not compulsory to use it, and there are Rastas who do not do so.

So if it's not obligatory, they can do without it, and they aren't violating their faith by doing so obviously. Good point though Boggle.

Boggle wrote:

That is what it says. Changing the uniform to suit a particular faith, without accomodating all possible faiths (both present, past and future) is therefore unconstitutional. And this is the crux of the pint which has never been addressed in this thread.

I've suggested that all obligatory items of all faiths should be considered for adaption to the Garda uniform.
[quote=
So if you incorporate that one sentence into the constitution you feel that the problem will be averted? How do you prevent this from being abused going forward?[/quote]
I've suggested in another post that the relevant churches declare obligatory items with scriptural reference from their books to be considered for modifying to the uniform.

Boggle wrote:

Would you oppose evolution being taught in school???

No.

seamus

Jakkass wrote:

So why not cater for them all now instead of worrying what to do in the future? Surely that seems the practical thing to do.

You're still pretty much ignoring the fundamental point here - how in God's name do you cater for the thousands of religious beliefs and their thousands of individual sects and variations? It's ridiculously unpractical. The fairest and most practical solution is set one rule for everyone, and stick to it. It's completely future proof. Allowing religious garb to be worn with the uniform is the least future proof and most impractical thing you could possibly do.

Actually I think denying the Sikh applicant to the Garda reserve his turban is restricting religious expression.

How? He's still entitled to say he's a Sikh. He's still entitled to his belief. Nobody has told him he can't be a Sikh. He has chosen to be a Sikh, thereby excluding himself from all professions & activities where a turban would be impossible to wear - including driving a motorbike, working on a building site, perhaps playing GAA, you can no longer do certain contact sports without wearing a padded headgear. I suppose all of these professions/activities are denying him the right to express his faith too?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It's bizarre because it's ultimately not what you are doing. Catering for someones religious requirements is not something that should be taken lightly or compared to a football team of all things.

Says you. But then that is the whole point.

It isn't up to you, it is up to the person who actually believes what they believe. It is not your place to tell them that what they believe isn't worthy enough, that they don't believe something as much as you do.

What right do you have, or what right does the State have, to tell someone that what they believe in isn't important enough to warrant the special treatment that another person gets?

On what grounds do you say that belief X is actually mandatory and special, but belief Y isn't so can be ignored and marginalized?

That goes against the very principles of freedom of religion and belief. It goes against the very principles of equality and secularism.

What would you say if the Irish State said that they recognized Christianity, Islam and Judaism as proper religions but everything else is clearly nonsense and therefore would not be entertained at all?

Jakkass wrote:

We are going to have to go through other roadblocks in different elements of Irish society or even the police again with the hijab or other items of clothing. So why not cater for them all now instead of worrying what to do in the future? Surely that seems the practical thing to do.

How is catering for all beliefs practical for the Guards to do?

As I've asked you about a 100 times already do you have any idea how many beliefs are actually out there?

How can the Garda possibly allow everyone to where what every they want as part of the Garda "uniform".

And if you don't (you couldn't possibly and still retain any idea of a uniform) then on what possibly grounds do you say that one belief is more worthy or inclusion than another belief?

If someone says "I do not believe wearing blue is a healthy colour, it attracts bad energy and spirits and is unlucky" is that any more or less of a worthy belief than saying "I cannot cut my hair for religious reasons so I must wear a turban"?

Do you let the first person wear a red uniform? Do let the next person wear a uniform with a different logo because the logo conflicts with their beliefs? Do you let the next person refuse to get into a police car because it conflicts with their beliefs?

Jakkass wrote:

Boxing in religious expression? I said the Census was a good guideline but other faith groups should also be catered for if they wish to be.

A guideline is irrelevant. As soon as you reject a proposal based on personal belief, no matter what the belief is, you are discriminating. Saying "Well there is only 4 of you guys, so we are going to ignore you" doesn't change that fact.

Jakkass wrote:

Actually I think denying the Sikh applicant to the Garda reserve his turban is restricting religious expression.

Well that is because you don't understand what we are talking about.

How can the Guards possible cater for all beliefs. All of them, no matter what they are?

Explain that to me and you might have a point. Other than that you seem, as Seamus points out, to be just taking one position without making any attempts to think it through in any practical terms. Its all very well saying that the Garda should cater to all beliefs, but explain how that is in any way possible.

Fratton Fred

The minister has basically said we are Irish and you do it our way. Which is fine, but not exactly a welcoming statement to immigrants or people of differing religious beliefs. Allowing Sikh Gards to wear turbans is much more accomodating and shows Ireland to be a country which recognises and accepts cultural and religious differences, in line, I believe, with the constitution.

This will all end up with the European court of huan rights who will find in favour of the Sikhs and cause even more of a stir than it has done.

The minister has handled this very badly imho.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Ekancone

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Obviously he didnt. :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

A lot of it, yes, but I admit to having skipped a lot.

I have given my opinion, what's the problem.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

The minister has basically said we are Irish and you do it our way. Which is fine, but not exactly a welcoming statement to immigrants or people of differing religious beliefs.

The constitution isn't supposed to be "welcoming"

It is about equality, its not about making one particular religion feel better. That was the point of removing specific mentions of certain religions from the Constitution in 1972. If it was about making particular religions feel better we would probably still have the special relationship going on

Fratton Fred wrote:

Allowing Sikh Gards to wear turbans is much more accomodating and shows Ireland to be a country which recognises and accepts cultural and religious differences, in line, I believe, with the constitution.

You need to read the constitution then.

Article 44.2

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

The point of these is to make sure the State remains secular and that it recongises all religions and beliefs equally.

The State should not make specific exceptions for certain religions or beliefs and not for others. Since no one has been able to explain how the Garda could possibly accommodate every single belief out there I think we can all agree that accommodating everyone isn't an option, it would go against the very point of a uniform if everyone could just wear what they wished.

Fratton Fred wrote:

This will all end up with the European court of huan rights who will find in favour of the Sikhs and cause even more of a stir than it has done.

Actually it is the other way around.

If the Garda allowed this every other religion or person with any particular belief could claim that they are being unfairly discriminated against by the Guards because they cannot wear their burka/knife/jedi robe/crystal pendent while being a member of the Guards (though this isn't a case for the ECHR as it falls well within our current discrimination laws).

Any State that properly implements separation of church and state, properly implements secularism, implements it in this fashion, because it is the only fair yet practical way of doing it.

Dave!

Fratton Fred wrote:

A lot of it, yes, but I admit to having skipped a lot.

I have given my opinion, what's the problem.

It's just that that point has been addressed already... If you accomodate Sikhs, then it sets a precedent and you have to accomodate every belief system (organised or not) -- unless you draw a line somewhere, and that would constitute discrimination. How are you supposed to reconcile that? You have to either allow everybody to express their religious beliefs, or else nobody. Anything else is discrimination.

That's the main point that's been made repeatedly.

edit: Jedi robe, lol

Zombrex

DaveMcG wrote:

edit: Jedi robe, lol

What you laughing at, they are cool

http://www.degraeve.com/jedirobe/

Ekancone

DaveMcG wrote:

It's just that that point has been addressed already... If you accomodate Sikhs, then it sets a precedent and you have to accomodate every belief system (organised or not) -- unless you draw a line somewhere, and that would constitute discrimination. How are you supposed to reconcile that? You have to either allow everybody to express their religious beliefs, or else nobody. Anything else is discrimination.

That's the main point that's been made repeatedly.

edit: Jedi robe, lol

That point has been made at least thirty times, and we have yet to recieve a sufficient argument regarding this.

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

The constitution isn't supposed to be "welcoming"

It is about equality, its not about making one particular religion feel better. That was the point of removing specific mentions of certain religions from the Constitution in 1972. If it was about making particular religions feel better we would probably still have the special relationship going on

It was the Ministers decision that I was commenting on, not the constitution.

Wicknight wrote:

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

unless you are a Sikh who wants to join the Gards.

Wicknight wrote:

The point of these is to make sure the State remains secular and that it recongises all religions and beliefs equally.

The State should not make specific exceptions for certain religions.

I'll tell you what, lets settle this over a beer. Good Friday suit you?;)

Wicknight wrote:

Actually it is the other way around.

If the Garda allowed this every other religion or person with any particular belief could claim that they are being unfairly discriminated against by the Guards because they cannot wear their burka/knife/jedi robe/crystal pendent while being a member of the Guards (though this isn't a case for the ECHR as it falls well within our current discrimination laws).

Any State that properly implements separation of church and state, properly implements secularism, implements it in this fashion, because it is the only fair yet practical way of doing it.

I've seen Muslims take organisations, particularly schools, to the ECHR for not allowing girls to wear trousers to School. What's the difference.

Fratton Fred

DaveMcG wrote:

It's just that that point has been addressed already... If you accomodate Sikhs, then it sets a precedent and you have to accomodate every belief system (organised or not) -- unless you draw a line somewhere, and that would constitute discrimination. How are you supposed to reconcile that? You have to either allow everybody to express their religious beliefs, or else nobody. Anything else is discrimination.

That's the main point that's been made repeatedly.

edit: Jedi robe, lol

so because a point has been made, several times, that I don't agree with, I can't comment.:rolleyes:

You can reconcile that and it has been proven it London and New York that it works.

Using Jedi knights as an arguement are poor, as is the cannabis one. Sikhism is an internationally recognised faith and culture and to be a "Baptised" Sikh, you wear a turban. Jedi knights are not an internationally recognised religion (yet) and they have no dress code that would prevent them from joining a Police force. Rastafarians are not obliged to smoke cannabis, it is part of their culture but not a mandatory part of their religion.

A female muslim who wears a Burkha would not join the Gards and I believe there are acceptable uniforms where a head scarf can be worn as well as a helmet.

Ekancone

Fratton Fred wrote:

so because a point has been made, several times, that I don't agree with, I can't comment.:rolleyes:

You can reconcile that and it has been proven it London and New York that it works.

Using Jedi knights as an arguement are poor, as is the cannabis one. Sikhism is an internationally recognised faith and culture and to be a "Baptised" Sikh, you wear a turban. Jedi knights are not an internationally recognised religion (yet) and they have no dress code that would prevent them from joining a Police force. Rastafarians are not obliged to smoke cannabis, it is part of their culture but not a mandatory part of their religion.

A female muslim who wears a Burkha would not join the Gards and I believe there are acceptable uniforms where a head scarf can be worn as well as a helmet.

So you believe that a Sikh/Christians private beliefs are more important that another persons private beliefs (Such as a small 'unrecognised' relgion, which is totally discriminatory). Why?

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

It was the Ministers decision that I was commenting on, not the constitution.

Apologies, read that wrong. But the point stands, secularism in general, either represented by the constitution or the Minister, is not supposed to be welcoming. Often particular religions don't view secularism as a good thing at all. Die hard Catholics resented the removal of the special position of the Catholic Church in 1973, and I'm sure the Sikhs are not happy about this.

Fratton Fred wrote:

unless you are a Sikh who wants to join the Gards.

No one is being stopped from joining the Guards based on religion.

A Sikh or anyone else for the matter can join the Garda Reserves.

They are simply not getting a special version of the uniform just for them. If I joined the Garda tomorrow I wouldn't get a special version of the uniform just for me either.

Fratton Fred wrote:

I'll tell you what, lets settle this over a beer. Good Friday suit you?;)

Depends on how hot and female you are ... of course after a few beers both those factors become less important :eek:

Fratton Fred wrote:

I've seen Muslims take organisations, particularly schools, to the ECHR for not allowing girls to wear trousers to School. What's the difference.

The difference is that Irish discrimination law is in line with Europen Law over this matter. As I said no one is being stopped from joining the Guards based on their religion. The Sikhs are stopping themselves by refusing to wear the standard Garda uniform.

The Sikhs are saying "We are not going to wear this" and the Guards are say "Ok, but then you can't join the Garda"

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

You can reconcile that and it has been proven it London and New York that it works.

What has been proven to work?

Fratton Fred wrote:

Using Jedi knights as an arguement are poor, as is the cannabis one. Sikhism is an internationally recognised faith and culture and to be a "Baptised" Sikh, you wear a turban. Jedi knights are not an internationally recognised religion (yet) and they have no dress code that would prevent them from joining a Police force. Rastafarians are not obliged to smoke cannabis, it is part of their culture but not a mandatory part of their religion.

God, one wonders who many times this has to be said.

What you have just described is discrimination based on religion, exactly the type of thinking our constitution was amended to protect people against.

Your religion isn't international recognized (recognized by who exactly, there is a standards committee now?), then you are out of luck. We will now discriminate against you. Whats that, we let the Sikhs have a special version of the uniform, but not you? Well they are recognized (by this mysterious international body), so that is tough on you. Your personal beliefs do not matter because there is not enough of you who share them. Cry me a river.

Seriously, do people honestly not get the problem with that???

You are advocating religious discrimination, but you seem to be rather ridiculously saying that it is ok so long as the religion is small then no one will care.

Fratton Fred wrote:

A female muslim who wears a Burkha would not join the Gards

Don't be ridiculous, you cannot possibly know that.

Fratton Fred wrote:

and I believe there are acceptable uniforms where a head scarf can be worn as well as a helmet.

Acceptable to whom? You? The Sikhs?

Fratton Fred

daithifleming wrote:

So you believe that a Sikh/Christians private beliefs are more important that another persons private beliefs (Such as a small 'unrecognised' relgion, which is totally discriminatory). Why?

That's not what I'm saying. A Turban is not a symbol (said before I know) it is an important part of the Sikh religion. Show me another religion that would want an important part of their religion worn as part of a uniform and we can discuss it.

Ekancone

Fratton Fred wrote:

That's not what I'm saying. A Turban is not a symbol (said before I know) it is an important part of the Sikh religion. Show me another religion that would want an important part of their religion worn as part of a uniform and we can discuss it.

No, lets go back to your comment about recognised religions. You seem to think that unless this 'council' recognises a religion then that persons private beliefs are not of any importance. Why?

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

The difference is that Irish discrimination law is in line with Europen Law over this matter. As I said no one is being stopped from joining the Guards based on their religion. The Sikhs are stopping themselves by refusing to wear the standard Garda uniform.

The Sikhs are saying "We are not going to wear this" and the Guards are say "Ok, but then you can't join the Garda"

The Garda uniform requires a Sikh to choose between the force and their religion. It is not a case of "We don't want to" it's a case of "We can't wear that, can you make a change to accomodate us". They are not insisting the uniform be changed, thay are asking for a reasonable concession.

If you join and want to wer a turban, then you have that choice as well.

Besides all the arguements, the Gards are excluding a sector of the community and may well be missing out on the chance to recruit some first class Gards.

Fratton Fred

Wicknight wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, you cannot possibly know that.

I should have said Probably. the Burkha is a very strong statement of very strict Islamic beliefs. Generally women who wear a Burkha would follow those beliefs to the point of not working, not leaving the house without a male relative etc.

Ekancone

Fratton Fred wrote:

The Garda uniform requires a Sikh to choose between the force and their religion. It is not a case of "We don't want to" it's a case of "We can't wear that, can you make a change to accomodate us". They are not insisting the uniform be changed, thay are asking for a reasonable concession.

If you join and want to wer a turban, then you have that choice as well.

Besides all the arguements, the Gards are excluding a sector of the community and may well be missing out on the chance to recruit some first class Gards.

But there are cases of Sikhs wearing smaller turbans so they can fit a motorcycle helmet on or a cricket helmet, etc. The Garda have no problem with this, but there is no compromise from this guy. Where do you draw the line? Im sure every Sikh in the world has his own personal take on Sikhism, should all of these single beliefs be accomodated somehow? Thats just ridiculous.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

Show me another religion that would want an important part of their religion worn as part of a uniform and we can discuss it.

Saying "It won't happen" is ridiculous. You cannot possible know what will or won't happen in the future.

Can you guarantee that no one after the Sikhs will ever wish to have the Garda uniform changed for reasons of person belief. This won't happen in a year, 5 years, 10 years 50 years, 200 years?

20 years ago if you asked someone what is the likelihood of a Sikh's wishing to change the Garda uniform you would have go "quite unlikely" after the person had picked themselves up of the floor from laughing so hard.

Fratton Fred wrote:

The Garda uniform requires a Sikh to choose between the force and their religion.

Everyone has to choose to wear the Garda uniform or not wear the Garda uniform as part of joining the Guard. Why someone would choose not to wear the uniform is up to them, but I don't see why one reason is of any greater significance than any other reason.

Your argument reminds me of when the Catholics tried to get Jerry Springer The Opera banned from TV. When it was pointed out to them that they didn't actually have to watch the show if they didn't like it the predictable response was "Why should I have to stop watching TV, they shouldn't broadcast it in the first place"

Fratton Fred wrote:

It is not a case of "We don't want to"

That is exactly what it is a case of. The Garda have said that all the men can continue in the reserves if they wish, but they have to wear the same uniform as everyone else. The men have said that they do not want to wear that uniform, because of religious reason. As I ask above, why is that reason of any greater significance than any other reason someone would refuse to wear the uniform?

Fratton Fred wrote:

it's a case of "We can't wear that, can you make a change to accomodate us".

And the answer is "No, we can't, because if we do we have to accommodate everyone, which isn't practical"

Fratton Fred wrote:

They are not insisting the uniform be changed, thay are asking for a reasonable concession.

Actually "they" are insisting the uniform be changed, and they are calling the Gardai racist for not agreeing.

Fratton Fred wrote:

If you join and want to wer a turban, then you have that choice as well.

And if you want to join and wear the red version of the uniform? Of the Jedi Knight version of the uniform?

Fratton Fred wrote:

Besides all the arguements, the Gards are excluding a sector of the community and may well be missing out on the chance to recruit some first class Gards.

They are excluding themselves. The Gardai have said they can continue on any time they want.

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

I should have said Probably.

A country isn't run on "probably"

Fratton Fred wrote:

Generally women who wear a Burkha would follow those beliefs to the point of not working, not leaving the house without a male relative etc.

Again, a country is not run on "generally"

bill_ashmount

Fratton Fred wrote:

The minister has basically said we are Irish and you do it our way. Which is fine, but not exactly a welcoming statement to immigrants or people of differing religious beliefs. Allowing Sikh Gards to wear turbans is much more accomodating and shows Ireland to be a country which recognises and accepts cultural and religious differences, in line, I believe, with the constitution.

This will all end up with the European court of huan rights who will find in favour of the Sikhs and cause even more of a stir than it has done.

The minister has handled this very badly imho.

Are you for real? Have you even read the thread?
European Court of human rights :rolleyes: