Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

philologos

Boggle wrote:

Would you propose to change our constitution to give preference to one religion over another. How about to accomodate each and every religion specifically?

I'd propose to change our constitution to recognise all obligatory requirements of recognised faiths. Such as the hijab, turbans, kippahs etc. So yes accommodating all recognised faiths would be a good idea.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

I'd propose to change our constitution to recognise all obligatory requirements of recognised faiths. Such as the hijab, turbans, kippahs etc. So yes accommodating all recognised faiths would be a good idea.

So you want to divide our armed forces along religious lines then? Hmm, good idea. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I'd propose to change our constitution to recognise all obligatory requirements of recognised faiths. Such as the hijab, turbans, kippahs etc. So yes accommodating all recognised faiths would be a good idea.

Recognized by who and under what criteria? Are you going to pick what is or is not a religion? Because so far, as sleepy points out, you aren't going a very good job.

There are between 20 and 30 major religions in the world, depending on how you define them. 30 variations of the Garda uniform is unworkable. And that is before you get into individual sects within the religion (ie "Christianity" is a group in that 30). There are probably thousands of minor religions, with hundreds appearing each year.

Are you honestly suggesting that we have thousands of variations of Garda uniform, with this constantly changing as new religions are formed each year?

donaghs

Jakkass wrote:

I'd propose to change our constitution to recognise all obligatory requirements of recognised faiths. Such as the hijab, turbans, kippahs etc. So yes accommodating all recognised faiths would be a good idea.

Ha Ha! Now that is a recipe for chaos!

Inevitably with religion someones going to say, "I don't like the way you do things, its a fundamental part of my beliefs, so change it to my way".

Then further along the road, "my religion says what you're doing is wrong, change your ways or die".

Its happened in the past, and it will keep happening again and again.

Sleepy

Jakkass wrote:

I'd propose to change our constitution to recognise all obligatory requirements of recognised faiths. Such as the hijab, turbans, kippahs etc. So yes accommodating all recognised faiths would be a good idea.

As Wicknight pointed out, recognised by who?

And do you honestly believe that allowing people to wear a hijab, sacremonial dagger, burkah or whatever wouldn't effect that person's ability to do their job as a guard or soldier?

Do you consider it discrimnatory that our armed forces (even the RDF) have regulations on soldier's haircuts? Surely this would also prevent a Sikh from joining those forces as they're "forbidden" to cut their hair?

Incidently, I noticed you ignored my point that all religious beliefs are choices, regardless of the creed you claim to profess.

seamus

Jakkass wrote:

I'd propose to change our constitution to recognise all obligatory requirements of recognised faiths. Such as the hijab, turbans, kippahs etc. So yes accommodating all recognised faiths would be a good idea.

Good practice would suggest that constitutions and laws are concise and general, not broad and specific - while the former allows for interpretation, the latter leads to thousands of loopholes and widespread discrimination.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

As Wicknight pointed out, recognised by who?

And do you honestly believe that allowing people to wear a hijab, sacremonial dagger, burkah or whatever wouldn't effect that person's ability to do their job as a guard or soldier?

Do you consider it discrimnatory that our armed forces (even the RDF) have regulations on soldier's haircuts? Surely this would also prevent a Sikh from joining those forces as they're "forbidden" to cut their hair?

Burqas aren't obligatory. And recognised means by the State, on reaching a certain amount of adherents.

As for the armed forces. UN Sikh troops have worn turbans so I don't see it to be an issue, that should be changed also.

donaghs

Jakkass wrote:

Burqas aren't obligatory.QUOTE]

You still don't get it. Some Muslims make Burqas obligatory. Religions themselves are full of internal squabbles about what constitutues the "true" verision of the particular creed. The confusion and conflicts that would arise from what you propose are endless.

Sleepy

Jakkass wrote:

Burqas aren't obligatory. And recognised means by the State, on reaching a certain amount of adherents.

How many adherants?
Are we talking world wide or just within that country?
If the numbers of adherrants dwindles does that religion no longer get recognised?
If the numbers of, say, rastafarians rises high enough should that be recognised as a 'proper' religion should they be allowed smoke weed?

You still haven't addressed the point that at the end of the day, religious beliefs are choices. Choices have opportunity costs and if you choose to believe in something which requires that you adhere to codes of dress or behaviour you must accept that joining other groups which have defined codes of dress or behaviour is the opportunity cost of that choice.

Boggle

JACKASS wrote:

And recognised means by the State, on reaching a certain amount of adherents.

Basically what you are saying is that an individuals beliefs are irrelevent as long as the lobby groups are all looked after!! That is quite selfish and wrong! What right has anyone got to tell you what you do or do not believe?
Either a man is constitutionally entitled to practice ANY religion or belief or he should be entitled to practice none. There is no middle ground on the matter! (unless you want to scrap social equality altogether??)

JACKASS wrote:

UN Sikh troops have worn turbans

Again, you keep providing other references where it happens without examining the consequences. You used an example of england earlier in the thread and I told you of my experience living in England and exactly why I think your wrong.
Do you intend on supporting your first reference or are you going to keep jumping from one reference to the next until you find one people can't comment on??

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

Burqas aren't obligatory. And recognised means by the State, on reaching a certain amount of adherents.

As for the armed forces. UN Sikh troops have worn turbans so I don't see it to be an issue, that should be changed also.

And what might these "adherents" or criteria be exactly? Who the hell are you (or indeed the state) to say who's personal beliefs are more important than others'?

Your own religion maybe have the benefit of antiquity behind it to give it some mystical credence, but it warrants no more respect than Scientology.

cushtac

Jakkass wrote:

UN Sikh troops have worn turbans

Not surprising, given that India & Pakistan both contribute to UN missions. But unless they were Irish troops it has no bearing on this case.

StupidLikeAFox

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhcweyqlsnoj/

“In March 2006, the Garda Commissioner established a group to examine the issues relating to integration of religious and ethnic minorities into An Garda Síochána and the development of appropriate supports,”

Here is the link to a statement from the Garda press office today. IMO spot on. Also nice to see that they saw this coming, had the foresight to have studies done in advance and meetings with the Equality Authority and different organisations


As one columnist in the Indo pointed out today, nothing should single out one guardas different to any other guard, ie no crucifix, turban, liverpool jersey etc, and the simple reason is this. When someone walks into a station they should have the impression and understanding that they are dealing with a GARDA only, not a garda/sikh, not a garda/christian, not a garda/liverpool supporter etc.

InFront

How can that be the argument?

I mean I can understand the argument that there's a set uniform, and that you don't have to wear it if you don't like it, and that you can't just change it... but the argument that one's person ought not reflect their religious character for fear of diminishing a member of the public's "impression"? That makes no sense.
What if a Middle Eastern police officer grows a beard in the classical Muslim tradition (low cut, long beard no moustache), should that be banned for secularism? What if some church requires its members to shave their eyebrows and grow cat whiskers? Should that be banned for upholding a member of the public's "impression"?

I really think that religion or secularism doesn't come into this. It's about the set uniform, and what the rulebook says.

fly_agaric

mickoneill30 wrote:

Good to see the Greens are hopping on the bandwagon.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/green-party-calls-on-gardai-to-rethink-its-ban-on-sikh-turban-1063475.html

I contact them about trying to speed up the DOT to get some bus routes approved and get blank looks. A sikh wants to wear a turban as part of his uniform and it's priority number one. How is this a green issue? Is a turban more environmentally friendly than a Garda hat.

hahaha - It's a trendy issue dontchaknow. That seems to be the main thing for the little píssant hang-on-FF's-coattails parties in this country (such the Greens and the PeeDees!):)

edit: the environment - who cares about that when we can be the....Turban Crusaders! Trendy Religious Minority Rights Superheros!:)

irish_bob

the greens have probabley damaged thier chances of increasing thier dail representation at the next general election , with ciaran cuffes wooly headed comment as regards this nothing story

if our police force decides to give in to the sigh,s and the pc brigade on this one , then its only a matter of time before jackie healey rae is demanding that gardai from kerry are allowed wear a P cap

it annoys me how some seem to think that thier is a greater onus on us to change our ways so as to make immigrants feel more at home than thier is an onus on immigrants to adapt to irish customs in order for the irish people feel more comfortable , when i am invited to someones house , i conform to and respect thier house rules
if a sigh says he cannot not wear his turban , then thats his problem
his plight should be given no more creedance than a devour catholic who wishes to have a candle burning on the window sill of the local garda station
a uniform is what it is , a uniform , a code of dress that is not meant to be individually interpreted , uniforms are part of the culture at many places of business , if you got a job working as a flight attendant at aer lingus , you would not show up wearing the blue of ryanair
if we bend on this one , then every single little issue surrounding how this countrys institutions opperate will be fair game for tinkering with
we must not indulge the sigh community on this one because is we do we will only encourage other minoritys who are much more contrary and hungry for conflict when it comes to culture clashes like this
martina devlin wrote an excellent piece on this issue in todays irish independant, shes not a right winger like kevin myeres so my advice is READ WITHOUT PREJUDICE

saabi

jimmychin wrote:

religion is outdated.

i'm a 'new age' sikh -

i drink, i smoke, i cut my hair

but i still have faith

I have no problems with you beliefs, but are you sure your a sikh??

philologos

ColHol wrote:

As one columnist in the Indo pointed out today, nothing should single out one guardas different to any other guard, ie no crucifix, turban, liverpool jersey etc, and the simple reason is this. When someone walks into a station they should have the impression and understanding that they are dealing with a GARDA only, not a garda/sikh, not a garda/christian, not a garda/liverpool supporter etc.

Hm thats an interesting take on it. For any of you watching Prime Time tonight, I thought what the Sikh guy said was rather notable. A police force is intended to represent the society that it is protecting, therefore it should reflect the cultural differences of those people. I think the turban should be allowed to reflect the cultural and religious differences of the Sikh way of life. I'd recommend similar measures in terms of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other recognised faiths in Ireland.

walt0r

Has to be a piss take. Not even going to read the replies, just looked at the original poster. Basically, they must be ****ing mental if they think we'll allow them wear their nappies on their heads.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

Hm thats an interesting take on it. For any of you watching Prime Time tonight, I thought what the Sikh guy said was rather notable. A police force is intended to represent the society that it is protecting, therefore it should reflect the cultural differences of those people. I think the turban should be allowed to reflect the cultural and religious differences of the Sikh way of life. I'd recommend similar measures in terms of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other recognised faiths in Ireland.

So Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all more important and warrant more respect than Scientology, or Satanism, or Rastafarianism? Why?

bill_ashmount

Jakkass wrote:

Hm thats an interesting take on it. For any of you watching Prime Time tonight, I thought what the Sikh guy said was rather notable. A police force is intended to represent the society that it is protecting, therefore it should reflect the cultural differences of those people. I think the turban should be allowed to reflect the cultural and religious differences of the Sikh way of life. I'd recommend similar measures in terms of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other recognised faiths in Ireland.

I only caught the last 10 minutes but I thought he was an absolute disgrace going on about been denied the right to practice religion. :rolleyes:

On the point about representing the societies they represent, that can be done within the confines of the Gardai as they are now. He is completely trying to cloud the issue. I'll need to watch it again before I comment further.

One last point, I don't know who this guy from the London Metropolitan Police is, but it surely isn't his place to start telling the Gardai that they are wrong. Then he started on about wearing a kilt and going to burns nights and supporting Glasgow Rangers.....Well done, but again it has nothing to do with the issue. I think they are just afraid to debate the issue and are more interested in bullying people into submission. I'm very surprised that the London Metropolitan Police allowed him to talk in that manner, let him come on and say what is done in England, but don't try and impose his own personal solution on another countries police force.

philologos

DaveMcG wrote:

So Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all more important and warrant more respect than Scientology, or Satanism, or Rastafarianism? Why?

No they are the most prominent, note I said and other recognised faiths. There is possibly a case that Scientology, Satanism, and Rastafarism would also be considered.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

No they are the most prominent, note I said and other recognised faiths. There is possibly a case that Scientology, Satanism, and Rastafarism would also be considered.

Nice of you to concede that they deserve respect also!

But what I was getting at is, you did say "and other recognised faiths" -- and I'm wondering where you'd draw the line. There are all sorts of crazy religions around the world, why would you object to ANY religion being accomodated?

Or to go a bit further, why would anybody's personal beliefs whatsoever not be accomodated? Perhaps pacifists or consciencious objectors should be granted permission not to take part in crowd control? Or maybe they shouldn't be required to restrain a uncompliant or violent suspect?

Conar

Firstly a definite NO from me.
Secular is secular and any changes make it secular no longer.

Jakkass wrote:

No they are the most prominent, note I said and other recognised faiths. There is possibly a case that Scientology, Satanism, and Rastafarism would also be considered.

So Jackass if the turban was allowed and therefore all religious changes accomodated in future would you mind a Garda wearing an inverted cross or pentagram (Satanist/witchcraft symbols).
I assume from your comment above that you would, and I think legally the Garda would have to allow it due to the precedence of the turban.

How do you think that would go down with the public?

Would the Rastafari be allowed skin up on duty?

Should the various religions be allowed go off duty during prayer times?

Would we then say that only most religions should be given conscessions?
Which ones?

I know these examples seem far fetched but as people have already tried to explain once you create a loophole in our legal system it is simply open to exploitation.

The only way it can work, as so often suggested by others here, is in a secular manner.
No preferential treatment for any religion IMHO.

Boggle

Jackass wrote:

A police force is intended to represent the society that it is protecting, therefore it should reflect the cultural differences of those people

WRONG. A police force represents equality and justice for all and has nothing to do with religion or who it represents - after all the police force represents nobody but the law.

Him again wrote:

I think the turban should be allowed to reflect the cultural and religious differences of the Sikh way of life.

no it shouldn't. remember, if I come to the station for help, I want help and not a priest...

Jackass wrote:

o they are the most prominent, note I said and other recognised faiths. There is possibly a case that Scientology, Satanism, and Rastafarism would also be considered.

Right, I asked you a direct question on this before so please reply or stop waffling. You are really starting to annoy me as you clearly haven't a leg to stand on and are approaching the stance of a radical in that you reckon your right cos you said so - even though you haven't got a clue what ur on about. I challenge you to prove me wrong ( or at least argue the point) and answer my questions - in fact I hope you do in the spirit of debate!!!!

I'll most likely get some abuse for this but I can't stand others forcing their opinions without actually having one...

Spyral

when i can wear my swastica with a gardai uniform then they can

additonally its a UNIFORM its not racist if everyone has to do it..

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

Hm thats an interesting take on it. For any of you watching Prime Time tonight, I thought what the Sikh guy said was rather notable. A police force is intended to represent the society that it is protecting, therefore it should reflect the cultural differences of those people. I think the turban should be allowed to reflect the cultural and religious differences of the Sikh way of life. I'd recommend similar measures in terms of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and other recognised faiths in Ireland.

No its not, a Garda's job is to enforce the law, full stop. What if a Muslim (one who strictly follows the Koran) Garda saw a husband hitting his wife across the street? He coould possibly think two things:

a) It is my belief that sometimes disiciplining your wife is neccesary, i will not do anything to stop this.

b) I am a Garda Siochana, and it is my job to stop this assault, irrespective of my beliefs.

Which option he takes depends on how the institutions of this country work, do we expect our Garda do use their private beliefs to govern their duty? Or do we expect them to all follow the same code, no matter what their private beliefs are?

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

No they are the most prominent, note I said and other recognised faiths. There is possibly a case that Scientology, Satanism, and Rastafarism would also be considered.

No, there will definitely be a case of a satanist being allowed to wear a pentagram over his Garda uniform if this guy is allowed to wear a turban. If they dont allow this they are breaking constitutional law.

Article 44 of the constitution prohibits this.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Burqas aren't obligatory. And recognised means by the State, on reaching a certain amount of adherents.

That doesn't make any sense. How does the number of people in a religion effect whether or not the followers of the religion really believe what they believe, or feel strongly that they should follow what ever teachings they believe in.

Are you honestly suggesting that if there are 5 "Religion X" followers they can be discriminated against, but if there are 500 Religion "Y followers" they cannot?

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote:

Are you honestly suggesting that if there are 5 "Religion X" followers they can be discriminated against, but if there are 500 Religion "Y followers" they cannot?

That is exactly what he believes.