Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Dave!

That point of view is convenient if you happen to be a Christian. Safety in numbers, and all that.

jimmychin

saabi wrote:

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

ok, you got me.

i am a 'non practicing' sikh. is that allowed?

===

i can see both sides of the argument here, and i tend to side with the "its a uniform" so everyone should wear the same.

however this just means there wont be any sikh's joining the garda.

and for all that keep saying "you want to see a garda not a sikh garda" how do you feel if the garda you meet is african or indian - will it not be immediately obvious by the colour of their skin that this person may have different religious beliefs to yourself?

and for the other half saying that 'scumbags' will just take the p1ss and knock off the turban - is that actually a reason for not allowing it?

Sleepy

jimmychin wrote:

and for the other half saying that 'scumbags' will just take the p1ss and knock off the turban - is that actually a reason for not allowing it?

I may be wrong on this but I seem to remember that there is legislation making it illegal to remove a garda's hat. Were said Garda wearing a turban, one could not be prosecuted as a turban isn't a hat.

But to be honest, you're right. It's irrelevant. Allowing that Garda to wear a turban in the first place would, as everyone except Jakass seems to realise, open the door for any "religious" symbols to be worn with the protection of our constitution.

Another interesting thing I just realised. As we have an unarmed Garda force, wouldn't this also open the door for an orthodox sikh to carry a kirpan thus placing two pieces of legislation directly against each other?

Ekancone

jimmychin wrote:

ok, you got me.

i am a 'non practicing' sikh. is that allowed?

===

i can see both sides of the argument here, and i tend to side with the "its a uniform" so everyone should wear the same.

however this just means there wont be any sikh's joining the garda.

and for all that keep saying "you want to see a garda not a sikh garda" how do you feel if the garda you meet is african or indian - will it not be immediately obvious by the colour of their skin that this person may have different religious beliefs to yourself?

and for the other half saying that 'scumbags' will just take the p1ss and knock off the turban - is that actually a reason for not allowing it?

Are there no Christian/Atheist/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Jewish Africans or Indians?

cushtac

The kirpans I have seen were like butter knives and had blades under 3 inches, a bunch of keys would cause more damage.

Ekancone

cushtac wrote:

The kirpans I have seen were like butter knives and had blades under 3 inches, a bunch of keys would cause more damage.

So if you pull out a Kirpan on a Garda, nothing will happen because you have the personal belief that the knife isnt dangerous? Go ahead and try!

cushtac

daithifleming wrote:

So if you pull out a Kirpan on a Garda, nothing will happen because you have the personal belief that the knife isnt dangerous? Go ahead and try!

All I said is that the kirpans I have seen carried by Sikhs in the UK are not dangerous, they are deliberately made that way so as not to fall foul of the law. I didn't say that all kirpans are like that and I didn't say what would happen if someone was pulled one on a Garda, do not put words in my mouth.

simu

10 pages on this topic! :eek:

I don't see the the problem with turbans tbh - I'm amazed people are getting so worked up about it, though.

Sleepy

Have you read the thread simu?

I don't think most people have a problem with turbans, it's to do with the legal position this would create and the unconstitutional nature of allowing any religion preferential treatment.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

Have you read the thread simu?

I don't think most people have a problem with turbans, it's to do with the legal position this would create and the unconstitutional nature of allowing any religion preferential treatment.

No, too long! But I've read the arguments against in the papers and heard the debates on TV and I'm not convnced by them tbh.

Possibly the reason for the huge amount of attention this issue got was that it's a rare-enough opportunity for people to air fears (both founded and unfounded) they have about immigration and how we're handling it.

jimmychin

daithifleming wrote:

Are there no Christian/Atheist/Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Jewish Africans or Indians?

yeah, i hear ya - i did say "may" have different beliefs

i suppose it boils down to the fact that certain religious beliefs will prevent you from working in certain industries.

irish_bob

seeing that our police force are being forced to consider the sensibilities of the various religons in this country , its just aswell they have little to do as regards crime and what the main priorities within thier job are

yes your right , im being sarcastic

karen3212

I voted no, as it's a uniform and maybe we need to think about the symbol we have on it, but the force is not a christain force, it's secular.

Also, I don't think there is any point in following what other countries did, can you name any that have done the integration/multi-cultural thing really well.

I think religion should be kept out of, at the very least the guardians of the peace.

irish_bob

pandering to religous minorities has never worked out in the uk or other countries with large immigrant populations so let that be a warning to us

fly_agaric

irish_bob wrote:

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

I doubt that very much because it doesn't really matter that much to people whether they allow guards to wear a turban on duty or not.
Their stance gains them a little kudos with right-on types (but they are part of their core vote anyway) while keeping the Green Party in the media spotlight. That last is the main thing IMO. It's just like all the grandstanding nonsense the PeeDees used to come out with to ensure they made the papers.

irish_bob wrote:

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

All this slippery slope stuff...surely we have the wisdom (and courage) to tell people who are being utterly unreasonable to just like it or lump it?

For example, asking to wear a turban on the beat (maybe blue, with a garda crest pinned on it?) doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Expecting special religious exceptions in safety regs/road rules so that Sikh gardai can wear their tubans on their motorbikes without any proper protective headgear (or go in to riots without proper headgear??) does seem a bit of a hassle and therefore unreasonable to me.

Zombrex

simu wrote:

I don't see the the problem with turbans tbh - I'm amazed people are getting so worked up about it, though.

Its really nothing to do with turbans, or Sikhs

At least my position isn't. There is the anti-immigration crowd who resent immigrants requesting changes to national institutions, but I'm attempting to stay well clear of using that argument, as I find it silly and offensive.

The argument to keep the State police force secular is actually an argument against discrimination, not for it.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

For example, asking to wear a turban on the beat (maybe blue, with a garda crest pinned on it?) doesn't seem that unreasonable.
Expecting special religious exceptions in safety regs/road rules so that Sikh gardai can wear their tubans on their motorbikes without any proper protective headgear (or go in to riots without proper headgear??) does seem a bit of a hassle and therefore unreasonable to me.

It is a very messy issue if you start getting into which religious request is or is not reasonable.

The problem being of course that the person or community making the rest will obviously not find it unreasonable, and therefore any denial of the requestion, when others have been granted, will appear to be discrimination.

A far easier and fairer way is to simply not allow any request.

Its kinda like the ticket inspectors on the Luas. They could take every one who doesn't have a ticket on a case by case basis (ok, you lost it hopping on the train, ok you left it in your other wallet, ok you are foreign and don't know how the system works). But that just ends up with a huge mess as the inspectors are supposed to decide then and there what is a reasonable excuse for not having a ticket and what isn't.

The best way, and the way they do it, is No Ticket, No Excuse.

irish_bob

Wicknight wrote:

Its really nothing to do with turbans, or Sikhs

At least my position isn't. There is the anti-immigration crowd who resent immigrants requesting changes to national institutions, but I'm attempting to stay well clear of using that argument, as I find it silly and offensive.

The argument to keep the State police force secular is actually an argument against discrimination, not for it.

you hit the nail right on the head there

faceman

ok some further thoughts on this.

Do sikhs wear their turbans playing sports/squash/cricket? No. They just wear that smaller hat yoke. (not trying to offend, just dont know the name of it.) Im sure that could be easily concealed by the garda cap and therefore be out of view?

Religon nowadays is someone's personal business. People in official civic roles such as gardai, should remain religon neutral. What would happen if religous types started wearing the symbols etc on their uniform and person? If im a muslim and i get arrested by a christian garda. Should i be entitled to be arrested by a muslim garda? Eh no.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

But to be honest, you're right. It's irrelevant. Allowing that Garda to wear a turban in the first place would, as everyone except Jakass seems to realise, open the door for any "religious" symbols to be worn with the protection of our constitution.

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

That's the point isn't it. Nobody has a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols. What most people have a problem with, is a representative of the state wearing religious symbols in the course of their duties.

The garda uniform is a symbol. Why can't you respect that as much as a religious symbol?

Mick86

Sleepy wrote:

Another interesting thing I just realised. As we have an unarmed Garda force, wouldn't this also open the door for an orthodox sikh to carry a kirpan thus placing two pieces of legislation directly against each other?

A Sikh is required to carry a Kirpan anyway as far as I know. There is no designated length of blade so any knife with a blade length of less than three inches can be carried quite legally.

indough wrote:

I'd say it's not too bad really for a population of about 60.6 million

Those are just the ones that spring immediately to mind. Following the example of the British police in all matters may not be the way to go.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Because you say so?

The Swastika is a Buddhist and Hindu religious symbol. Lets imagine a Hindu Policeman with his swastika necklace (if he chose to wear one) dealing with a Jewish person. No foreseeable problem there then.

philologos

Mick86 wrote:

The Swastika is a Buddhist and Hindu religious symbol. Lets imagine a Hindu Policeman with his swastika necklace (if he chose to wear one) dealing with a Jewish person. No foreseeable problem there then.

In this case the item isn't obligatory. Mind you I wouldn't have a problem with the crucifix. I'm sure on explanation the Jew would understand that he was not referring to the Nazi era.

saabi

jimmychin wrote:

ok, you got me.

i am a 'non practicing' sikh. is that allowed?

===

i can see both sides of the argument here, and i tend to side with the "its a uniform" so everyone should wear the same.

however this just means there wont be any sikh's joining the garda.

and for all that keep saying "you want to see a garda not a sikh garda" how do you feel if the garda you meet is african or indian - will it not be immediately obvious by the colour of their skin that this person may have different religious beliefs to yourself?

and for the other half saying that 'scumbags' will just take the p1ss and knock off the turban - is that actually a reason for not allowing it?

The reason for my question was a valid one. As from my experience and visit to India, I have seen "Sej Tari Sikhs" (Non Practicing Sikhs) to have greater respect and honour for the "Khalsa" (i.e. Baptised sikhs). I have seen non practicing sikhs rising to aid the cause of Baptised Sikhs and vica versa . Hence, I wasn't sure if you were a sikh or not.

“As this is the internet and anyone can claim to be anything.”

Personally, I feel this whole argument is tainted with discrimination. As Sikhs are not asking the entire Garda force to wear turbans or the Sikh insignia. The turban to the Sikhs is a practical way of keeping their hair neatly wrapped up.

Even non practicing Sikhs wear the turban now and then, as a reminder of their faith. (Sometimes going to the temple or getting married) "I am not sure, if you do?"

The integrity of our Garda force is in the difficult work they do, and not in their uniform.

Scumbags pick on normal Garda, never mind if the Garda is Purple, Pink, Indian, Black or a Sikh.

Integration is two way thing.

If Sikhs don't join the Garda force, I am sure it won't be their loss.

But as a nation, we are failing to accept that this Island of ours is moving through the times. Different colours will only help us make the picture richer. As we the Irish contributed in America.

On a closing point:

Just look at NI, more foreign Catholics are joining the PSNI than our own people.

saabi

Folks here is some additional info, you folks can verify it, as I am not sure:

"The turban's importance can be found in just about every culture and religion, starting with the ancient Babylonians to western religions such as Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as eastern traditions. The Old Testament proclaims, "Once they enter the gates of the court", implying God's court, "they are to wear linen vestments. They shall wear linen turban."
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the significance of the turban is further highlighted:
He put the turban upon his head and set the gold rosette as symbol of holy dedication on the front of the turban as the Lord had commanded him. Moses then took the anointing oil, anointed the Tabernacle, and all that was within it and consecrated it. (Leviticus 8,9)
Set the turban on his head and the symbol of holy dedication on the turban. Take the anointing oil, pour it on his head and anoint him. (Exodus 29-6)
"


If anyone is interest read on. (Apparently wearing the turban has some benefits):

"Physiologically speaking, the turban creates a dramatic effect on the body. The human skull is not solid, but is made up of 52 moving plates, whose alignment affects our well being and our mental processes. Osteopathic Doctors have developed a science of cranial adjustments to treat many general
and specific ailments. By tying the turban, and thus creating the proper pressure and angles, the bones of the skull are automatically adjusted, and remain aligned throughout the day. In situations of mental activity or emotional stress, when the cranial bones tend to go out of proper alignment, the turban contains and maintains the integrity of the skull. This contributes greatly to our strength and ability to succeed under pressure. In addition to this, the effect of the Kesh properly combed-up and the accupressure points that the turban presses at the temple contributes to the person's ability to maintain an elevated state of mind, a higher state of consciousness."

I AM NO EXPERTS FOLKS, JUST PROVIDING INFO.
All this info is available somewhere.

Boggle

jackass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Jacckass, noone has a problem with religious symbols - but you have an issue with the lack of them!

I asked you earlier and I ask you again to argue your point. Fanatics, as you appear to be, are not an aspect of any culture that will be tolerated here so - like I asked before - put some substance in your argument or go argue it somewhere where bull is tolerated. I know this is rude but coming into a discussion just to preach is also rude. Are you really so incapable?!?

You are trying to change a country on the back of notions which do not stack up and unwilling to listen to logic or experience. Don't forget, essentially you are the voice who represents the people writing into newspapers in favour of this - those people who have never seen a land outside their own and think that the constitution on is only good when it suits them.

Mods, you may assume I am getting personal, however the line that this lad has taken is way beyond reason and he has failed to argue a single point rather than just proclaim his(or her) wisdom. I have seen first hand twice the damage this kind of stupidity can wreak (Belgium and England) and I wont lie down and watch it happen here....

saabi wrote:

Personally, I feel this whole argument is tainted with discrimination. As Sikhs are not asking the entire Garda force to wear turbans or the Sikh insignia. The turban to the Sikhs is a practical way of keeping their hair neatly wrapped up.

I refer you to Wicknight's last few posts where he eloquently put an argument against religious discrimination. As for hair neatly wrapped up, female gardai have managed it a while so Sikhs should be okay.

olks here is some additional info, you folks can verify it, as I am not sure:

"The turban's importance can be found in just about every culture and religion, starting with the ancient Babylonians to western religions such as Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as eastern traditions. The Old Testament proclaims, "Once they enter the gates of the court", implying God's court, "they are to wear linen vestments. They shall wear linen turban."
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the significance of the turban is further highlighted:
He put the turban upon his head and set the gold rosette as symbol of holy dedication on the front of the turban as the Lord had commanded him. Moses then took the anointing oil, anointed the Tabernacle, and all that was within it and consecrated it. (Leviticus 8,9)
Set the turban on his head and the symbol of holy dedication on the turban. Take the anointing oil, pour it on his head and anoint him. (Exodus 29-6)
"

So what? is this an argument in favour of allowing popular religions control this country or were you just bored.

Tell me, if a jew walked into a police station full of people who believed that the jewish killed christ, and who had symbols stating so on their shirt - is that really equality?I don't want a single iota on a shirt of a police man except the symbol. should that symbol change over time, then fine but please dont let whining fanatics dictate it!!

Mick86

Jakkass wrote:

In this case the item isn't obligatory. Mind you I wouldn't have a problem with the crucifix. I'm sure on explanation the Jew would understand that he was not referring to the Nazi era.

Maybe the Hindu could carry a placard explaining why he wears a swastika.:rolleyes:

saabi wrote:

Personally, I feel this whole argument is tainted with discrimination.

Naturally. Any argument that we have no obligation to pander to the whims of foreigners is automatically discriminatory.

Ciaran500

saabi wrote:

If anyone is interest read on. (Apparently wearing the turban has some benefits):

"Physiologically speaking, the turban creates a dramatic effect on the body. The human skull is not solid, but is made up of 52 moving plates, whose alignment affects our well being and our mental processes. Osteopathic Doctors have developed a science of cranial adjustments to treat many general and specific ailments. By tying the turban, and thus creating the proper pressure and angles, the bones of the skull are automatically adjusted, and remain aligned throughout the day. In situations of mental activity or emotional stress, when the cranial bones tend to go out of proper alignment, the turban contains and maintains the integrity of the skull. This contributes greatly to our strength and ability to succeed under pressure. In addition to this, the effect of the Kesh properly combed-up and the accupressure points that the turban presses at the temple contributes to the person's ability to maintain an elevated state of mind, a higher state of consciousness."

I AM NO EXPERTS FOLKS, JUST PROVIDING INFO.
All this info is available somewhere.

Bull

The skull is made of 22 bones that are sutured together and don't move based on brain activity. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cranial2.html

Sleepy

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Why not?

mickoneill30

It's not just Ireland that has these debates. Here's one in America. This lady refuses to wear trousers as they're against her religion.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/68093.html

It could be worse though. Imagine the debate if the Amish ever tried to join the Gardai.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/6503

I propose a new religion that means I'll go to hell if I pay taxes. Anybody wishing to follow me?