Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

faceman

mickoneill30 wrote:

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

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

sorry dude, frank zappa beat you to it! altho his church was turned down by the american government! (Religious institutions in the US get tax breaks.) He was a staunch atheist!

As far as i remember from his biography, the intials of his church were C.A.S.H. but i cant remember what is stands for.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

Why not?

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

Sleepy

Something being old is no reason to respect it. There's many, many awful things I could point out that have always been fundamental aspects of our societies but that's not the point so I'm not going to insult you with those comparisons.

Like I pointed out to you earlier Jakkass, religion is a choice (I notice you still haven't addressed that point btw). If one person's personal choice is grounds to change the uniform of a state institution, all peoples' personal choices must be. There is no other equitable way to do this that treats all people as equals.

As some people's personal choices would render the uniform impractical for the role that they are fulfilling (or simply ludicrous), nobodies personal choices can be accommodated.

Even if we hold religion to be a more valid personal choice than an affiliation to a football team (which to be honest I don't), the same logic holds true: some religions' symbols and rules of adherrance would render the uniform of the Gardai impractical, ludicrous or even deeply incendiary (e.g. a star of David could be offensive to someone of Palestinian origin etc.) thus no religion's symbols can be allowed.

Like I've said, I've no problem with a turban or a garda wearing one from a practical or personal perspective. The problem actually comes from exactly what you're asking people to do: respect religion. If we afford one religion respect, all religions (even non-"recognised" religions) must be afforded that respect or we're discriminating based on faith which I think we can agree is not something we want to do.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

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

If you let people where what ever they want that is kinda missing the whole point of a uniform Jakkass

walrusgumble

Morlar wrote:

That has pretty much been my point all along - if you read back you will see for yourself.

The repercussions of this dont just affect a sikh in the garda reserve - anyone who says it only affects a single sikh is either missing the point or being disingenuous in my view.

Its all religious minorities from anywhere in any Irish official uniform, male or female in Garda reserve, Garda Siochana, Army, Navy, Airforce, Firefighters Coast Guard etc - if you allow this change to an official uniform for a single sikh then you set a precedent which you cant then un-set.

People from minorities wearing religious garb in official uniforms does not (in my view) benefit cohesion and religious harmony/integration. All it does is set people apart - and for some (it seems) in a defiant kind of aggressively non integrationalist way.

Sikhs in the metropolitan police in London describing an Garda Siochana as being a racist organisation are being hysterical and playing the good old race card. Of all the police forces in the world to start slinging mud about the place the met is not the best placed to do that. Their assertion that an Garda Siochana are '40 years behind' the met - is condescending and dismissive, you could probably argue that its a racist viewpoint to take. In that it completely disregards our (as Irish people) right to make choices based on our views and do things our way. It arrogantly assumes that everything in Ireland follows the english lead which is not necessarily the case.

out of interest is their any address or e mail that the consititutional argument of oppossing the ban be send to these arrogant, condescending and informed police officers?

aidan24326

Jakkass wrote:

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

Nothing got to do with wiping out religion you're going off on a tangent now.

This is really pretty simple.

If you're a sikh who wears a turban, and you have designs on being a garda, you have 2 choices. You accept that the turban cannot be worn while on duty, or you accept that the gardai is not the career for you (if removal of the turban is not an option).

People have to accept that their personal religious beliefs may come with a price from time to time. And personal beliefs are what they are, nothing more. It's amazing how attaching the label of religion always clouds the picture. If I said I wanted to be a garda and wear an unconventional non-uniform headpiece, for any other reason, however deep my convictions, I would not be entertained for a moment.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

The law is also a fundamental part of society and it should be totally seperate from religion. The Garda uniform should stay as it is. Gardai represent the law, not their religious beliefs. No turbans/burqhas or any other religous symbols should be allowed.

sunny2004

fairdeal wrote:

i saw this newsclip on bbc..hope people would reconsider their anti-turban stand. rather than pushing a community to a side, we should allow them to participate in society as proud irish sikhs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6740000/newsid_6742500/6742547.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&news=1&ms3=4

I disagree ! I think the uniform is the uniform. unless the hat sits on top of the Turban than they are missing part of the uniform ..

And what about naturalists ?? are they next ? we could just have them running around in their suites (birthday)

philologos

Deleted User wrote:

The law is also a fundamental part of society and it should be totally seperate from religion. The Garda uniform should stay as it is. Gardai represent the law, not their religious beliefs. No turbans/burqhas or any other religous symbols should be allowed.

Firstly why? because you say so?

philologos

aidan24326 wrote:

People have to accept that their personal religious beliefs may come with a price from time to time. And personal beliefs are what they are, nothing more. It's amazing how attaching the label of religion always clouds the picture. If I said I wanted to be a garda and wear an unconventional non-uniform headpiece, for any other reason, however deep my convictions, I would not be entertained for a moment.

They shouldn't have to come with a price in a free society like ours. Why doesn't secular humanism come with a price if the rest of us do apparently?

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly why? because you say so?

I think the Why has been answered over the last few pages.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

They shouldn't have to come with a price in a free society like ours. Why doesn't secular humanism come with a price if the rest of us do apparently?

Because secularism is non-descriminatory; it says "this is the uniform, now do your job".

You want to give a select few religions the right to express their beliefs when they're supposed to be unholding the law in an unbiased manner, and you want to (by your own admission) not allow other religions (as well as those who, god forbid, have personal beliefs and practises/customs but don't subscribe to any particular organised group) to express and practice THEIR beliefs.

Please tell me how that isn't discriminatory. I'm all ears (or eyes).

bill_ashmount

Jakkass wrote:

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly why? because you say so?

No one wants to wipe religion away, that's not the issue. It's been explained numerous times to you in this thread and you keep coming back with invalid arguments. Let it go.

philologos

DaveMcG - surely if all faiths have to "pay a price" under another posters reasoning. It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

DaveMcG - surely if all faiths have to "pay a price" under another posters reasoning. It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

If someone wanted to wear a secular humanist hat in the Garda i would be against it. NO beliefs, religious or non-religous should be given special treatment/uniforms.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

DaveMcG - surely if all faiths have to "pay a price" under another posters reasoning. It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

That's like saying that if I don't allow someone to wear a swastika, then I'm siding with the Jews.

The constitution says that the state will not make any discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. The only way to guarantee that in this situation is either allow every single person with religious belief to express it whilst working as a Garda, or else allow nobody to do so.

You have already said that you would impose some restrictions on who may practise their religion in these circumstances. That would be unconstitutional, and discriminatory.

You said that you would amend the constitution to allow people to practise religion whilst working for the Gardaí. But you also said that you would impose restrictions.

Is it the case that you want to institutionalise religious discrimination so that the major religions (of which you are a part, coincidentally) are looked after, and everybody else is tossed aside?

If not, how do you propose to avoid being discriminatory without allowing a free-for-all vis-a-vis religious expression while representing the state?

daithifleming wrote:

If someone wanted to wear a secular humanist hat in the Garda i would be against it. NO beliefs, religious or non-religous should be given special treatment/uniforms.

Agreed

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Why doesn't secular humanism come with a price if the rest of us do apparently?

Do you understand there is a difference between secularism and humanism? Humanists cannot have their own version of the uniform any more than Sikhs can.

Secularism means that no religion or belief is put above any other one. All are treated equally by the State.

Humanists cannot have a special version of the uniform. Sikhs cannot have a special version of the uniform, Christians cannot have a special version of the uniform, Atheists cannot have a special version of the uniform etc etc

The only alternative to that is that EVERYONE can have a special version of the uniform. Anything in the middle is discrimination.

If you are against secularism that is fine, but just understand that you are promoting discrimination of belief if you do so. You might not care because the beliefs that you agree with are at the front, but then that isn't the point. Discrimination is discrimination.

Jakkass wrote:

It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

That is the whole point.

If I as a humanist wanted to join the Garda and I wanted to wear a special version of the uniform that, say, removed the logo because I felt it insulted me because it was modeled on the original Christian Celtic crosses, I would be told no way, the uniform is the uniform.

But if the Sikhs are allowed a special version of the uniform that does not offend their beliefs, why can't I have a special version of the uniform? They would have to give me a special version of the uniform and design a completely new logo, just for me.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote:

They would have to give me a special version of the uniform and design a completely new logo, just for me.

How about this little baby? :cool:

Zombrex

Yes, that would be acceptable

Ekancone

DaveMcG wrote:

How about this little baby? :cool:

Well, it is what he believes... dont you dare persecute him!:D

cushtac

Sikh council will not challenge turban ban
Monday, 27 August 2007 12:53

The president of the Irish Sikh Council has dismissed reports that it is to pursue legal channels over a ruling which prohibits a Sikh garda reserve recruit from wearing a turban as part of his uniform.

Harpreet Singh said members of the Sikh community will meet with Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy to discuss the implications of the decision not to allow the recruit to wear his turban.

Mr Singh said he is hopeful that the matter could be resolved amicably.
Advertisement

It has been reported that the Irish Sikh Council has been in contact with representatives of a New York police officer who successfully overturned a similar ban there.

The garda authorities have said they are standing by their decision and have denied that the headgear ban is racist.



Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0827/turban.html

Sleepy

Don't tell me that common sense is actually going to win out in this country? :eek:

Zombrex

RTE wrote:

The garda authorities have said they are standing by their decision and have denied that the headgear ban is racist.

I hate the way they keep calling it a ban. Its not a ban, like "You cannot wear a turban on this golf course" is a ban. It is a uniform, the very nature of a uniform is that all items of clothes that are not part of the uniform are "banned"

Dave!

Yeah I was just gonna say that... Makes it sound like the Gardaí are systematically removing turbans from people's heads as they go about their business. "None o' dat carry-on now!"

philologos

Well. They are removing the turbans of the heads of potential recruits.

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

Well. They are removing the turbans of the heads of potential recruits.

They're removing all non uniform items from all potential recruits.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

Well. They are removing the turbans of the heads of potential recruits.

You havent a leg to stand on. You have proved that by continually ignoring any good points made in this debate. Is this guy JC from the Creationist forum in disguise?

dh2007

Where do you draw the line on this? If Sikhs are not allowed to wear the turban in the policeforce then surely it sets a precedent which would exclude them from many different professions?

What if a Sikh worked in a hospital as a nurse and as part of his job he had to wear a uniform? would he be asked to take it off?? Using the argument of 'look up the meaning of the word uniform' is pathetic. It goes beyond that.

I find it scary to see that so many people are against the wearing of the turban. Those of you who are against it, do any of you know a Sikh?? I bet that if you knew a Sikh personally you would have an altogether different view on things.

By disallowing the turban we are potentially excluding a whole community from our society. Amending our constitution has been done in the past.

Sleepy

dh, read the entire thread. Unless you're suggesting that a constitution which promotes discrimination is a good thing, there's no logical reason to allow this.

Jakkass, I give up. You're either incapabable of rational thinking or deep down know you're wrong but choose to continue bleating anyway.

Ekancone

dh2007 wrote:

Where do you draw the line on this? If Sikhs are not allowed to wear the turban in the policeforce then surely it sets a precedent which would exclude them from many different professions?

What if a Sikh worked in a hospital as a nurse and as part of his job he had to wear a uniform? would he be asked to take it off?? Using the argument of 'look up the meaning of the word uniform' is pathetic. It goes beyond that.

I find it scary to see that so many people are against the wearing of the turban. Those of you who are against it, do any of you know a Sikh?? I bet that if you knew a Sikh personally you would have an altogether different view on things.

By disallowing the turban we are potentially excluding a whole community from our society. Amending our constitution has been done in the past.

I am not going to put up with your laziness in not reading the points made in this thread. Every objection you have has been met in this thread and i refuse to repeat myself.