Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Snickers Man

Let me turn this whole debate on its head. (forgive the pun)

Given that the turban is essentially a practical means of tidying up a Sikh man's hair which his religion forbids him to cut, how would people who want the uniform to remain standard throughout accommodate in the Gardai perfectly capable Sikh men who have such long hair?

I suspect that there are, or certainly were, regulations in the Gardai requiring men to keep their hair cut short and neat so that this situation would not have arisen hitherto.

Now that it has, how do you allow Sikhs to participate fully in the new society into whcih they come without telling them: first cut your hair?

I fully accept that there are facets of other immigrant societies that will offend not so much our "culture", whatever that is, as our laws and we should not be afraid to confront them. (eg a woman unwilling to participate in an arranged marriage, honour killings between feuding families -- admittedly not something totally alien to our own culture--) but it just strikes me that this case is a really silly one on which to be taking a stand.

And one that the minister in question has made a complete hames of by positioning it as a case of "people not respecting our culture".

We are increasingly going to come up against issues like this where an accommodation is going to have to be reached which allows exotic cultures to participate in our own society without infringing our laws and without causing offence to reasonable people. with a little common sense there should be little or no difficulty coming to a reasonable accommodation.

the_syco

Love to see the reaction of a police officer if someone whipped off his Turban:D

=-=

If a 5 Gardai walks into the middle of a mob, made up of a gang of Sikhs, and a gang of scum, they will be seen as Gardai trying to stop a riot, and the mob may disperse.

If a 5 Gardai wearing a religious chain/lance/turban/etc walks into the crowd, they'll be seen as a 5 Sikh joining the gang of Sikh, and will be seen part of the Sikh by the scum gang.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

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

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith. I'm not too concerned about what you say anyway. I know I'm right because this is just going too far, and considering it's totally backward in comparison to other nations I can't see what is rational about your argument tbh with you. The most enlightened thing I've heard is "It's a uniform it cannot be changed"... Mind you we all knew that this country would reach this point sooner or later.

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

Snickers Man

irish_bob wrote:

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

Yeah that's a good argument. "We've been too nice to these feckin' immigrants and they don't respect us for it!"

What is it that causes resentment between "immigrant" and "host" communities?

In the case of asians in the UK, was it the provision of a modicum of social services in their own language, or Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech?

Was it the adulation reserved for such sportsmen as Amir Kahn and Naseem Hamed, or Norman Tebbit sneeringly demanding that they "take the cricket test" to determine how well integrated they have become?

in the case of the Irish in London, was it the GLC backing events like St Patrick's Day parades and large open-air Irish Fleadh's or the Daily Express's cartoonist JAK drawing pictures of simian-featured ghouls and labelling them the stars of a movie called "The Irish, the ultimate in psychopathic horror"

Was it the success on TV of Eamonn Andrews, Terry Wogan, Dennis Tuohy, Graham Norton, Dara O'Brian etc or decades of ****e "irish jokes" from the likes of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning?

Immigrants don't want to be patronised or pandered to; just a modicum of fair play and reasonable accommodation when issues such as how to control a Sikh policeman's flowing locks arise.

Ekancone

Snickers Man wrote:

Let me turn this whole debate on its head. (forgive the pun)

Given that the turban is essentially a practical means of tidying up a Sikh man's hair which his religion forbids him to cut, how would people who want the uniform to remain standard throughout accommodate in the Gardai perfectly capable Sikh men who have such long hair?

I suspect that there are, or certainly were, regulations in the Gardai requiring men to keep their hair cut short and neat so that this situation would not have arisen hitherto.

Now that it has, how do you allow Sikhs to participate fully in the new society into whcih they come without telling them: first cut your hair?

I fully accept that there are facets of other immigrant societies that will offend not so much our "culture", whatever that is, as our laws and we should not be afraid to confront them. (eg a woman unwilling to participate in an arranged marriage, honour killings between feuding families -- admittedly not something totally alien to our own culture--) but it just strikes me that this case is a really silly one on which to be taking a stand.

And one that the minister in question has made a complete hames of by positioning it as a case of "people not respecting our culture".

We are increasingly going to come up against issues like this where an accommodation is going to have to be reached which allows exotic cultures to participate in our own society without infringing our laws and without causing offence to reasonable people. with a little common sense there should be little or no difficulty coming to a reasonable accommodation.

Female Garda have the option of hair nets for their hair.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith. I'm not too concerned about what you say anyway. I know I'm right because this is just going too far, and considering it's totally backward in comparison to other nations I can't see what is rational about your argument tbh with you. The most enlightened thing I've heard is "It's a uniform it cannot be changed"... Mind you we all knew that this country would reach this point sooner or later.

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

You have just admitted to not reading any of the posts regarding this matter, i'm not gonna even read or reply to any of your posts in this thread from now on. Who in gods name made you a mod?

Ekancone

Snickers Man wrote:

Yeah that's a good argument. "We've been too nice to these feckin' immigrants and they don't respect us for it!"

What is it that causes resentment between "immigrant" and "host" communities?

In the case of asians in the UK, was it the provision of a modicum of social services in their own language, or Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech?

Was it the adulation reserved for such sportsmen as Amir Kahn and Naseem Hamed, or Norman Tebbit sneeringly demanding that they "take the cricket test" to determine how well integrated they have become?

in the case of the Irish in London, was it the GLC backing events like St Patrick's Day parades and large open-air Irish Fleadh's or the Daily Express's cartoonist JAK drawing pictures of simian-featured ghouls and labelling them the stars of a movie called "The Irish, the ultimate in psychopathic horror"

Was it the success on TV of Eamonn Andrews, Terry Wogan, Dennis Tuohy, Graham Norton, Dara O'Brian etc or decades of ****e "irish jokes" from the likes of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning?

Immigrants don't want to be patronised or pandered to; just a modicum of fair play and reasonable accommodation when issues such as how to control a Sikh policeman's flowing locks arise.

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.

Stereophonic

One word "No" to allowing this...

It's been the Garda uniform for generations and it hasn't been altered in any way like this and it should remain unchanged.

Respect the uniform and wear it is all I can say.

Snickers Man

daithifleming wrote:

Female Garda have the option of hair nets for their hair.

So you admit that there can be optional items in a generally recognised "uniform" dress code?

That's a start.

cushtac

Jakkass wrote:

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

How about the small turban I've mentioned several times, including the pictures of it? :rolleyes:

Ekancone

Snickers Man wrote:

So you admit that there can be optional items in a generally recognised "uniform" dress code?

That's a start.

Of course, for the reasons of practicality, because it is universally applicable. It is not pandering to the private beliefs of an individual. Are you new to this thread? Because this has been gone over many times, i suggest reading it before you waste anymore time in this debate.

cushtac

daithifleming wrote:

Female Garda have the option of hair nets for their hair.

Female Gardaí are told to tie up hair in such a way as to insure that it does not interfere with the wearing of the hat, fall over the ears or eyebrows or extend below the collar. There's no mention of hair nets.

Ekancone

cushtac wrote:

Female Gardaí are told to tie up hair in such a way as to insure that it does not interfere with the wearing of the hat, fall over the ears or eyebrows or extend below the collar. There's no mention of hair nets.

Oh right, i thought the Sikh was offered a hair net, misinformed i was. Ok then, he can tie the hair up.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith. I'm not too concerned about what you say anyway. I know I'm right because this is just going too far, and considering it's totally backward in comparison to other nations I can't see what is rational about your argument tbh with you. The most enlightened thing I've heard is "It's a uniform it cannot be changed"... Mind you we all knew that this country would reach this point sooner or later.

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

But you haven't responded to the point about you feeling that it's acceptable to discriminate between religious beliefs.

Your options are:
1. Don't allow any religious paraphernalia into the uniform
2. Allow all religious beliefs to be expressed by Gardaí on the job
3. Allow some religious beliefs to be expressed by Gardaí

My question to you is: where do you draw the line? And why is it okay to draw the line at that particular point? Why should some people's religious beliefs not be accomodated?

philologos

I've already answered this. All the concerns of adherents of the religions featured in the last census, should be considered. Although I would draw the line at obligatory required clothing, I would see no problem with the crucifix.

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

I've already answered this. All the concerns of adherents of the religions featured in the last census, should be considered. Although I would draw the line at obligatory required clothing, I would see no problem with the crucifix.

So if somebody comes in of a religion not listed in our last census they should be discriminated against?

philologos

If they have any obligatory headwear etc, all should be considered. The Census is filled out by the people I can't see how that isn't a reasonable guideline.

Boggle

If they have any obligatory headwear etc, all should be considered. The Census is filled out by the people I can't see how that isn't a reasonable guideline.

Sol if I fill out that I'm a Rastafarian in the next one, should I be allowed to smoke Cannabis?

Boggle

I've already answered this.

Actually you haven't answered ONE single point.

Who in gods name made you a mod?

I would have to second that. A mod should at least be willing to represent the forum properly in the ability to discuss a point. If everyone on here took your line the forum would be full of fanatics and no-one else.

Snickers Man wrote:

Immigrants don't want to be patronised or pandered to; just a modicum of fair play and reasonable accommodation when issues such as how to control a Sikh policeman's flowing locks arise.

Then they should request a non-religiously affiliated piece of head wear. Requesting a piece of uniform that panders to one religion but not another is in violation of the constitution. This has been put forward many times and is continuously ignored.

What part of "Ireland has had its fill of being dictated to by churches" do people not comprehend?

philologos

Boggle wrote:

Sol if I fill out that I'm a Rastafarian in the next one, should I be allowed to smoke Cannabis?

Good question. What we have to remember here is wearing a turban doesn't contravene the laws of the state. Whereas smoking cannabis does. So no would be my answer.

philologos

Boggle wrote:

I would have to second that. A mod should at least be willing to represent the forum properly in the ability to discuss a point. If everyone on here took your line the forum would be full of fanatics and no-one else.

Take a look at the forums beside "Mod:" underneath my username, I believe Humanities doesn't feature there.

Boggle wrote:

Then they should request a non-religiously affiliated piece of head wear. Requesting a piece of uniform that panders to one religion but not another is in violation of the constitution. This has been put forward many times and is continuously ignored.

What is stopping the Gardaí doing a review of their dress code and taking in other religions should another issue like this ever occur?

Boggle wrote:

What part of "Ireland has had its fill of being dictated to by churches" do people not comprehend?

I hate to say it but a number of us don't see any problem with receiving spiritual guidance from our religious leaders.

Boggle

Take a look at the forums beside "Mod:", I believe Humanities doesn't feature there.

If you are not then I apologise as I took it from a previous poster on this thread.

What is stopping the Gardaí doing a review of their dress code and taking in other religions should another issue like this ever occur?

THere is nothing stopping the gardai doing a review of their dress code and it may be particularly overdue (used to know a gardai and the clothes were hardly comfortable or suitable to chasing scumbags).
I do however object to religion being incorporated.

I hate to say it but a number of us don't see any problem with receiving spiritual guidance from our religious leaders.

And that is a commendable trait, however do you not think that religion should be private and seperate from state? This was, I believe that intention behind the constitution as it stops any party being discriminated against AND for. You have to take th good with the bad or we'll end up like England! (see my post re living there if you want to debate that one - I would welcome it)

What we have to remember here is wearing a turban doesn't contravene the laws of the state. Whereas smoking cannabis does. So no would be my answer.

You want to change the constitution of the state to favour you. Could someone else not request a change to a law of the state in favour of them, or at least an exemption???
My points, and many others, are that if you allow preferential treatment for one religion, then you have to consider it for all... (I'm just using cannabis to highlight an aspect)

philologos

As for the mod thing it's perfectly alright. It's always handy to take a look there first though

Well theres only so far that State and religion can be seperated. People will always vote taking their beliefs into account. Not that this is a brilliant example, but religious lobbies of voters exist in the United States for that reason. Christian Evangelicals and the Zionist lobby form a large part of the vote in the USA.

As for the cannabis, someone else clearly could. I wouldn't agree with it being passed as it contravenes the law at the minute and I'm not too cool with drugs and the psychological dangers of cannabis. I haven't done a conclusive study of cannabis but I've heard it leads to mental illness.

Sleepy

So you're okay with the constitution being broken to accomodate the Sikh religion but you're not okay breaking legislation to accomodate the Rastifarian faith?

What is stopping the Gardaí doing a review of their dress code and taking in other religions should another issue like this ever occur?

The constitution.

Religion is a personal belief system based on the rejection of known science and logic and taking a leap of faith. Some people who share similar beliefs band together to form churches, synagogues etc. and these in turn can become large institutions of many such people who share those similar beliefs. Within those very institutions there are wide and diverse opinions on the details of the faith being represented by that institution.

Mere numerical superiority does not grant someone of one of these affiliations the right to be treated differently than any other person. There is nowhere one can draw the line in the sand that isn't arbitrary. If we take your own faith, it effectively began with 13 men yet you're happy to dismiss the beliefs of those faiths who have less adherrants?

There is no way the Gardai can accomodate everyone's personal belief systems, nor should they have to.

Jakkass wrote:

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith. I'm not too concerned about what you say anyway. I know I'm right because this is just going too far, and considering it's totally backward in comparison to other nations I can't see what is rational about your argument tbh with you.

Hmmm, you can't see what's rational about my arguments which are based in fact, reason and logic yet you expect us to take yours seriously because you know you're right? :rolleyes:

Faith, while not a bad thing in itself, is illogical. There is no way you can make a reasoned argument based on it. The very fact that you're not bothered about what I say is effectively the problem with trying to govern based on faith. You seem to feel perfectly entitled to ignore my views because despite not being able to give a reasoned argument to show me the error in my thinking you "know" you're right.

That is fundamentalism, it is zealotry and frankly, it scares the crap out of me to see it active in Ireland.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

So you're okay with the constitution being broken to accomodate the Sikh religion but you're not okay breaking legislation to accomodate the Rastifarian faith?

I thought the constitution said that no one religion should be given preference over another? But surely if all obligatory items of faith were included all religions would be catered for?

Boggle

Well theres only so far that State and religion can be seperated.

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...)

Not that this is a brilliant example, but religious lobbies of voters exist in the United States for that reason. Christian Evangelicals and the Zionist lobby form a large part of the vote in the USA.

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!)

As for the cannabis, someone else clearly could. I wouldn't agree with it being passed as it contravenes the law at the minute and I'm not too cool with drugs and the psychological dangers of cannabis. I haven't done a conclusive study of cannabis but I've heard it leads to mental illness.

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?

I thought the constitution said that no one religion should be given preference over another?

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.

But surely if all obligatory items of faith were included all religions would be catered for?

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?
(its like the guy earlier said, if a guy truly believes that United represents god and considers it his religious belief, then why not him? - I know plenty of fanatical football supporters!!)

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith.

Would you oppose evolution being taught in school???

Jesus Wept

Imo, people shouldn't bring their religion to work.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

with a little common sense there should be little or no difficulty coming to a reasonable accommodation.

What you call "common sense" we call unacceptable levels of religious discrimination. Apples and oranges I guess :rolleyes:

Snickers Man wrote:

So you admit that there can be optional items in a generally recognised "uniform" dress code?

That's a start.

Again Snickers you are missing the entire point.

No one (or at least no one who seems to be arguing from a secular position, the anti-immigration crowd might have other ideas) objects to the a turban being part of the uniform, if it is just that, a uni-form element of the dress code. A uniform is after all just a uniform. That is the entire point of it

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.

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.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I thought the constitution said that no one religion should be given preference over another? But surely if all obligatory items of faith were included all religions would be catered for?

The problem with that Jakkass is that you define "Obligatory" in very narrow terms and you define "faith" in very narrow terms, both of which is unacceptable in a free and open society where religion is decided by the person not the State. The State has no right to claim that a particular religious belief isn't valid enough to warrant recognition when others are valid enough.

In reality there is an infinite number of items can people can claim are obligatory to their faith. Heck there are an infinite number of faiths.

There is no rational way to say that a Catholic is allowed a certain object, but the Moon/UFO cult who require to dress up in Star Trek uniforms aren't a real faith and don't require a Star Trek uniform. They believe what they believe. Dressing up in a Star Trek uniform is no more or less rational than not cutting your hair if the person genuinely believes that is what they must do.

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.

Robxxx7

I voted no, I think we run the risk of becoming overly PC, if we start to succumb to different pandering...

The uniform is what it is, if this doesn't meet his requirements then its not the job for him ... i feel this is being done to make a point and try to erode further into the fabric of society...

The stance being taken by the Garda is the correct one and i for one support them on this.