Muslims asked to remove headscarves for new Garda card

token101

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

I completely agree with you and if this thread was about people wearing balaclavas or burqas or motorbike helmets I'd agree that it was ridiculous.

However it's not. it's about a headscarf. Nothing more.

The entire point is about people wanting exceptions based on their religion. Has nothing to do with headscarves really. It's about wanting special treatment. There are rules for passports/IDs in this country in place. We shouldn't be changing them to pander to anyone.

Unavailable for Comment

token101 wrote: »

There are rules for passports/IDs in this country in place. We shouldn't be changing them to pander to anyone.

It's lucky we aren't so.

token101

Unavailable for Comment wrote: »

It's lucky we aren't so.

I know, I'm happier that common sense has won the day here

keithclancy

Ah right, so do all of you think this makes any sense ?

Its a law in the UK.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Turban,_UK_Legislation_Regarding_its_use_by_Sikhs

Construction Site

Q. Should you refuse employment to a turban-wearing Sikh who refuses to wear a safety helmet on a construction site?

Where employees, or potential employees have particular cultural and religious needs which conflict with existing work requirements, it is recommended that employers should consider whether it is reasonably practical to vary or adapt these requirements to enable these needs to be met. For example, it is recommended that they should not refuse employment to a turbaned Sikh because he could not comply with unjustifiable uniform requirements.

A.
S11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on a construction site. Where a turban-wearing Sikh is injured on a construction site liability for injuries is restricted to the injuries that would have been sustained if the Sikh had been wearing a safety helmet.

Riding Motor Cycles

Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.

So whats next, Ninja Muslim Garda force?

marozz

Gyalist wrote: »

Would an Orthodox Jewish woman have to remove her wig for her photo I.D? Would an Orthodox Jewish man have to remove his yarmulke, or a Sikh his turban?

Clearly not, according to DFA. As the hijab is a hair covering and not a face covering they are entitled to wear it. I can't see what the fuss is all about.

I agree with the above- it's a lot of fuss over nothing. If it was a a full face covering I'm sure it would not be allowed. It's not like we suddenly have sharia law - well, not yet anyway

El Inho

going through the airport i take off any hat I am wearing.

its just common sense...you get the full look at the person to make sure they are who they say they are...

now taking my cross off going through a metal detector...have some respect for my religion :P

Laneyh

token101 wrote: »

That doesn't make an entire argument any less valid.

For an argument, discussion or debate to work there needs to be some level of coherence
Calm and rational explanation of your viewpoint would also be good.

Sweeping generalisations and unsubstantiated statements don't really add much in my opinion.

I fail to see how wearing a hijab automatically denotes your lack of interest in integrating and renders your contribution to society null and void.

If the poster wants to cite some examples of this.. then I would view that as a valid argument.

I work with a muslim lady who wears the hijab and she integrates just fine.

The only thing we know about the women who expressed some concern is (A) they're Sunni muslims (B) they ordinarily wear they hijab
and were perturbed when asked to remove it.

There are still people who are p***ed off at airports when their liquids are confiscated. If they query the restrictions are they automatically presumed to be troublemakers / trying to get away with something ?

Unavailable for Comment

keithclancy wrote: »

Ah right, so do all of you think this makes any sense ?
So whats next, Ninja Muslim Garda force?

In 2007 a Sikh member of the Garda reserve was banned from wearing a turban while on duty.

RichieC

They can remove it for a minute, it's not going to kill them. I think.

Biggins

af_thefragile wrote: »

Whatever happened to freedom...

George Michael murdered it in a song!

smash

hondasam wrote: »

Considering they are taking fingerprints the photograph is not as important.

It's my right as a Jedi to wear gloves and a mask if I want.

Laneyh

keithclancy wrote: »

Ah right, so do all of you think this makes any sense ?

Its a law in the UK.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Turban,_UK_Legislation_Regarding_its_use_by_Sikhs





So whats next, Ninja Muslim Garda force?

a ninja muslim garda force would be fantastic..I suggest we get them involved in policing public transport

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Ellis Dee

keithclancy wrote: »

Ah right, so do all of you think this makes any sense ?

Its a law in the UK.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Turban,_UK_Legislation_Regarding_its_use_by_Sikhs





So whats next, Ninja Muslim Garda force?

A little background about the exemption for Sikhs: When crash helmets for motor cyclists became compulsory at a time when Sikhs on scooters were so common that it looked almost like a symbiotic pairing, several Sikhs were fined for not wearing them, but refused to pay. Incidentally, the turban is not a requirement, merely a convenience, because what Sikhism actually recommends is uncut hair. I have often seen men working in the fields in the Punjab, their metre-long hair fluttering in the wind.:cool:

The matter went through the appeals process, all the way to the Law Lords, which was then de facto the Supreme Court in the UK.

One of the most convincing witnesses for the appellants was a retired British general, who pointed out that tens of thousands of Sikhs from the Indian Army had fought for Britain in two world wars, and had not been required to wear the metal helmet that other military personnel had to. Indeed, in his opinion, the thick coil of hair under the several metres of cloth in the turban provided as much protection against bullets and shrapnel as the metal helmet.:D

The Sikhs won their case and the law still contains the exemption for them, one that does not, however, place any non-Sikhs at risk.

I wonder how the Sikhs feel now that their turban is banned in France, something that the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as someone in the USA called them, would not have the freedom to do if it had not been for the foreign soldiers, including thousands of Sikhs, who died on the battlefields of France in the two world wars? :rolleyes:

As for a "ninja muslim garda force", if they were better at catching criminals than the present shower, why not?:D

And, as I think I might have mentioned before, I'm an avowed atheist.

Biggins

Ellis Dee wrote: »

...I wonder how the Sikhs feel now that their turban is banned in France, something that the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as someone in the USA called them...

The Simpsons! :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese-eating_surrender_monkeys

token101

Ellis Dee wrote: »

A little background about the exemption for Sikhs: When crash helmets for motor cyclists became compulsory at a time when Sikhs on scooters were so common that it looked almost like a symbiotic pairing, several Sikhs were fined for not wearing them, but refused to pay. Incidentally, the turban is not a requirement, merely a convenience, because what Sikhism actually recommends is uncut hair. I have often seen men working in the fields in the Punjab, their metre-long hair fluttering in the wind.:cool:

The matter went through the appeals process, all the way to the Law Lords, which was then de facto the Supreme Court in the UK.

One of the most convincing witnesses for the appellants was a retired British general, who pointed out that tens of thousands of Sikhs from the Indian Army had fought for Britain in two world wars, and had not been required to wear the metal helmet that other military personnel had to. Indeed, in his opinion, the thick coil of hair under the several metres of cloth in the turban provided as much protection against bullets and shrapnel as the metal helmet.:D

The Sikhs won their case and the law still contains the exemption for them, one that does not, however, place any non-Sikhs at risk.

I wonder how the Sikhs feel now that their turban is banned in France, something that the "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", as someone in the USA called them, would not have the freedom to do if it had not been for the foreign soldiers, including thousands of Sikhs, who died on the battlefields of France in the two world wars? :rolleyes:

As for a "ninja muslim garda force", if they were better at catching criminals than the present shower, why not?:D

And, as I think I might have mentioned before, I'm an avowed atheist.

That's all well and good where it's for personal safety, but where it's for everyone else's safety there's a problem.

vetinari

A serious amount of fuss over nothing. A lot of posters on this thread come across as very intolerant. It's only a headscarf! Also, anytime, someone shows this id, they will be wearing a headscarf so a picture of the woman without the headscarf would be pointless!

Rented Mule

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

when in rome.....

...do as the Romanians apparently.

Nodin

token101 wrote: »

That doesn't make an entire argument any less valid.

I commented on the tone of debate, not the validity or otherwise of any side.

Hazys

Don't you hate pants?

I think everybody should be made take off their pants while they are getting their headshot taken.

FTGFOP

*unzips* Finally, a reason to get my photo taken!

Biggins

Hazys wrote: »

Don't you hate pants?

I think everybody should be made take off their pants while they are getting their headshot taken.

Try that in a cresh these days and you will get a headshot!
"BANG!"

Teyla Emmagan

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Incidentally, the turban is not a requirement, merely a convenience, because what Sikhism actually recommends is uncut hair. I have often seen men working in the fields in the Punjab, their metre-long hair fluttering in the wind.:cool:

That's who they are then - Sikhs! I knew there was some group of Indian men who wore that horrible patchouli oil in their hair, couldn't remember who they were yesterday. Thanks

hondasam

suicide_circus wrote: »

Having people not clearly visible in id photos is a threat to national security and potentially to life. No?

You seem to be confused with what the jihab is, it does not cover the face. I'm not sure all these women are a threat to national security. That's like saying all Irish people are IRA sympathizers.

ejmaztec

hondasam wrote: »

You seem to be confused with what the jihab is, it does not cover the face. I'm not sure all these women are a threat to national security. That's like saying all Irish people are IRA sympathizers.

They'll be even more confused now.:p

hondasam

hondasam wrote: »

You seem to be confused with what the jihab is, it does not cover the face. I'm not sure all these women are a threat to national security. That's like saying all Irish people are IRA sympathizers.

ejmaztec wrote: »

They'll be even more confused now.:p

me bad.

Cork boy 55

Muslim girls must be very pretty.

keithclancy

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Muslim girls must be very pretty.

most of them a fookin roides apparently.

Buts thats only because its so forbidden.

nice_very

vetinari wrote: »

A serious amount of fuss over nothing. A lot of posters on this thread come across as very intolerant. It's only a headscarf! Also, anytime, someone shows this id, they will be wearing a headscarf so a picture of the woman without the headscarf would be pointless!

a lot of posts in the thread similar to the one above remind me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RLkI5vdy1U

KeithAFC

af_thefragile wrote: »

Not respecting ones region and identity is a form of fascism. People shouls have the freedom to follow whatever religion they wish to and identify themselves with it if they wish to without any objections from the state. Its protecting the persons basic rights and freedom.

So you think it would be OK for me to dress as a Ninja and walk about tesco and just say it is because of my new Ninja religion which came to me in a dream from the Ninja god who told me to spread the message of Ninjaism?