AGS to allow members to wear religous and ethnic garb while on duty

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

really odd how most of the posts concentrate on the hijab and there has been little or no mention of the turban being allowed.

Sikhism does not instruct its followers to go out and conquer, kill and rape innocent Christians and other non-Muslims, Hinduism does not condone paedophilia. Islam on the other hand is not a Religion nor should it be afforded Religious status, it should be banned under hate speech.

To make statements as in the Quran would see you arrested for racism and discrimination but we bend over backwards to accommodate followers of this particularly vile form of Political terrorism, because that is what Islam is and certainly not a Religion.

The Sultan of Brunei thinks it is ok to sentence Gay people to death by stoning following Islam, but that's ok in the eyes of the leftwing liberals to accommodate Islam.

dont Sikh police in Britain wear a turban?
tbh it doesnt matter what the gardai wear. whats between their ears is more important than clothes and imo theres not a lot going on there.

as you can tell i have an incredibly low opinion if our police and nothing will change that.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Changing the uniform of our state police to allow the wearing of a symbol of opppresion is not the same as telling people what they can and cannot wear.

That’s exactly what it is?

Their husbands, brothers, sons, own community? And how would we target them exactly?

Here's a novel idea to start with, don't state sponsor it.

What would you be targeting their husbands, brothers, sons and their own community for? Surely the idea is that you would target their oppressors?

I’ve an even more novel idea - my sister is a revert to Islam who wears the veil. You try telling her that she can’t wear the veil rather than expecting the State should have to do your dirty work for you and let me know how that goes.

Good luck with that idea.

One eyed Jack wrote:

That’s exactly what it is?

No its not. AGS has a uniform. Not changing that uniform to accommodate a few people is not the same as saying you'll get arrested for walking down baggot street with a hijab on.

One eyed Jack wrote:

What would you be targeting their husbands, brothers, sons and their own community for? Surely the idea is that you would target their oppressors?

Who do you think runs the government,/police forces who made the laws that say the hijab must be worn in the home countries of these women?

One eyed Jack wrote:

I’ve an even more novel idea - my sister is a revert to Islam who wears the veil. You try telling her that she can’t wear the veil rather than expecting the State should have to do your dirty work for you and let me know how that goes.

She can't wear it in place of an AGS uniform. If I was running AGS that's what I'd gladly tell her. She can wear it to the beach off duty for all I care.

Your name is quite apt actually, try opening both eyes. You'll see more.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Your name is quite apt actually, try opening both eyes. You'll see more.

Mate.....glass houses and all that.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Changing the uniform of our state police to allow the wearing of a symbol of opppresion is not the same as telling people what they can and cannot wear.

Yes it is.

In countries where women are forced to wear it they are forced to follow a particular dress code based on the belief of others. II'm sure some of the women want to but not all.

Here if you forced someone not to wear it, it's just as bad.

Now you're going to say that it's only in the case of police officers. Which makes me wonder why it isn't in every public builing or any public roll.

And that's no including a sikh wearing a turban. That's not a symbol of womens oppression. So why ban that.

If it's just a general desire to keep religion out of the public eye, because we're a secular country, then why not ban any and all religious symbolism in all public buildings. That means that the clerk at the dole office can't wear a hijab or have ash on their heads on ash wednesday. Changing the names of schools and hospitals to remove references to saints etc.


And if it's because it's a uniform, well uniforms change. You'd want to ban any uniform that gives the option of a skirt or trousers when the wearer is a woman? Or maybe even just updating the uniform from time to time would be bad?

The fact is that in many countries, people wear religious garb when they're working official jobs. And they all get along fine doing it.


As I've said before, if a religious belief/garb prevents someone from carrying out their duties then they should be sacked. that goes for someone refusing to certify a gay wedding, give an abortion pill or anything like that.

The whole discussion is moot anyway. We have caught up with the rest of the western world and the change will be introduced. Those who are opposed to it will have to just suck it up.

theguzman wrote: »

Sikhism does not instruct its followers to go out and conquer, kill and rape innocent Christians and other non-Muslims, Hinduism does not condone paedophilia. Islam on the other hand is not a Religion nor should it be afforded Religious status, it should be banned under hate speech.

To make statements as in the Quran would see you arrested for racism and discrimination but we bend over backwards to accommodate followers of this particularly vile form of Political terrorism, because that is what Islam is and certainly not a Religion.

The Sultan of Brunei thinks it is ok to sentence Gay people to death by stoning following Islam, but that's ok in the eyes of the leftwing liberals to accommodate Islam.

Mod: It was only a matter of time before some unnecessarily islamophobic crap was spouted by someone.

Thread has been an interesting discussion up until now. Avoid this kind of rubbish and mods won't have to start throwing out cards and bans, ok?

theguzman wrote: »

The Sultan of Brunei thinks it is ok to sentence Gay people to death by stoning following Islam, but that's ok in the eyes of the leftwing liberals to accommodate Islam.

Has anyone anywhere, who's on the left of the political spectrum, ever said that stoning gay people is ok?

Seriously, anyone at all. Because you seem to be very delusional. I can't believe you actually believe that crap.

PokeHerKing wrote: »

No its not. AGS has a uniform. Not changing that uniform to accommodate a few people is not the same as saying you'll get arrested for walking down baggot street with a hijab on.

And now AGS have decided to change their uniform policy. In effect, they have evolved, because they see the benefit of permitting members of AGS to wear symbols of their religious affiliation - it encourages people from those communities to join AGS and represent their communities.

It’s no different than any other community policing initiative, but I don’t imagine we’ll see members of AGS who are also members of the LGBT community, decked out in lycra and feather boas any time soon

Who do you think runs the government,/police forces who made the laws that say the hijab must be worn in the home countries of these women?

We’re not in the Middle East though, this is Ireland, where freedom of religion is a fundamental human right protected by our laws.

She can't wear it in place of an AGS uniform. If I was running AGS that's what I'd gladly tell her. She can wear it to the beach off duty for all I care.

And now the AGS themselves are saying that she can wear it as a member of AGS too, she doesn’t need your permission or you telling where and when she can wear what she likes.

Your name is quite apt actually, try opening both eyes. You'll see more.

I’m thinking of changing my username at this stage as you’re not the first person who thought that seemed like a good dig at the time. Regardless of whether or not I open both eyes, I’ll still be blind in one. That’s really neither here nor there though in terms of this discussion.

Grayson wrote:

You do realise that muslims number over a billion and that it's not a single huge monolithic religion. You do realise that different muslim sects have different beliefs and that some believe they have to wear it, some don't.

You do realise you change the goal posts to suit your agenda don't you?

theguzman wrote: »

Sikhism does not instruct its followers to go out and conquer, kill and rape innocent Christians and other non-Muslims, Hinduism does not condone paedophilia. Islam on the other hand is not a Religion nor should it be afforded Religious status, it should be banned under hate speech.

To make statements as in the Quran would see you arrested for racism and discrimination but we bend over backwards to accommodate followers of this particularly vile form of Political terrorism, because that is what Islam is and certainly not a Religion.

The Sultan of Brunei thinks it is ok to sentence Gay people to death by stoning following Islam, but that's ok in the eyes of the leftwing liberals to accommodate Islam.

Mod: The next time you soapbox about irrelevant crap will get you a ban. One and only warning.