Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Turbans vs An Garda Siochána
Options
Comments
-
An Orange Order sash isn't obligatory to their faith.daithifleming wrote:So if a Orange Order protestant Gardai wants to wear an orange sash (which could conceiveably happen if they are allowed to wear turbans) you dont see any possible problems that this could lead to in this persons duty?
Wicknight: Klingons aren't a recognised religion in Ireland as of yet, same with Scientology as far as I know.0 -
Jakkass wrote:An Orange Order sash isn't obligatory to their faith.
Wicknight: Klingons aren't a recognised religion in Ireland as of yet, same with Scientology as far as I know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turban#Harassment_of_turban-wearers
So after reading the above passage in Wikipedia, you still cant see the danger that a Garda wearing a any religious item might bring to himself and any officer he is working with?0 -
Wicknight wrote:No, actually it is the entire point.
If you allow someone to alter the standard uniform of the Garda on what grounds do you stop the next person from changing the uniform to their own liking?
Like I said, if you bothered to read it, the turban itself is not the requirement for the Sikh faith. It is a practical corrollary of their religious requirement not to cut their hair. It should not be too difficult, if there is a will, to modify a turban so that it could be a version of the Garda uniform. The idea is not that Sikhs could wear any shape or colour of headgear they like but that the practical issue of their religious observance can be accommodated by the uniform.
All Lenihan and the Gardai are offering is the Kilnascully argument "Ye can't be doin' that lads".
No alternative.The only reason you think it is a stupid argument is because so far no one has actually bothered to say "Hey, I want to wear my Klingon battle dress while on duty"
But if they did, on what grounds would you stop them?
Nobody has. Except you and only as a straw man argument.That is a serious question, because simply saying "That is stupid, of course we could stop them" is not true.
They would most likely turn around and say "Well the Sikhs can wear what they want, why can't I".
They're not asking to wear "what they want" they are asking for an accommodation within the uniform for their particular requirement. In much the same way as women gardai can wear skirts as an option with the uniform.It is illegal for the Irish government to provide specific assistance to any particular religious group over another. And quite rightly so. We are a secular country.
They would be accommodating a small sartorial issue to allow members of a religious group to perform their secular, law-enforcement duties with as much power and responsibility as any other. How is that 'providing specific assistance to any particular group over another"?
I have seen the Chief Rabbi in the past present a Passover message on RTE. Should he be banned from doing so because non Jews don't celebrate Passover? Should RTE scrap the Angelus on the grounds that it is meaningless to non Catholics?
Secularism doesn't mean ignoring all religions. It means being fair to all without fear or favour.
Wearing a turban won't give a Sikh guard any more power than a Catholic or atheist one. It will just allow him to start on the same level playing field.0 -
Snickers Man wrote:All Lenihan and the Gardai are offering is the Kilnascully argument "Ye can't be doin' that lads".
No alternative.
All your offering is the begorrah argument "Let the poor fecker wear a turban in finest Garda blue." That and the bit about 'Bog Bigots'.0 -
daithifleming wrote:The point you made that i highlighted is absolute rubbish and has not reference whatever to this debate.
It is not rubbish and it is central to the debate, especially as the minister in question has labelled it a cultural issue.
He was quoted in the Indo as saying: "When the President and Ministers travel to the middle-east, they accept cultural requirements of the country and the culture they are operating in. It is a vice versa situation with regard to Ireland."
Now if you note, President McAleese and Minister Hannafin do NOT wear the Burka or the Hijab when they go to Muslim countries. Instead they wear western clothes, such as head scarves and long sleeves that are probably designed at vast expense by Irish couturiers yet conform to the minimum requirements of the culture which they are visiting. They come to an accommodation, in other words which marry the requirements of each other's cultures respectfully.The reason that Garda have a uniform (look up the meaning of that word) is so that the Garda acts as an indiscriminate arm of the state. He cannot be viewed as a sikh, muslim, christian, whatever. He is a Garda and nothing more, thats the way it is supposed to be.
But he probably IS one or other of those things that you describe. Being a Sikh or Catholic should have no bearing on how he does his job. But that does not mean that you have to disavow your religion when you join up. And as I, and others have been saying, the turban itself has no religious significance. It's a practical solution to something (long hair) that has.I have nothing against people coming here, setting up Indian restaurants, bringing their culture to ours.
Then whatever about its pertinence to this debate (answered above) why did you say my argument was crap?0 -
Advertisement
-
Snickers Man wrote:What a stupid argument!!!
Whether the Bog Bigots like it or not we have to face up to the fact that there are now a LOT of people in this country who grew up in other faiths and cultures and who now have to make their way in this country reaching an accommodation with our own. This is a two-way process. Sometimes we have to give a little; most times they do.
Which issues do we fight over and in which cases do we say: "OK. a situation has arisen here what is the most common sense and fairest way to deal with it?"
This turban malarkey is such a simple easy-to-resolve issue that the fact that it is generating a debate at all is a sad reflection of the small-minded idiocy that exists here, principally on the part of Mr Lenihan if the reports of him saying that incoming Sikhs must "conform to our culture" are accurate.
As I understand it, the turban itself is not the item of religious obligation. Rather it is the requirement of the Sikh religion that forbids men from cutting their hair. The Turban is merely a practical corrollary of this intended to keep their long locks neat clean and tidy. The idea that it is an operational impediment to police work is ridiculous; it is worn to enable Sikh men to go about their duties in whatever walk of life they choose.
Apart from those suffering from male pattern baldness, Sikh men have too much hair to tuck under the standard issue Garda cap. That is why they wear the turban in the first place.
There is no reason why a turban could not be designed to be part of a Guard's uniform. It could be the right shade of blue and could be fastened with a clasp containing the standard GS badge or insignia. There was a picture in the paper yesterday of a British Sikh policeman wearing a similarly appropriate turban. And a big smile.
This does not REQUIRE every member of the Guards to wear a turban.
It does NOT imply, as you suggest, that Orangemen could attach a sash and bowler hat to their uniform while on duty. That has nothing to do with the practicalities of the job. It does not imply that you would have to allow the burka for Muslim women police officers.
To say that immigrants must "conform to our culture" is ridiculous and impractical. They must conform to our laws. As must we. They must "respect" our culture, as we must theirs.
Culture is a fluid ephemeral concept. It changes. How many Tandoori restaurants were there in Ireland 20 years ago? When did we first start playing that "alien" rock and roll music? When did half the country fall in love with Manchester bloody United?
There used to be an institution in this country with "cultural conformance laws". That was the GAA which forbade its members from so much as casting their eyes towards "foreign games" until 1970, ie within my lifetime. Now those ridiculous unenforceable laws have gone and the GAA has never been stronger. Try getting a ticket for next Sunday's Kerry Dublin semifinal to be held in one of Europe's largest sporting arenas if you doubt me.
Let the poor fecker wear a turban in finest Garda blue. He wants to contribute fully to his new country of citizenship. Fair play to him. Don't tell he HAS to change his name to Seamus or Declan to "conform to our culture" as well.
GOOD CALL!....... Snickers Man.
It is meant to be integration (two way process) not assimilation.0 -
Jakkass wrote:An Orange Order sash isn't obligatory to their faith.
Wicknight: Klingons aren't a recognised religion in Ireland as of yet, same with Scientology as far as I know.
As with the Man Utd top, you have yet to explain what that matters Jakkass
Are you claiming that religious belief is the only justifiable reason to want to wear something like this? That if you don't have a religious reason you don't have a valid claim?0 -
Snickers Man wrote:Like I said, if you bothered to read it, the turban itself is not the requirement for the Sikh faith. It is a practical corrollary of their religious requirement not to cut their hair. It should not be too difficult, if there is a will, to modify a turban so that it could be a version of the Garda uniform. The idea is not that Sikhs could wear any shape or colour of headgear they like but that the practical issue of their religious observance can be accommodated by the uniform.
All Lenihan and the Gardai are offering is the Kilnascully argument "Ye can't be doin' that lads".
No alternative.
Nobody has. Except you and only as a straw man argument.
They're not asking to wear "what they want" they are asking for an accommodation within the uniform for their particular requirement. In much the same way as women gardai can wear skirts as an option with the uniform.
They would be accommodating a small sartorial issue to allow members of a religious group to perform their secular, law-enforcement duties with as much power and responsibility as any other. How is that 'providing specific assistance to any particular group over another"?
I have seen the Chief Rabbi in the past present a Passover message on RTE. Should he be banned from doing so because non Jews don't celebrate Passover? Should RTE scrap the Angelus on the grounds that it is meaningless to non Catholics?
Secularism doesn't mean ignoring all religions. It means being fair to all without fear or favour.
Wearing a turban won't give a Sikh guard any more power than a Catholic or atheist one. It will just allow him to start on the same level playing field.
You know the silliness of the arguments being brought forward like this shows how weak the case for allowing religious items to be part of Garda uniform are. Have you no concept of what it is we are actually saying? Can you not read what it is that i am saying? Im saying that wearing religious items could pose a unneccesary threat to the Garda in question and his colleagues. Can you not see that???0 -
saabi wrote:GOOD CALL!....... Snickers Man.
It is meant to be integration (two way process) not assimilation.
It is nothing to do with assimilation, it is to do with secularism
The Garda's are not banning the turban. They are saying you cannot, for any reason, alter the standard Garda uniform.
I would appose a Catholic altering the uniform as much as a Sikh.0 -
Wicknight wrote:It is nothing to do with assimilation, it is to do with secularism
The Garda's are not banning the turban. They are saying you cannot, for any reason, alter the standard Garda uniform.
I would appose a Catholic altering the uniform as much as a Sikh.
Exactly!0 -
Advertisement
-
spurious wrote:The UK police seem to manage it.
Yes they manage lots of things in the UK. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Jean Charles de Menenzes. How's that for welcoming minorities into the community.spurious wrote:As with many things, we spend time arguing about stupid things here when all we have to do is look across the water - they have been through all this 20 or 30 years ago, made their mistakes and learned from it.
We are learning from Britain's mistakes, hopefully. The minorities must integrate into our society not teh other way round.spurious wrote:I somehow doubt there are hordes of Sikhs waiting to join the guards.
Precisely. If there were a viable case could be made for a Sikh dress code in the Gardai. To claim that we are obliged to make changes to facilitate one man is nonsense.0 -
And once you have done that you have to modify the uniform for any request.Snickers Man wrote:It should not be too difficult, if there is a will, to modify a turban so that it could be a version of the Garda uniform.
You keep focusing on the Sikhs as if this will only ever be an isolated request, without realising that if complied with it sets a precedent that anyone can request an alteration to the uniform.
The Garda cannot legally under the Irish constitution respond to one request while ignoring others, as that is favoritism among religions. Which means they will have to reply to ALL OF THEM.
That is the whole point of secularism. The only fair way to accommodate all religions is to accommodate none of them. Because if you accommodate one but not the other you are playing favorites.Snickers Man wrote:The idea is not that Sikhs could wear any shape or colour of headgear they like but that the practical issue of their religious observance can be accommodated by the uniform.
And what about ever other religion? Do you attempt to accommodate all of them?
Or do you just hope that very few actually bother to ask?
That is irrelevant. They can ask.Snickers Man wrote:Nobody has. Except you and only as a straw man argument.
You cannot build a constitutional and legal frame work for the treatment of citizens and religions on the hope that people just won't ask. That is ridiculous.
That is "what they want" They want this. Another group may want that. An individual may want something else.Snickers Man wrote:They're not asking to wear "what they want" they are asking for an accommodation within the uniform for their particular requirement.
You keep ignoring the question of on what grounds to you refuse the next request.Snickers Man wrote:They would be accommodating a small sartorial issue to allow members of a religious group to perform their secular, law-enforcement duties with as much power and responsibility as any other. How is that 'providing specific assistance to any particular group over another"?
It is in exactly as you describe it, allowing members of one particular religious group accommodation in a "small sartorial issue"
Unless you are going to provide all groups accommodation in "small sartorial issues" then you are providing assistance to one group over another.
Yes, it should. RTE is a public service broadcaster, and should not favor the broadcasting of one religious message over another. That is the nature of our secular government.Snickers Man wrote:I have seen the Chief Rabbi in the past present a Passover message on RTE. Should he be banned from doing so because non Jews don't celebrate Passover? Should RTE scrap the Angelus on the grounds that it is meaningless to non Catholics?
But I imagine this issue will one be resolved when a Muslim gets the great idea of demanding that call to prayer be broadcast on the service. I would be very interested to see one what grounds RTE refuse him.
You are right, that is exactly what it means. And the only fair way of doing that is to ignore all religions, because it is physically impossible to accommodate all of the equallySnickers Man wrote:Secularism doesn't mean ignoring all religions. It means being fair to all without fear or favour.0 -
Mick86 wrote:Yes they manage lots of things in the UK. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Jean Charles de Menenzes. How's that for welcoming minorities into the community.
We are learning from Britain's mistakes, hopefully. The minorities must integrate into our society not teh other way round.
Precisely. If there were a viable case could be made for a Sikh dress code in the Gardai. To claim that we are obliged to make changes to facilitate one man is nonsense.
Well the point is that the uniform should not be altered on religious grounds or beliefs. If you allow one, where does it end?0 -
Wicknight wrote:Are you claiming that religious belief is the only justifiable reason to want to wear something like this? That if you don't have a religious reason you don't have a valid claim?
You've finally figured it out. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Religious faith is not comparable to supporting a football club.0 -
They are saying you cannot, for any reason, alter the standard Garda uniform.
Didn't they update it a few years ago? Aren't female Gardai allowed to wear trousers these days? Yes they did, and yes they are...so of course it can be altered, if the Gardai so decide to alter it.
Any set of uniform can consist of various pieces (i.e some police forces in the UK have their constables wearing "bobby" helments, some wear peak caps etc - some wear a shirt, some wear a jumper). Other professions uniforms tend to be a range of items which clearly identifies them as thier chosen profession, but they can choose which pieces to wear on any given day).
Uniform doesn't mean everyone is an identikit clone of each other in this case. Police uniform is something to mark out their role of authority, and make them clearly identifiable - to give them a unifromity (the ity part, being the important part). A helmet, hat or turban doesn't really matter - one they can be identified.
From a practical point of view, turbans aren't always ideal (i.e. riot helmets etc). However, as pointed out alternative headcoverings can be found to go under a helmet which are an acceptable and often used compromise by Sikhs in many professions.
And if we're talking about having a completely neutral, non religious police force, shouldn't all the boys and girls in blue be taking off their wedding rings too? After all, symbols of Christian weddings should be a no-no as well, shouldn't they?0 -
BuffyBot wrote:Didn't they update it a few years ago? Aren't female Gardai allowed to wear trousers these days? Yes they did, and yes they are...so of course it can be altered, if the Gardai so decide to alter it.
Any set of uniform can consist of various pieces (i.e some police forces in the UK have their constables wearing "bobby" helments, some wear peak caps etc - some wear a shirt, some wear a jumper). Other professions uniforms tend to be a range of items which clearly identifies them as thier chosen profession, but they can choose which pieces to wear on any given day).
Uniform doesn't mean everyone is an identikit clone of each other in this case. Police uniform is something to mark out their role of authority, and make them clearly identifiable - to give them a unifromity (the ity part, being the important part). A helmet, hat or turban doesn't really matter - one they can be identified.
From a practical point of view, turbans aren't always ideal (i.e. riot helmets etc). However, as pointed out alternative headcoverings can be found to go under a helmet which are an acceptable and often used compromise by Sikhs in many professions.
And if we're talking about having a completely neutral, non religious police force, shouldn't all the boys and girls in blue be taking off their wedding rings too? After all, symbols of Christian weddings should be a no-no as well, shouldn't they?
Maybe you should look up the meaning of uniform. By the way, could anyone address my fears about the extra uneccesary threat that a Garda could face (or bring upon his colleague) should he/she be allowed to wear a relgious item over his/her uniform?0 -
-
daithifleming wrote:Maybe you should look up the meaning of uniform. By the way, could anyone address my fears about the extra uneccesary threat that a Garda could face (or bring upon his colleague) should he/she be allowed to wear a relgious item over his/her uniform?
Can you imagine one turban wearing Gardai at the love ulster riots ?0 -
Of course the Gardai can up date it, its their uniform.BuffyBot wrote:Didn't they update it a few years ago? Aren't female Gardai allowed to wear trousers these days? Yes they did, and yes they are...so of course it can be altered, if the Gardai so decide to alter it.
The "you" is a new Garda recruit who decides they don't like one aspect, for what ever reason, and decides they want to wear something different.
I would have thought that was clear :rolleyes:BuffyBot wrote:Uniform doesn't mean everyone is an identikit clone of each other in this case.
How many different variations would you allow of the Garda uniform? 1? 5? 100? 10,000?
Clearly that is not practical or possible. So at some stage you have to say "No, we aren't changing this bloody thing to allow for another variation"
So the issue is when do you say this?
What religions can have variations of the uniform, and what ones cannot? On what basis of personal belief can some say "I'm not wearing that, I'm wearing this instead" and have a variation produced for them.
People are getting far to focused on the Sikhs, as if all this will just end with them and no group will ever request a change the uniform ever again
This issue has actually nothing to do with the Sikhs, it just happens to be them that have brought it to the for. It could have been Muslims or Catholics, or Jedi.
And a Man Utd top? Or a orange sash? Or what if someone refuses to wear the badge on religious grounds. Can we produce a variation of the uniform that doesn't contain any identification?BuffyBot wrote:A helmet, hat or turban doesn't really matter - one they can be identified.0 -
Snickers Man wrote:Sikh men have too much hair to tuck under the standard issue Garda cap. That is why they wear the turban in the first place.
If Monty can manage to get a cricket helmet on his head while wearing the smaller turban, why couldn't this reservist manage to do the same with a Garda cap?0 -
Advertisement
-
At the end of the day who really and i mean Really actually gives a toss what the Gradai wear.0
-
scribs wrote:At the end of the day who really and i mean Really actually gives a toss what the Gradai wear.
I think its a principle at the heart of how the country handles integration or lack of integration. Either people come here to integrate into Irish society or people come here and expect us to integrate into their ways and traditions.
A sikh who wants to join the Garda Siochana while wearing non uniform or religious headgear is not an isolated request. It is just the first. There is a safety/operational aspect to this too - a turban wearing sikh would be ineligible for motorcycle duty whether its escort or traffic or ceremonial or whatever. They are also incapable of civil disturbance duty. A turban wearing guard is going to prove provocative. When was the last time you saw a bouncer at a night club who wore a turban ?
Following on from that will be a sikh in the army, airforce, firefighting service and so on. Not to mention motorcycle helmets and construction site helmets. Somewhere to follow would be muslim women who want to wear the veil in public facing govt roles, whether its an Garda Siochana, nurses, soldiers or whatever. Then full length islamic beards are on the cards too.
You cant make one concession in isolation - if you make one you are signing off on them all or you are guaranteeing subsequent problems for yourself. France has learned this the hard way and we are in a unique position of not having to make the same mistakes that the UK and a handful of other places have.0 -
Mick86 wrote:Yes they manage lots of things in the UK. Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Jean Charles de Menenzes. How's that for welcoming minorities into the community.
I'd say it's not too bad really for a population of about 60.6 million0 -
scribs wrote:At the end of the day who really and i mean Really actually gives a toss what the Gradai wear.
There is a much bigger issue at stake here which could have serious consequences for this country in the future, wheter people realise it or not.
Edit to say, I've just read Cuffe's little piece on the green party website and he has decided to totally ignore the main issue, well done, nice way to fudge the issue.0 -
cushtac wrote:If Monty can manage to get a cricket helmet on his head while wearing the smaller turban, why couldn't this reservist manage to do the same with a Garda cap?
If you look at the other picture of Monty posted here you see that he is wearing a small black headscarf which seems to work for him. I suggest, and I only suggest as I don't know for sure, that maybe Monty (no more than myself) er, doesn't have as much hair as he used to. So it's not an issue with him.
Or it could be that he is not as devout an observant Sikh as others (again I don't know) so it might mean that a) he is not bothered about the turban or b) might cut his hair.
Either way, there doesn't seem to be too huge a bulge between his head and his black cap.0 -
Wicknight wrote:You keep ignoring the question of on what grounds to you refuse the next request.
On its merits. In a fair and consistent way. How hard is that?Yes, it should. RTE is a public service broadcaster, and should not favor the broadcasting of one religious message over another. That is the nature of our secular government.
But I just pointed out to you that they do NOT allow expression of one religion to the exclusion of others. There have been Jewish broadcasts at passover time. And I'm pretty sure there has been a Muslim broadcast at Ramadan time in the past.
This is being inclusive, not exclusive. You take each case on its merits. Obviously there are many more catholics in this country than anyone else so it is fair to broadcast Sunday mass every week. There are rather fewer Jews and Muslims but the principle of inclusiveness applies: they are entitled to air time in proportion to their prevalence among hte Irish people.
Principle is fair play. What's so difficult about that?0 -
-
Its avoiding the question.Snickers Man wrote:On its merits. In a fair and consistent way. How hard is that?
What merits? What is a "fair and consistent" way when dealing with religion? Or more specifically on what grounds would you turn a request down
Exactly how many religions are there in the world Snickers?Snickers Man wrote:But I just pointed out to you that they do NOT allow expression of one religion to the exclusion of others. There have been Jewish broadcasts at passover time. And I'm pretty sure there has been a Muslim broadcast at Ramadan time in the past.
And as soon as you explain how to actually do that I'm all ears.Snickers Man wrote:You take each case on its merits.
How would you explain a individual or group that they request is without merit?
No, that isn't fair, not for a secular republic.Snickers Man wrote:Obviously there are many more catholics in this country than anyone else so it is fair to broadcast Sunday mass every week.
Do you actually understand the point of secularism?0 -
Monty's not the only one doing this, as I said earlier I worked with a Sikh lad who wore the smaller turban so he could wear a helmet over it. And Flying has said that Sikhs in the British Army must wear helmets while on operational duties. They can't all be 'less devout' than those with full turbans.
The point is, there's an alternative to the full turban available that would allow this guy to keep his faith & adhere to the uniform regulations. So the question is, is this guy willing to find a middle road or is he going to stick to the 'my way or none at all' route he seems to be on at present?0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:You dismiss non-religious belief as unimportant to a person? Why?
A football club isn't comparable to a religious belief because it isn't a belief system. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I'd be glad to hear.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement