Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

impr0v

Boggle wrote:

..long post..

Boggle, you don't get your own individual reply to questions that have already been answered because you've lived outside the country, great and all as that is, and seem to think you know me. The answers to pretty much everything you've asked there have already been answered.

In terms of compromise I was referring to the fact that the Irish Sikh Council, presumably on behalf of all their members, have indicated their willingness to accept a modified turban.

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

You seem to be attempting to argue that requiring a uniform to be worn while performing a job is a breach of individual civil rights.

No, I'm arguing that the constitutional and human rights of the Sikh individual, told by the state that he had to remove his turban and wear a cap in order to join the Garda Reserve force, are very likely to have been breached.

impr0v

daithifleming wrote:

Bearing this in mind, say we allow this Sikh to wear the turban, but we deny another minor religion the right to alter the uniform to red because they think the colour blue is demonic. Now, if we dont allow this person to alter the uniform because he isnt from a 'recognised' religion (whatever that is), how is that not discrimination?

Wow, that's a whole new argument. Are you talking Star Trek Red?

Back to the 'what-if' machine with you I'm afraid.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

Wow, that's a whole new argument. Are you talking Star Trek Red?

Back to the 'what-if' machine with you I'm afraid.

So we shouldnt consider future repercussions of our actions now? Thats what you are saying. Just want to be clear.

impr0v

We don't need to consider hyper-unrealistic farcial scenarios, no.

We address any situation that arises under the same framework as we address this one.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

We don't need to consider hyper-unrealistic farcial scenarios, no.

We address any situation that arises under the same framework as we address this one.

Well i believe someone did mention new-age spirituality as a belief system and their beliefs in the role colours play in these beliefs, so it is possible. Its certainly not as hyper-unrealistic as the Jedi option is it? So whats the solution to that? They are very obviously a tiny minority in world terms, should they be ignored if they want a red uniform?

Boggle

Boggle, you don't get your own individual reply to questions that have already been answered

Have they? Or is this just an easy way out of awkward questions.
This is how you answer questions:

Back to the 'what-if' machine with you I'm afraid.

he or she made a point which illustrated how allowing any uniform based on beliefs could lead to problems. Let me guess, back when the M50 was built, you would have saved the hassle and gone for one lane - yeah??

because you've lived outside the country

I was hardly asking for a great big pat on the back. I gave an opinion based on the perspective of having witnessed integration first hand on a large scale (which Ireland is yet a fair bit away from) - all I've seen from you is waffle derived from what you appear to have read on the net and quoting hypotheticals as fact.

The answers to pretty much everything you've asked there have already been answered.

Have they? I saw a few sermons originating loosely on other peoples points but I don't see too many direct answers - especially not for anything I've put to you. Worried??

In terms of compromise I was referring to the fact that the Irish Sikh Council, presumably on behalf of all their members, have indicated their willingness to accept a modified turban.

And you think that sufficient?!?? Let them adopt the garda hat as the 21st century turban...

We don't need to consider hyper-unrealistic farcial scenarios, no.

So its hyper unrealistic that someday we may accommodate every individuals right to hold their own beliefs? I've said before to either you or Jackass that every set of beliefs sound perfectly insane to outsiders and perfectly normal for followers.
I mean, seriously, does wearing a turban make any logical sense??
(note the term logical as opposed to spiritual if you please)

impr0v

Au contraire, Boggle, I don't see any awkward questions, I just see attempts to argue by obfuscation and hysterical hypothesising about farcial situations that will never occur. I don't see any point in addressing either because I don't share either the fervour that this issue obviously excites in you or your curious passion for sentence by sentence quoting.

The M50? I suppose you've seen some road-building on your travels as well and wish to share your knowledge on that too? No, I would have planned and built the M50 with 2 lanes, as would any engineer or politician involved. To do otherwise would have been financially irresponsible as a) the country at that time had a severely limited budget for road works and b) there was no indication whatsoever of the economic conditions to come and the corresponding increase in car ownership and traffic volumes. The best available traffic figures at that time, without the benefit of a crystal ball, or as in your case crystal clear hindsight, indicated that a two lane motorway was more than adequate. I would certainly have handled the bridge aspect differently.

And sermonising? Hardly. What I've said has been partly my own opinion, but the majority of what I've written is soundly based upon constitutional law. I only entered this thread to correct Wicknight's brave but ill-informed pronouncements on the same subject. I can't give a definitive answer on the matter, and neither can anyone here. I'd like to see it end up in the courts so that a definitive answer could be given, and for pure interest's sake. I'd be very interested in what arguments the state puts forward.

I agree with you absolutely that wearing a turban makes no logical sense, neither does religion in general, but the right to adhere to that particular brand of nonsense is constitutionally protected.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

Au contraire, Boggle, I don't see any awkward questions, I just see attempts to argue by obfuscation and hysterical hypothesising about farcial situations that will never occur. I don't see any point in addressing either because I don't share either the fervour that this issue obviously excites in you or your curious passion for sentence by sentence quoting.

The M50? I suppose you've seen some road-building on your travels as well and wish to share your knowledge on that too? No, I would have planned and built the M50 with 2 lanes, as would any engineer or politician involved. To do otherwise would have been financially irresponsible as a) the country at that time had a severely limited budget for road works and b) there was no indication whatsoever of the economic conditions to come and the corresponding increase in car ownership and traffic volumes. The best available traffic figures at that time, without the benefit of a crystal ball, or as in your case crystal clear hindsight, indicated that a two lane motorway was more than adequate. I would certainly have handled the bridge aspect differently.

And sermonising? Hardly. What I've said has been partly my own opinion, but the majority of what I've written is soundly based upon constitutional law. I only entered this thread to correct Wicknight's brave but ill-informed pronouncements on the same subject. I can't give a definitive answer on the matter, and neither can anyone here. I'd like to see it end up in the courts so that a definitive answer could be given, and for pure interest's sake. I'd be very interested in what arguments the state puts forward.

I agree with you absolutely that wearing a turban makes no logical sense, neither does religion in general, but the right to adhere to that particular brand of nonsense is constitutionally protected.

Right, so then it will be ok for Sikhs to wear turbans in the Garda but of course the other silly beliefs will be excluded because they are not big enough or because it hasnt happened in the UK and USA yet.

DublinWriter

daithifleming wrote:

Right, so then it will be ok for Sikhs to wear turbans in the Garda but of course the other silly beliefs will be excluded because they are not big enough or because it hasnt happened in the UK and USA yet.

...other silly beliefs?

Look dude, we either progress as a multi-cultural modern nation or go back to Dev's ideas of comly maidens dancing at the crossroads.

Ekancone

DublinWriter wrote:

...other silly beliefs?

Look dude, we either progress as a multi-cultural modern nation or go back to Dev's ideas of comly maidens dancing at the crossroads.

Well, any beliefs that dont have the weight of numbers behind them. Sadly, these people have no rights, for their beliefs are less important than the corporate religions...

mickoneill30

DublinWriter wrote:

Look dude, we either progress as a multi-cultural modern nation or go back to Dev's ideas of comly maidens dancing at the crossroads.

So your point is .......?
Are you agreeing with changing the uniforms for religion (any religion that requires it) or not?

seamus

DublinWriter wrote:

Look dude, we either progress as a multi-cultural modern nation or go back to Dev's ideas of comly maidens dancing at the crossroads.

Agreed, and a multi-cultural modern nation discriminates against no-one. Ergo everyone wears the same uniform, regardless of religion.

DublinWriter

mickoneill30 wrote:

So your point is .......?
Are you agreeing with changing the uniforms for religion (any religion that requires it) or not?

Well if it works for the London Met, it will work here. End of story.

...that's unless you want to preserve some mythical Irish way of life and/or culture?

Ekancone

seamus wrote:

Agreed, and a multi-cultural modern nation discriminates against no-one. Ergo everyone wears the same uniform, regardless of religion.

No, its more important to discriminate against the beliefs of minorities rather than upset the beliefs of established religions.

Ekancone

DublinWriter wrote:

Well if it works for the London Met, it will work here. End of story.

...that's unless you want to preserve some mythical Irish way of life and/or culture?

Yay! Yet another person who didnt read the thread before commenting! Congratulations!

stovelid

DublinWriter wrote:

...that's unless you want to preserve some mythical Irish way of life and/or culture?

Not really but I think the English have been overly tolerant in their pursuit of multiculturalism.

Although I want to see tolerance of religious and cultural differences here; I want to see an emphasis on secular values when it comes to state functions like policing and schooling....whatever the religious belief is...

mickoneill30

DublinWriter wrote:

Well if it works for the London Met, it will work here. End of story.

...that's unless you want to preserve some mythical Irish way of life and/or culture?

Ah right so. It works for other countries so we should just do what they do. You'ld wonder why we bother having leaders at all. Sure Irelands just the same as England. :rolleyes:

Edit: Crap. Thought I'd better edit this to say that the above is sarcasm. (I know it's obvious to most but better to be safe than sorry).

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote:

Look dude, we either progress as a multi-cultural modern nation or go back to Dev's ideas of comly maidens dancing at the crossroads.

WTF?

You are arguing against a return to the days when certain religions held a special relationship with the State by arguing that certain religions should hold a special relationship with the State.

Are people seriously arguing that its ok that some religions are given special accommodation by the state so long as these religions are new and interested, rather than say Catholicism which is a bit old and boring?

What exactly is the difference between Sikhs being given special accommodation in 2007 and Catholics being special accommodation in 1957?

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote:

...that's unless you want to preserve some mythical Irish way of life and/or culture?

People want to preserve the "mythical" way of separation of church and state and secularism.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

We address any situation that arises under the same framework as we address this one.

If you allow a Sikh a special version of the uniform just for him based on his personal desire to not cut his hair and wear a turban, what exactly is the "framework" you are using?

Are you honestly saying that you can see no situation in the future where anyone else would ever make a similar request?

You have rejected all hypotheticals put to you as been hyper realistic (I think that was the point, if someone can withstand them it can withstand all), so how about you come with a situation that you think is realistic and explain how you think that the Garda would deal with it given that they allowed people to wear turbans if they wanted to.

impr0v

Addressing situations, such as the majority of the one's proffered here, in a piecemeal fashion is a waste of my time and serves only to unnecessarily widen the debate beyond the situation at hand. It's admirable though the way the white knights of secularism have changed tack and are now on a crusade to protect the rights of the minority 'religions' against state discrimination.

The current legal framework for assessing the situation is as follows.

Pick any example you want, say a Muslim woman wanting to wear her burqa, or your favorite, the Star Trek fan wanting to wear his Dana Troy uniform, it doesn't really matter. No belief system is subjected to discrimination, they are all subjected to the same process.

To avail of the protection of article 44 the belief system in question must be a religion and, in the event of a dispute, the courts will decide whether it is or it isn't. We've agreed that anyone deciding what is and what isn't a religion, presumably based on logic, is a somewhat absurd situation, but that's the way it would be done currently in Ireland; there is no other methodology. Looking at it pragmatically, a long established and very popular religion is likely to easily cross this hurdle, niche 'religions' or those manufactured by the what-if process solely to abuse the protection granted to religion are less likely to do so. Needless to say, any case can be argued and there is currently no jurisprudence in Ireland on what constitutes a religion, beyond what I mentioned a few pages ago in the context of charitable trusts.

Once that hurdle is crossed, the restriction of rights complained of is assessed by the courts to determine whether it's proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. The restriction in this case is that the guy wants to do a state job for which he's qualified, and the state is saying that he is welcome to do it, but only if he takes off his turban, contrary to his article 44 rights.

There are a number of reasons why this is different to other seemingly analogous situations. While you dispute it, nearly all reporting, as well as the Sikh Council, have stated that the wearing of the turban is obligatory for an adherent, therefore to require him to remove it is to completely deny him his article 44 rights, as opposed to partially restricting them. This distinguishes a turban from ceremonial items in other religions which are optional in that they do not have to be worn at all times. The turban can be, and has been in other jurisdictions, modified so as to enable the wearer to carry on practical police work duties without impediment, and is a minor element of the uniform. The Garda cap serves no functional role, except to distinguish the wearer as a Garda. A Garda in full uniform with an appropriately modified turban, something the Sikh Council have expressed their support for, can still be distinguished as a Garda. This distinguishes a turban from other items of clothing. The turban, and this is an arguable point, does not constitute an offensive symbol in the same way that, say, a burqa might. Wearing it does not condone or symbolise sexist oppression, or a fundamentalist ethos. This distinguishes the turban from the requirements of Islam in terms of female dress, and symbol or slogans that would obviously constitute incitement, e.g. a swastika, or Sleepy's 'morons' statement.

The objective sought to be achieved by the government in this case is unclear, but it likely to be a general uniformity of Garda dress for public order reasons, or something similar. It's possible that they would also put forward the secularist argument, i.e. that a law-enforcement body should be devoid of religious symbolism.

In terms of either objective, the court has to assess whether the objective could be achieved with something less than a total restriction of rights. This step involves considerable latitude for argument. I think that if the objective put forward is the general uniformity one, the courts are likely to conclude that the total restriction is disproportionate, for the reasons I've outlined two paragraphs above. I can't say that for sure, but I'm pretty confident that it would be the case.

If they argued the secularist position, it's less clear. I would say the chances are that the Irish courts might side with the state. If that did happen and it was subsequently appealed to the ECHR, the court generally grants a generous but nevertheless limited margin of appreciation on religious and moral matters to the member state in question. However, I think that the court would look to whether Ireland has obviously and consistently pursued a secularist agenda in this and other areas of state control and, as set out earlier in this thread, I think the evidence that they have is scant. If the court were to think the same, they would likely find the state to have breached article 9 of the convention. It is of course possible that they would say the prohibition is proportionate, that's why I can't give a definitive answer and no one here can. In my opinion however, he would have a strong chance of success if he did choose to mount a legal challenge.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

Addressing situations, such as the majority of the one's proffered here, in a piecemeal fashion is a waste of my time and serves only to unnecessarily widen the debate beyond the situation at hand. It's admirable though the way the white knights of secularism have changed tack and are now on a crusade to protect the rights of the minority 'religions' against state discrimination.

The current legal framework for assessing the situation is as follows.

Pick any example you want, say a Muslim woman wanting to wear her burqa, or your favorite, the Star Trek fan wanting to wear his Dana Troy uniform, it doesn't really matter. No belief system is subjected to discrimination, they are all subjected to the same process.

To avail of the protection of article 44 the belief system in question must be a religion and, in the event of a dispute, the courts will decide whether it is or it isn't. We've agreed that anyone deciding what is and what isn't a religion, presumably based on logic, is a somewhat absurd situation, but that's the way it would be done currently in Ireland; there is no other methodology. Looking at it pragmatically, a long established and very popular religion is likely to easily cross this hurdle, niche 'religions' or those manufactured by the what-if process solely to abuse the protection granted to religion are less likely to do so. Needless to say, any case can be argued and there is currently no jurisprudence in Ireland on what constitutes a religion, beyond what I mentioned a few pages ago in the context of charitable trusts.

Once that hurdle is crossed, the restriction of rights complained of is assessed by the courts to determine whether it's proportionate to the objective sought to be achieved. The restriction in this case is that the guy wants to do a state job for which he's qualified, and the state is saying that he is welcome to do it, but only if he takes off his turban, contrary to his article 44 rights.

There are a number of reasons why this is different to other seemingly analogous situations. While you dispute it, nearly all reporting, as well as the Sikh Council, have stated that the wearing of the turban is obligatory for an adherent, therefore to require him to remove it is to completely deny him his article 44 rights, as opposed to partially restricting them. This distinguishes a turban from ceremonial items in other religions which are optional in that they do not have to be worn at all times. The turban can be, and has been in other jurisdictions, modified so as to enable the wearer to carry on practical police work duties without impediment, and is a minor element of the uniform. The Garda cap serves no functional role, except to distinguish the wearer as a Garda. A Garda in full uniform with an appropriately modified turban, something the Sikh Council have expressed their support for, can still be distinguished as a Garda. This distinguishes a turban from other items of clothing. The turban, and this is an arguable point, does not constitute an offensive symbol in the same way that, say, a burqa might. Wearing it does not condone or symbolise sexist oppression, or a fundamentalist ethos. This distinguishes the turban from the requirements of Islam in terms of female dress, and symbol or slogans that would obviously constitute incitement, e.g. a swastika, or Sleepy's 'morons' statement.

The objective sought to be achieved by the government in this case is unclear, but it likely to be a general uniformity of Garda dress for public order reasons, or something similar. It's possible that they would also put forward the secularist argument, i.e. that a law-enforcement body should be devoid of religious symbolism.

In terms of either objective, the court has to assess whether the objective could be achieved with something less than a total restriction of rights. This step involves considerable latitude for argument. I think that if the objective put forward is the general uniformity one, the courts are likely to conclude that the total restriction is disproportionate, for the reasons I've outlined two paragraphs above. I can't say that for sure, but I'm pretty confident that it would be the case.

If they argued the secularist position, it's less clear. I would say the chances are that the Irish courts might side with the state. If that did happen and it was subsequently appealed to the ECHR, the court generally grants a generous but nevertheless limited margin of appreciation on religious and moral matters to the member state in question. However, I think that the court would look to whether Ireland has obviously and consistently pursued a secularist agenda in this and other areas of state control and, as set out earlier in this thread, I think the evidence that they have is scant. If the court were to think the same, they would likely find the state to have breached article 9 of the convention. It is of course possible that they would say the prohibition is proportionate, that's why I can't give a definitive answer and no one here can. In my opinion however, he would have a strong chance of success if he did choose to mount a legal challenge.

Finally a good answer from the 'yes' vote. I suppose you are right there, it is for the courts to decide what is reasonable or not. Time will tell. My hope is that if the courts rule that he cannot on the above mentioned grounds, that this would lead to further reform in Ireland, with schools being secularised and the state removing some of the double-standards that have been mentioned earlier. Nonetheless, it will be an interesting saga.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

To avail of the protection of article 44 the belief system in question must be a religion and, in the event of a dispute, the courts will decide whether it is or it isn't. We've agreed that anyone deciding what is and what isn't a religion, presumably based on logic, is a somewhat absurd situation, but that's the way it would be done currently in Ireland; there is no other methodology.

Yes, but the point you are ignoring is that this isn't necessary. This is only necessary if we wish to go down the road of deciding X is a religion and Y isn't a religion.

Why is that even necessary in this case?

Is it simply easier to say that whether or not you are a religion you ain't changing the Garda uniform, for any reason.

impr0v wrote:

The restriction in this case is that the guy wants to do a state job for which he's qualified, and the state is saying that he is welcome to do it, but only if he takes off his turban, contrary to his article 44 rights.

That isn't what the State is saying.

The State is saying this job requires you to wear a standard Garda uniform. Is that acceptable to you?

The person can refuse, as the Sikhs have done, but there is no requirement under anti-discrimination regulation for the organization to throw out their uniform so that they can accommodate people who refuse to wear it. That isn't what discrimination means. If it was no one would wear the McDonalds uniform.

The State is not discriminating against anyone because everyone has to wear the same uniform In fact it is the exact opposite of discrimination.

I can no more continue to work in the Garda while refusing to wear the uniform than a Sikh person can. Wearing the uniform is part of the job.

The idea that all a person has to do to get around a requirement of a job is to claim that their personal beliefs forbid it, is ridiculous and also an insult to the genuine discrimination that people regularly face.

You would never get a person cleaning a toilet again (that is definitely against my personal beliefs).

Imagine if a Hindu started working in McDonalds. Does McDonalds have a legal or ethical requirement under anti-discrimination law to stop serving beef in the store the Hindu works because some Hindus object to the killing and eating of cows? Of course not. Serving beef, in a McDonald's uniform, is a requirement of the job. If someone is unwilling to carry out this duty, for what ever reason, it is not the responsibility of the organization to alter its practice simply so the person can have a job.

impr0v wrote:

Wearing it does not condone or symbolise sexist oppression, or a fundamentalist ethos.

Pretty sure most Muslims would disagree that wearing a veil condones sexist oppression. Now who is discriminating?

It is not the States place to dictate to the population the worthiness of religions (Sikhs good, Muslims bad)

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, but the point you are ignoring is that this isn't necessary. This is only necessary if we wish to go down the road of deciding X is a religion and Y isn't a religion.

Why is that even necessary in this case?

Is it simply easier to say that whether or not you are a religion you ain't changing the Garda uniform, for any reason.

Yes, it is easier, but it's still saying the same thing using a different formulation of words. That's what the state wants, the same uniform for all, but what it wants conflicts with the exercise of individual rights, whatever way it's phrased.

Wicknight wrote:

That isn't what the State is saying.

The State is saying this job requires you to wear a standard Garda uniform. Is that acceptable to you?

The person can refuse, as the Sikhs have done, but there is no requirement under anti-discrimination regulation for the organization to throw out their uniform so that they can accommodate people who refuse to wear it. That isn't what discrimination means. If it was no one would wear the McDonalds uniform.

The State is not discriminating against anyone because everyone has to wear the same uniform In fact it is the exact opposite of discrimination.

I can no more continue to work in the Garda while refusing to wear the uniform than a Sikh person can. Wearing the uniform is part of the job.

The idea that all a person has to do to get around a requirement of a job is to claim that their personal beliefs forbid it, is ridiculous and also an insult to the genuine discrimination that people regularly face.

You would never get a person cleaning a toilet again (that is definitely against my personal beliefs).

I don't think that you'd be arguing that this wasn't discrimination if it involved a disability on the man's behalf or if it was solely because he was a man, as opposed to a woman, and neither of those situations had a real bearing on the job he was applying for. That's because you see a difference between discrimination based upon religion, and discrimination based upon sex or physical ability. That's understandable, as to you a person chooses the first, and obviously doesn't choose either of the other two. The law however sees little or no difference. Religion is elevated to the same status. I'm not necessarily saying that's right, I'm purely saying that's the way it is.

Wicknight wrote:

Pretty sure most Muslims would disagree that wearing a veil condones sexist oppression. Now who is discriminating?

It is not the States place to dictate to the population the worthiness of religions (Sikhs good, Muslims bad)

I'm echoing the ECHR judgment in Dahlab v Switzerland, about the banning of the wearing of an Islamic headscarf by a school teacher by a canton in Switzerland. The court noted the strong ethos of secularity in the Swiss education system and also said "it appears to be imposed upon women by a precept which is laid down in the Koran and which, as the Federal Court noted, is hard to square with the principle of gender equality."

I'm not going to get into point by point warfare Wicknight. As I've said before I think I've set the legal position out clearly enough in this thread. If you don't think it's an interference with rights, I strongly disagree, but I'm clearly not going to convince you otherwise.

I agree with your overall position that a completely separated church and state is what should be aimed for in this country. However, we currently don't have that, or anything near it, and to deny what would be a small compromise on the basis of what we hope to achieve decades down the road seems to me to be unjust, especially when the law would seem to protect it. You disagree, and fair enough, that's your prerogative.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

Yes, it is easier, but it's still saying the same thing using a different formulation of words. That's what the state wants, the same uniform for all, but what it wants conflicts with the exercise of individual rights, whatever way it's phrased.

There is no individual right to perform a job while ignoring the duties of that job. One of the duties of being a Garda is that the person wear the uniform. That is a requirement of the job.

impr0v wrote:

I don't think that you'd be arguing that this wasn't discrimination if it involved a disability on the man's behalf

I would be saying exactly the same thing

If a job requires someone to see well I wouldn't expect this requirement to be changed so that a blind person can do it. It is a requirement of the job. Is it discrimination to say that a blind person cannot perform the duties of an air traffic controller so the nature of air traffic control must be altered so that a blind man can have the job?

Seriously, this reminds of of the Peter Cook sketch where the one legged man tries out of the role of Tarzan :rolleyes:

But we aren't even talking about disability we are talking about choice. It is not that the Sikhs cannot wear the standard uniform, a uniform that is a requirement of the position. They are choosing not to.

impr0v wrote:

The law however sees little or no difference. Religion is elevated to the same status. I'm not necessarily saying that's right, I'm purely saying that's the way it is.

That is complete nonsense. There is absolutely no law in Ireland (or anywhere else in the EU I'd imagine) that states that an employer must alter a standard requirement of a job (such as a uniform) so that the position can be filled by someone who refuses to adhere to this requirement on grounds of personal belief.

As I said, if there was anyone who has ever worked in McDonalds would claim it is against their personal beliefs to clean the toilet or mop the floor.

Nonsense :rolleyes:

impr0v

1. Not when it's a state job and the requirement unnecessarily restricts a constitutional right.

2. Read the rest of the quoted sentence.

3. Personal belief, or personal choice, is not the same as religion in the eyes of the law, as stated above.

I think you over-estimate the weight that rolleyes symbols add to your points, but if they mean that much to you, by all means keep using them.

Mick86

DublinWriter wrote:

Well if it works for the London Met, it will work here. End of story.

OK we introduce Garda Turbans.

Then we get the GS to gun down suspicious looking foreigners in train stations because that works for the Met too.

Oh yeah. And if they can't solve a crime then they can fit up any bunch of foreigners that fit the bill (no pun intended). That worked for the West Midlands Police.

Maybe we could really ape the Brits and introduce a law barring Protestants from the Presidency. Barring Catholics from the throne works for them.

Turbans work for the Malayan police. Great, so does the death penalty. Likewise the NYPD.

If it works for them, it will work here. End of story.

MDTyKe

I just find it quite hypocritical. If an organization has a uniform, and knowingly, you enter a job, and then expect to 'change' that uniform to suit your needs; whether religious or otherwise - it's madness.

If a mass exodus of Brits or Irish heads to Pakistan or Afghanistan and demands our cultural values etc, somehow we will find a very different situation.

And if im right, the "turban" isnt actually a religious requirement - it is just some way of hiding the hair or something. Worst comes, just make a 'taller' Garda cap (1inch) to put all his hair in. Problem solved.


Matt

Mick86

MDTyKe wrote:

And if im right, the "turban" isnt actually a religious requirement - it is just some way of hiding the hair or something. Worst comes, just make a 'taller' Garda cap (1inch) to put all his hair in. Problem solved.

Matt

According to http://www.sikhs.org/khalsa.htm the turban is a requirement of faith. But it seems obvious to me that it's up to the individual Sikh just as the requirements of Catholicism are up tothe individual Catholic.

The Physical Articles of Faith

Kesh:
Long unshorn hair. A symbol of spirituality. The Kesh reminds a Khalsa to behave like the Guru's. It is a mark of dedication and group consciousness, showing a Khalsa's acceptance of God's will. Long hair have long been a common element of many spiritual prophets of various religions such as Jesus, Moses and Buddha.

Dastar:
Turban. A symbol of royalty and dignity. Historically the turban has been held in high esteem in eastern and middle eastern cultures. Guru Gobind Singh transformed this cultural symbol into a religious requirement so that the Khalsa would always have high self-esteem. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair but wear caps or keep matted hair. The turban cannot be covered by any other head gear or replaced by a cap or hat. The turban is mandatory for Sikh men and optional for Sikh women.

Kangha:
Comb. A symbol of hygiene and discipline as opposed to the matted unkept hair of ascetics. A Khalsa is expected to regularly wash and comb their hair as a matter of self discipline.

Kara:
Steel bracelet. A symbol to remind the wearer of restraint in their actions and remembrance of God at all times.

Kachha:
Drawers. A symbol signifying self control and chastity.

Kirpan:
Ceremonial Sword. A symbol of dignity and the Sikh struggle against injustice. It is worn purely as a religious symbol and not as a weapon.

DublinWriter

As well as the turban, there is also the issue of the beards. Gardì aren't allowed grow a beard, except if there is a medical issue.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

1. Not when it's a state job and the requirement unnecessarily restricts a constitutional right.

Who says wearing a uniform while being a guard is unnecessary???

I mean, seriously, WTF?

The whole point of this debate is that it is necessary for Gardai to wear a the official uniform.

If the Guards didn't have to wear a uniform what possible reason would I or anyone have to object to a Sikh wearing a turban to work. I worked for a semi-state bodies and we have a Muslim woman with a veil there and we had a Sikh working as a contractor. No one gave a sh*t, because none of that interfered with the requirements of their jobs.

What, do you think I'm just objecting for the fun of it?

WindSock

This just makes me think about the Ban Garda when they had to wear skirts as a part of the uniform. Sure it was Uniform, but how many of them had to make a stand for their right to wear trousers, and not to bow down to societys conformity?
Let them wear their bloody turbans. It means more to them to wear them, then it does to us for them not to wear them.

Zombrex

boreds wrote:

Let them wear their bloody turbans. It means more to them to wear them, then it does to us for them not to wear them.

Do you understand the precedence that sets?

WindSock

Wicknight wrote:

Do you understand the precedence that sets?

No. Enlighten me please on the serious implications.
Will it disable them from doing their job properly?

walrusgumble

case of LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 44774/98)
www.strasbourgconference.org/caselaw/Sahin%20v.%20Turkey.html

mickoneill30

boreds wrote:

No. Enlighten me please on the serious implications.

No read the posts yourself. They've been gone over and repeated several times in this thread.

mickoneill30

walrusgumble wrote:

case of LEYLA SAHIN v. TURKEY (Application no. 44774/98)
www.strasbourgconference.org/caselaw/Sahin%20v.%20Turkey.html

That's a lot of reading. The gist of it seems to be that the lady was refused access to university facilities because she wore a headscarf. Am I wrong? Is that relevant to this? You're not normally expected to wear uniforms in uni's are you?

seamus

I find it interesting that the Ireland-India Council came out at the weekend to support the government's position, and also noted that Sikhs have in the past chosen to not wear their turban, which pretty much craps all over any, "I have to wear it" argument.

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/11031470?view=Eircomnet

That indicates to me that the necessity of the turban is kind of dependent on how orthodox one is. That gives even more strength to the "One rule for everyone" argument - Orthodox Christians or Jews, for example, may decide that they are "Prohibited" from working certain days and hours - the permutations of religions and various degrees of adherence are infinite.

Zombrex

boreds wrote:

No. Enlighten me please on the serious implications.
Will it disable them from doing their job properly?

No, its nothing to do with the Sikhs or the turban.

The issue is that it sets a precedence that official services of the State should alter necessary requirements of jobs, such as uniforms, to suit the personal beliefs of an individual wishing to fill that position.

As Seamus asks, can a orthodox Jew refused to work on Saturday even if his position requires him to work Saturdays.

A lot of people here simply wish to ignore that, and only focus on this particular case, with this particular religion. But that is simply head in the sand naivety. Any bending of the principles of church and state separation now will have long term knock on effects.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wicknight wrote:

No, its nothing to do with the Sikhs or the turban.

The issue is that it sets a precedence that official services of the State should alter necessary requirements of jobs, such as uniforms, to suit the personal beliefs of an individual wishing to fill that position.

As Seamus asks, can a orthodox Jew refused to work on Saturday even if his position requires him to work Saturdays.

A lot of people here simply wish to ignore that, and only focus on this particular case, with this particular religion. But that is simply head in the sand naivety. Any bending of the principles of church and state separation now will have long term knock on effects.

Good point but I think the turban could be an exception on the grounds that it doesn't interfere with the job.

Perhpas you wouldn't have to be a Sikh to wear it, just a navy turban will be added to the uniform.

It's not just a Sikh thing, worn by many in the middle east. So by that logic it wouldn't officially be a religious thing.

Of course we shouldn't be allowing religion interfere with state policy but turbans haven't allowed the church walk all over the govt in the UK anyway.

Zombrex

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Good point but I think the turban could be an exception on the grounds that it doesn't interfere with the job.

Well that is the problem, it would be an exception. On what grounds do the Sikh religion get an except that other don't? Is it because they claim they have to wear this?

I understand what you are saying about adding elements to the uniform that allow for a wider range of managing say hair beyond the classical western concept of a military style hat. But then I suppose you have to ask is anyone else calling for this apart from the Sikhs?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

Of course we shouldn't be allowing religion interfere with state policy but turbans haven't allowed the church walk all over the govt in the UK anyway.

Well some would disagree. Sikhs for some reason are allowed around safety regulations in the UK, such as wearing a hard hat or motor cycle helmets when everyone else has to wear them. To me that is taking respect for personal religious belief far to far.