Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see why adherents of a certain religion can't wear symbols of their faith alongside their work uniform. Is the issue about it "not being secular enough" aka not allowing people to wear it as others don't like it or is it a real safety concern?

The secular issue is debateable, but the safety issue is not. If you believe that workers should be required to wear safety equipment on the job, then their religion, race, sex, or age should not have any bearing on that. A turban is not a replacement for a hard hat.

Or do you disagree?

kowloon

If something like that British legislation came in here it would be a great start for appealing motorcycle helmet laws if one were so inclined.

I think if the turban was allowed the headgear regulations would have to be abandoned entirely in the interest of fairness. If one guard can wear a turban, why cant another wear a Man U cap?
Its biased against atheists if only religious groups can wear headgear right?

I have no problem with turbans going in to an office or other unregulated workplace, but its not going to work in the gardai.


edit for bad grammar

saabi

"Rasko" Dude,

I am sure, when cops play cricket they would also swap their hat for helmet.

Because there is a high probability that the solid cork ball might hit their head.

The turban is more protective than a garda hat.

If we focus on the negative aspect of something, we will always find them.

Bottle_of_Smoke

yayamark wrote:

When u come to our country u learn and respect our values and cultures. u dont try and change them. if u have a problem with how our country operates please leave. I fu want to join an organisation u abide by there rules again u dont try and change them.

Before any one jumps on there high horse. i respect other religion and beliefs. i just dont like when they try and change our way of doin things

When you come to boards.ie you should learn & respect our values & culture.

They're not forcing everyone to wear a turban (although if it was part of the uniform I'd go for it because caps just don't suit me) It's a personal thing which just shouldn't bother people/

This is a very good point though:

I think if the turban was allowed the headgear regulations would have to be abandoned entirely in the interest of fairness. If one guard can wear a turban, why cant another wear a Man U cap?
Its biased against atheists if only religious groups can wear headgear right?

I mentioned on the other thread some potheads have taken advantage of it in America

http://www.thc-ministry.org/

cushtac

saabi wrote:

The turban is more protective than a garda hat.

What are you basing that on?

Either way, a turban certainly isn't more protective than a public order helmet. Does this mean this officer can't be used in riot situations?

saabi

"Cushtac"

Dude! Lets keep things in perspective.

I am not making a comparison between a roit helmet and a Turban.

I am merely making a comparison between a Garda Cap and a Turban.

I am not for minute suggesting that all Garda start wearing a Turban either :-)

cushtac

saabi wrote:

I am merely making a comparison between a Garda Cap and a Turban.

And unless you've worn both types of headgear & gotten someone to smack you over the head, your comparison is conjecture.

kowloon

Im sure they could have some huge riot helmet to go over the turban; like the stormtroopers in Spaceballs

Mick86

fairdeal wrote:

it's only a decade since ireland started receiving people from different faiths and cultures,

No it's not. I worked with a Sikh in the early 80s in Kilkenny. He never wore a turban by the way.

fairdeal wrote:

while countries like uk, usa, canada, has a long history over a century. if allowing turban in countries like UK, usa, canada, malayisa, singapore, even pakistan (considered to be fundamentalist islamist state) has not created any trouble or collaspe of their armed forces system, then it won't do it here.

What other countries do is irrelevant.

fairdeal wrote:

even if people from different cultures has some demands, these should be considered on case to case basis, should be accomodated so on.

This case has been considered and dealt with.

The real issue is whether we, as the host country, should change something because a minority (or in this case one person) demands it. And if we set such a precedent where do we draw the line.

yayamark

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote:

When you come to boards.ie you should learn & respect our values & culture.

They're not forcing everyone to wear a turban (although if it was part of the uniform I'd go for it because caps just don't suit me) It's a personal thing which just shouldn't bother people/

This is a very good point though:



I mentioned on the other thread some potheads have taken advantage of it in America

http://www.thc-ministry.org/

Can u not read? did i not say i respect other peoples beliefs and religions?

That was totally a waste of space by u

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see why adherents of a certain religion can't wear symbols of their faith alongside their work uniform. Is the issue about it "not being secular enough" aka not allowing people to wear it as others don't like it or is it a real safety concern?

Neither. It is to do with the nature of a uniform. If anyone can wear what ever they wish as a guard then there is no longer a Garda uniform.

As someone said what exactly is the difference between a Sikh guard wearing a turban and a Man United supporting guard wearing a football t-shirt?

philologos

The difference is that turbans have been successfully integrated into police uniforms elsewhere. We have yet to see a successful integration of the Man Utd jersey in police uniforms

Being an adherent of a religion is much different than being a football fan by the way. Religion is a life philosophy, I don't think you can say that about a football club.

Ekancone

farohar wrote:

Some details on the religion posted by harpreetsk in the AH thread would indicate otherwise, that it is not necessary to wear a turban to be a sikh, merely to keep the faith in your heart.


Does logic ever win out in the face of religious belief? As such do you really think Muslims would accept the arguement that pratical reasons are why the hijab is not allowed whereas the turban is? If we allow one we must allow the other, otherwise that will be discrimination.


To be quite honest I can see some scumbag realising it's made of the ideal material... actually I'm not going to say it for fear of giving them ideas.

If they let Sikhs wear turbans, then as long as they also allow any other religious paraphenalia people chose to wear I am fine with it, if not, then there is a problem in my oppinion, and due to the anti-muslim sentament that seems rife in today's world this (allowing turbans but not other religious items) is unfortunately the likely outcome...

So you dont see the problem with a Garda wearing an Orange Order sash? Im not looking to debate whether this could/would happen or not, i just want you to answer the question.

By the way, people using the 'Ireland is not a democracy' argument, a sample is being taken here of 112 people who are overwhelmingly voting to not allow this to happen. So if 75% or more of the entire country voted to have this rule to continue, some would argue that we should still do it?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Being an adherent of a religion is much different than being a football fan by the way.

I have a few friends who would strongly disagree with you on that one ...

Jakkass wrote:

Religion is a life philosophy, I don't think you can say that about a football club.

That matters because ... ?

You can alter your official Garda uniform so long as you are doing so as part of a "life philosophy", but not for any other reason? How does one define a "life philosophy" and why is that different to anything else that someone does as part of their life? Can a nudest (you agree that is a life philosophy) refuse to wear the uniform completely?

GUIGuy

This is not about religion or being offended or close minded.:rolleyes: I'm neither offended by or closed to Sikhs (or any other religion). But a uniform is by definition UNIFORM. Why not just let everyone wear what they want? A person who joins an organ of state knows that it is a secular organisation.

Britain is not a secular republic... it has no consitution or notion real of secular society. They still have a State church and have both positive and negative discrimiation for various religions. Positive discrimination for Sikhs negative for Catholics (A Sikh, Jew, Budhist, Muslim or none could be PM... but not a Catholic!)

Check out the fifth ammendment to our consitution. 84.4% voted to remove the "Special position" of the Catholic church and remove recognition of other religions. So making special allowance for one is not only unfair its most likely unconsitutional.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

I have a few friends who would strongly disagree with you on that one ...

Fair enough. They are entitled to their opinion as I am mine.

Wicknight wrote:

That matters because ... ?

You can alter your official Garda uniform so long as you are doing so as part of a "life philosophy", but not for any other reason? How does one define a "life philosophy" and why is that different to anything else that someone does as part of their life? Can a nudest (you agree that is a life philosophy) refuse to wear the uniform completely?

Nudists don't have any form of scripture as moral code and are not obligated to be nude by a believed higher power, or any other means. If it has been successfully integrated into the uniform elsewhere I'd see it as a matter of nitpicking if we didn't allow this move to be honest with you.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Fair enough. They are entitled to their opinion as I am mine.

Well that is kinda the point. On what grounds would you allow a Sikh to wear a turban but stop a Man Utd fan wearing his football top? How would determine that the Man Utd fan wants the wear this, while the Sikh really really wants to wear the turban.

Jakkass wrote:

Nudists don't have any form of scripture as moral code and are not obligated to be nude by a believed higher power, or any other means.

And? Nudists wish to be nude. Sikhs wish to not cut their hair. Why they want to do this is rather irrelevant.

Jakkass wrote:

If it has been successfully integrated into the uniform elsewhere I'd see it as a matter of nitpicking if we didn't allow this move to be honest with you.

Only because you are then prepared to draw the line and exclude the Man Utd supporters and the nudists because they don't fit your personal notion of what is a valid reason to break the uniform code (ie belief that instruction comes from a "higher power")

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

Well that is kinda the point. On what grounds would you allow a Sikh to wear a turban but stop a Man Utd fan wearing his football top? How would determine that the Man Utd fan wants the wear this, while the Sikh really really wants to wear the turban.

And? Nudists wish to be nude. Sikhs wish to not cut their hair. Why they want to do this is rather irrelevant.

That is totally dodging the point. Sikhs believe that God commanded them to do this and that they are obligated to do so. It isn't about them "wanting" to.
The scenario of faith and supporting a football team cannot really be compared.

philologos

GUIGuy wrote:

This is not about religion or being offended or close minded.:rolleyes: I'm neither offended by or closed to Sikhs (or any other religion). But a uniform is by definition UNIFORM. Why not just let everyone wear what they want? A person who joins an organ of state knows that it is a secular organisation.

Britain is not a secular republic... it has no consitution or notion real of secular society. They still have a State church and have both positive and negative discrimiation for various religions. Positive discrimination for Sikhs negative for Catholics (A Sikh, Jew, Budhist, Muslim or none could be PM... but not a Catholic!)

Check out the fifth ammendment to our consitution. 84.4% voted to remove the "Special position" of the Catholic church and remove recognition of other religions. So making special allowance for one is not only unfair its most likely unconsitutional.

Where is it outlined that an organ of state is a specifically secular organisation?

It isn't making a special scenario for anyone. I'd be for allowing Gardaí to wear crucifixes, or kippahs should they wish to also.

Boggle

Nudists don't have any form of scripture as moral code and are not obligated to be nude by a believed higher power, or any other means.

So if nudists decided one day that being naked was god's wish as it was how he intended them to be and wrote their code accordingly, would you then allow them to go to work naked?


What if some bloke up-country gets really stoned and believes that god spoke to him and told him that hash (insert grass, shrooms or lilt to suit) was his gift to the world and allowed him to see heaven.... Would it then be alright for him to smoke constantly, both in work and out?? What if he registered it as a religion and 1000 other potheads signed up?

Integration is fine but, having lived in foreign countries, I have to say the onus is on the immigrant to adapt and not on the country to make special exceptions which sets that immigrant apart from his new home (ie the opposite of integration).

walrusgumble

the gardaí have always made it clear that no other badge , headpiece etc can form part of the uniform. this country was one extremely religious as we all know. i remember one eldery man who a garda himself tellign me in that in the 1950's or 1960's that there was a simialr debate about allowing members who were pioneers to wear their badge with the uniform. and that was a no go, so why should we start now.

people who join the gardai are servants of the state who pledge to uphold the law of the land in its common good and intersts, and not in the name of religion. their loyalty is to the state and not god or gods. i never tend to agree with conor lenihan but he recently , although rather bluntly, stated that irish would have to accept the traditions of the middle east when they go over to those countries (eg women ensuring that they do not wear clothes that show the skin ) so they should at least acknowledge how things are done here.

whilst i am not saying oh they took our jobs (i depise that attitude) but members of this community and others are being offered an opportunity to intergrate into irish society and places are being left vacant for them to fill to attempt to ensure there is some balance in light of recent years.. so this might mean capable irish person may, who just might be more qualified after exam results, not been offerd a place. integration is a two way thing.

what britain do is irrelevant. that country as ye all well know was once an empire covering places such as canada and india and other middle east/asian countries. there is precedent and tradition in those places of natives forming brigades and the like thus recognition, acceptance and approval of the wearing of addition items as part of the uniform. we dont

out of interest what is the stance in countries such as france and the usa on this issue?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

That is totally dodging the point. Sikhs believe that God commanded them to do this and that they are obligated to do so. It isn't about them "wanting" to.

That is ridiculous, of course they want to. Are you suggesting someone is forcing them to wear the turban against their will?

Jakkass wrote:

The scenario of faith and supporting a football team cannot really be compared.

You obviously don't support a football team.

mickoneill30

Good to see the Greens are hopping on the bandwagon.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/green-party-calls-on-gardai-to-rethink-its-ban-on-sikh-turban-1063475.html

I contact them about trying to speed up the DOT to get some bus routes approved and get blank looks. A sikh wants to wear a turban as part of his uniform and it's priority number one. How is this a green issue? Is a turban more environmentally friendly than a Garda hat.

bill_ashmount

The controversy over the turban ban stepped up a gear yesterday as Sikh police officers in London accused the Garda Siochana of "racial discrimination".

This is getting beyond a joke, I hope the gardai don't step down and change their minds :mad:

DarkJager

RTE Article wrote:

'You cannot ask for individuals who come from different countries to come here and to shun their religious beliefs,' Mr Singh said.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0821/turban.html

I don't understand this. Nobody is asking them to come to this country in the first place so what the **** is this guy on about? Simple fact is, they can come if they choose to, they have every right to keep their religious beliefs, but they should drop this idea that our country owes them anything (including the right to wear a turban).

I'm hoping the Gardai keep their stance on this one. Its about time at least 1 country put its rules above the rules of religion.

mickoneill30

bill_ashmount wrote:

The controversy over the turban ban stepped up a gear yesterday as Sikh police officers in London accused the Garda Siochana of "racial discrimination".

Is being a Sikh a race? :rolleyes: They're not stopping him from joining the Gardai.

Morlar

bill_ashmount wrote:

This is getting beyond a joke, I hope the gardai don't step down and change their minds :mad:

Couldn't agree more. Thought it was odd that last night TV3 had a news report on this where they interviewed 2 people - one a green politician and the other a sikh community leader - both of course pro turban. Dont really understand how thats supposed to be giving both sides of the story. Same with the metro paper - its all looking one sided in my view.

This whole response of 'they do it in london' doesnt add up to much in my view. England has a history of indian colonisation to make up for and deal with - we dont. Besides england is not a 'howto' advert for how to create an integrated multicultural society. If they had those same choices now (given their overall experience of multiculturalism not being a shining success) its arguable that they may not even make those same decisions.

They dont do it in France among other places. If you move to Ireland from the indian subcontinent then integration doesnt mean we integrate to your customs and ways and change Irish symbols and state uniforms etc to conform to whats acceptable to you. Integration means you integrate into our society it wouldnt hurt to show an interest in and respect for it too, learn our history and culture - integration does not mean that our society makes the changes to make you feel more at home here. From what I can see that is the opposite of integration.

This is definitely a stepping stone issue, ie if the turban is allowed then next its the muslim veil - then its changing the so-called 'current' garda logo to one devoid of any possible christian (celtic cross) interpretation.

The communities most pushing for this (sikhs & muslims) are the ones traditionally with the worst record for integration, ie ghettoisation, high unemployment, women muslims/sikhs not allowed to marry non sikh/muslim, older generation language barriers and so on.

I think the communities most pushing for this should put the same energy into finding ways to better integrate their communities into Irish society rather than trying to get irish society to keep making changes to accommodate them.

Ekancone

Morlar wrote:

Couldn't agree more. Thought it was odd that last night TV3 had a news report on this where they interviewed 2 people - one a green politician and the other a sikh community leader - both of course pro turban. Dont really understand how thats supposed to be giving both sides of the story. Same with the metro paper - its all looking one sided in my view.

This whole response of 'they do it in london' doesnt add up to much in my view. England has a history of indian colonisation to make up for and deal with - we dont. Besides england is not a 'howto' advert for how to create an integrated multicultural society. If they had those same choices now (given their overall experience of multiculturalism not being a shining success) its arguable that they may not even make those same decisions.

They dont do it in France among other places. If you move to Ireland from the indian subcontinent then integration doesnt mean we integrate to your customs and ways and change Irish symbols and state uniforms etc to conform to whats acceptable to you. Integration means you integrate into our society it wouldnt hurt to show an interest in and respect for it too, learn our history and culture - integration does not mean that our society makes the changes to make you feel more at home here. From what I can see that is the opposite of integration.

This is definitely a stepping stone issue, ie if the turban is allowed then next its the muslim veil - then its changing the so-called 'current' garda logo to one devoid of any possible christian (celtic cross) interpretation.

The communities most pushing for this (sikhs & muslims) are the ones traditionally with the worst record for integration, ie ghettoisation, high unemployment, women muslims/sikhs not allowed to marry non sikh/muslim, older generation language barriers and so on.

I think the communities most pushing for this should put the same energy into finding ways to better integrate their communities into Irish society rather than trying to get irish society to keep making changes to accommodate them.

Well put. Btw, none of the pro-turban debaters have adressed my point about protestant Gardai having the 'right' to wear an orange order sash over their uniform. You dont see any potential problems with this?

philologos

mickoneill30 wrote:

Good to see the Greens are hopping on the bandwagon.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/green-party-calls-on-gardai-to-rethink-its-ban-on-sikh-turban-1063475.html

I contact them about trying to speed up the DOT to get some bus routes approved and get blank looks. A sikh wants to wear a turban as part of his uniform and it's priority number one. How is this a green issue? Is a turban more environmentally friendly than a Garda hat.

That article shows that it is the norm elsewhere so why not in Ireland. As I've mentioned it has been successfully implemented in other countries around the world.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

That article shows that it is the norm elsewhere so why not in Ireland. As I've mentioned it has been successfully implemented in other countries around the world.

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?

bill_ashmount

Jakkass wrote:

That article shows that it is the norm elsewhere so why not in Ireland. As I've mentioned it has been successfully implemented in other countries around the world.

That's not the point.
It doesn't matter if other countries do it, what kind of a reason is that????

cushtac

Here is the England cricketer Monty Panesar, a Sikh:


Here is again:


If Monty is able to wear an alternative to the turban for the sake of his job, why can't the Reservist?

Ekancone

cushtac wrote:

Here is the England cricketer Monty Panesar, a Sikh:


Here is again:


If Monty is able to wear an alternative to the turban for the sake of his job, why can't the Reservist?

Because the armed forces have to be devoid of relgious reference, they cant favour one religon over another. Do you realise the prededent this would set? As i said, what if an orange order protestant wants to wear an Orange sash over his uniform? Why would he not have the right to do that after the lifting of the turban ban? Im still looking for an answer to this.

bill_ashmount

daithifleming wrote:

Because the armed forces have to be devoid of relgious reference, they cant favour one religon over another. Do you realise the prededent this would set? As i said, what if an orange order protestant wants to wear an Orange sash over his uniform? Why would he not have the right to do that after the lifting of the turban ban? Im still looking for an answer to this.

I think he was agreeing with you, saying he wore the appropriate gear when batting.

mickoneill30

daithifleming wrote:

Because the armed forces have to be devoid of relgious reference, they cant favour one religon over another. Do you realise the prededent this would set? As i said, what if an orange order protestant wants to wear an Orange sash over his uniform? Why would he not have the right to do that after the lifting of the turban ban? Im still looking for an answer to this.

You misunderstood him daithifleming. The pics are of they guy wearing a helmet. Not a turban. They didn't show up properly in my browser (work proxy).

Edit: Beaten to it by Bill.

Ekancone

bill_ashmount wrote:

I think he was agreeing with you, saying he wore the appropriate gear when batting.

Oh, all i saw were a bunch of x's, so i assumed he was wearing a turban, apologies!

Snickers Man

daithifleming wrote:

Well put. Btw, none of the pro-turban debaters have adressed my point about protestant Gardai having the 'right' to wear an orange order sash over their uniform. You dont see any potential problems with this?

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.

bill_ashmount

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.

Wow, you are so eloquent. Would you mind explaining to me what a "Bog Bigot" is???

Ekancone

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.

Well if you cant see why a Garda wearing a religious item would lead to problems for that Garda to perform his duties then you are missing the argument entirely. The point you made that i highlighted is absolute rubbish and has not reference whatever to this debate. 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. I have nothing against people coming here, setting up Indian restaurants, bringing their culture to ours. But the Gardai are not about religion, they are secular, they are not meant to reflect any relgious preference, this is both for their protection and the citizens they serve. If you cant see the danger that this could pose then im afraid i cant help you.

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

What a stupid argument!!!

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?

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? 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".

If the Garda's then say "Well, that is different, they are a wide spread religious group" bang, congratulations you have just broken the Irish Constitution

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.

If this is allowed it must be, by law, a free for all. Anyone, on any grounds, can challenge any aspect of the Garda uniform because it does not meet with their specific beliefs. And this is the important bit, it doesn't matter what those beliefs are.

philologos

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?

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.

Ekancone

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?

Snickers Man

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.

Morlar

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'.

Snickers Man

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?

saabi

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.

Zombrex

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?

Ekancone

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???

Zombrex

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.

Ekancone

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!