Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Mick86

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.

Zombrex

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.

And once you have done that you have to modify the uniform for any request.

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?

Snickers Man wrote:

Nobody has. Except you and only as a straw man argument.

That is irrelevant. They can ask.

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.

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.

That is "what they want" They want this. Another group may want that. An individual may want something else.

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.

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?

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 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.

Snickers Man wrote:

Secularism doesn't mean ignoring all religions. It means being fair to all without fear or favour.

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 equally

Ekancone

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?

philologos

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.

BuffyBot

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?

Ekancone

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?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You've finally figured it out. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Religious faith is not comparable to supporting a football club.

You dismiss non-religious belief as unimportant to a person? Why?

Morlar

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 ?

Zombrex

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.

Of course the Gardai can up date it, its their uniform.

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.

BuffyBot wrote:

A helmet, hat or turban doesn't really matter - one they can be identified.

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?

cushtac

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?

scribs

At the end of the day who really and i mean Really actually gives a toss what the Gradai wear.

Morlar

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.

indough

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 million

bill_ashmount

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.

Snickers Man

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.

Snickers Man

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?

Zombrex

scribs wrote:

At the end of the day who really and i mean Really actually gives a toss what the Gradai wear.

Lots of people

Zombrex

Snickers Man wrote:

On its merits. In a fair and consistent way. How hard is that?

Its avoiding the question.

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

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.

Exactly how many religions are there in the world Snickers?

Snickers Man wrote:

You take each case on its merits.

And as soon as you explain how to actually do that I'm all ears.

How would you explain a individual or group that they request is without merit?

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.

No, that isn't fair, not for a secular republic.

Do you actually understand the point of secularism?

cushtac

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?

philologos

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.

Snickers Man

bill_ashmount wrote:

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

Plenty of examples on the letters pages of the papers of late. People whinging about "Why is it always up to us to change our ways and traditions?" (Times yesterday) or "If we tolerate these denigrations to our beliefs and our culture, where will it end?" in the Indo last Friday.

And there are other examples too. Si responsio requiris, circumspice.

(God, I hope you don't infer from that I'm a Catholic.

Oh ****! I said God!

Ah sod it anyway. I am what I am)

Morlar

Snickers Man wrote:

On its merits. In a fair and consistent way. How hard is that?

In saying that we should treat subsequent requests on their individual case by case merits - you are agreeing that this single sikh turban request is not a one off isolated incident and that depending on the final outcome there will be subsequent requests from other religions following on from this one.

Considering there are approx 1,500 Sikhs in ROI and only one single sikh was ever in the garda reserve training programme. And that there are no sikhs in training to be full time Gardai at the moment. Yet this one single case has sparked this much debate and could possibly turn out to split the government down the middle, and you are saying ;how hard can it be to keep re-visiting this decision time and again ? That argument doesn't stand up to much in my view. Far more equitable to have a single cross the board rule ie if you want to be a Garda then you need to agree to wear the Garda uniform without exceptions.

Morlar

bill_ashmount wrote:

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

Snickers Man wrote:

Plenty of examples on the letters pages

I could be wrong but I took that to mean that they were pointing out the irony of you using bigoted terminology to dismiss other people as being bigoted - ie 'Bogger Bigots' or 'Bog bigots' whichever. That was my take on it anyway.

BuffyBot

Wicknight wrote:

Of course the Gardai can up date it, its their uniform.

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.

They can update it, in some ways, but not in others then, no?

I don't see why is there is issue if one person suggests that something new be included in the range of Gardai uniform options. At one stage, I'm pretty sure, one ban-garda turned around and said "hey, why can't I wear trousers?". Things evolve.

How many different variations would you allow of the Garda uniform? 1? 5? 100? 10,000?

As I've pointed out before, you can have variations within the concept of uniform. A helmet/cap/turban/baseball cap get used in various parts of the world by police forces. There is no reason a Garda-standard turban couldn't be designed as part of the Garda uniform and issued to any Sikh officers who may decide to join the force or reserve in the future. Police forces in the UK have issued force specific turbans to officers there which fit the rest of their uniform range.

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"

Perhaps when the 10000th request comes in, perhaps then they can say it. As it stands, it's hardly a floodgate at the moment.

What religions can have variations of the uniform, and what ones cannot?

Why can't each religion be taken on a case by case basis? Things can be examined for practicality and suitability. Evidently, there may be issues with certain requests and they can be ruled out. On the flip side, there may be changes which can be made which wouldn't ruffle any feather and can be integrated.

I quite agree that people are getting too focussed on Sikhs and turbans. There's too much mixed emotions and quasi-religious waffle, and people bandying around the word secular without really understanding it's meaning.

For me, it's simply a matter of whether or not an outfit can be changed to incorporate the beliefs of a group of people. While I don't particularly believe in their point of view, I'm happy for them to do so, and happy for organisations to work with them to an acceptable compromise.

Frankly, I think the whole thing is a mountain being made from a molehill.

bill_ashmount

Morlar wrote:

I could be wrong but I took that to mean that they were pointing out the irony of you using bigoted terminology to dismiss other people as being bigoted - ie 'Bogger Bigots' or 'Bog bigots' whichever. That was my take on it anyway.

Correct

bill_ashmount

BuffyBot wrote:

For me, it's simply a matter of whether or not an outfit can be changed to incorporate the beliefs of a group of people. While I don't particularly believe in their point of view, I'm happy for them to do so, and happy for organisations to work with them to an acceptable compromise.

For me, the whole point is it shouldn't be changed to incorporate someones beliefs whatever religion they are. Do it for one and you will have to do it for all.

I'm also annoyed with the London Police getting involved, it's got absolutely nothing to do with them. Banding around accusations of "Racism" seems to be the preferred way of stopping any logical debate these days.

Boggle

At one stage, I'm pretty sure, one ban-garda turned around and said "hey, why can't I wear trousers?". Things evolve.

This happened because its wrong to discriminate against women - ie she should operate under the same rules as men and not have any symbolism which highlights which sex she is.

A religious symbol does the exact opposite as it highlights that the person wearing it is of a particular religion. Imagine if all sikhs were forced to wear something highlighting their religion? There would be uproar from those who wanted their religion to be personal and not public - which to my mind is how an officer of the law (to coin a phrase) should behave.


As to how long hair can be dealt with: how do gardai currently deal with long hair?
If gardai are permitted any type or length (groomed or ungroomed) of hair they wish then maybe they should look at bringing in some form of headscarf or police issue hairnets to control their hair - would this be okay as long as it were not restricted to a religious group as it would still be uniform?? But if gardai have to keep their hair tidy, then let all do so. That being said I dunno how I'd react to some garda in dreads were to confront me - prob fall over laughing, but hey.... what ya gonna do!?

Edited to include: To those people who are highlighting England as a beacon of integration, I suggest you go live there and talk from experience instead of just reading about it. If you do you will sense the tension which has built up between communities which are perceived to get preferrential treatment. I lived there and I can tell that whatever they are doing there does not work - all it has done is led to mini-countries in commumities, each unhappy with the other as the other gets special treatment. The most offended are the traditional english families; I can give you an example of a friend on-site who's son could not get social housing because his application was in english. On advice his son resubmitted in a foreign language and was accepted right away... the man was complaining for ages how foreigners get all the advantages. Killing thing is, while his son was english by birth, my friend was INDIAN!!!
Thats not not how you build an integrated community.

Ekancone

Morlar wrote:

In saying that we should treat subsequent requests on their individual case by case merits - you are agreeing that this single sikh turban request is not a one off isolated incident and that depending on the final outcome there will be subsequent requests from other religions following on from this one.

Considering there are approx 1,500 Sikhs in ROI and only one single sikh was ever in the garda reserve training programme. And that there are no sikhs in training to be full time Gardai at the moment. Yet this one single case has sparked this much debate and could possibly turn out to split the government down the middle, and you are saying ;how hard can it be to keep re-visiting this decision time and again ? That argument doesn't stand up to much in my view. Far more equitable to have a single cross the board rule ie if you want to be a Garda then you need to agree to wear the Garda uniform without exceptions.

My god have you no undertstanding of constitutional law? If they allowed this to happen, based on the protection of a minority and then they attempt to block the next religious item that a bloke wishes to attach to his uniform, based on the fact that he is a minority, you break constitutional law. So the fact that you dont think the argument doesnt hold up doesnt matter, and you are being veru short-sighted in thinking that this wont lead to further problems down the road. France and the UK for me are examples of how not to handle multi-culturalism, so any argument that says we should follow their lead is immature and based on some fantasy you have in your heads.

Ekancone

BuffyBot wrote:

They can update it, in some ways, but not in others then, no?

I don't see why is there is issue if one person suggests that something new be included in the range of Gardai uniform options. At one stage, I'm pretty sure, one ban-garda turned around and said "hey, why can't I wear trousers?". Things evolve.



As I've pointed out before, you can have variations within the concept of uniform. A helmet/cap/turban/baseball cap get used in various parts of the world by police forces. There is no reason a Garda-standard turban couldn't be designed as part of the Garda uniform and issued to any Sikh officers who may decide to join the force or reserve in the future. Police forces in the UK have issued force specific turbans to officers there which fit the rest of their uniform range.



Perhaps when the 10000th request comes in, perhaps then they can say it. As it stands, it's hardly a floodgate at the moment.



Why can't each religion be taken on a case by case basis? Things can be examined for practicality and suitability. Evidently, there may be issues with certain requests and they can be ruled out. On the flip side, there may be changes which can be made which wouldn't ruffle any feather and can be integrated.

I quite agree that people are getting too focussed on Sikhs and turbans. There's too much mixed emotions and quasi-religious waffle, and people bandying around the word secular without really understanding it's meaning.

For me, it's simply a matter of whether or not an outfit can be changed to incorporate the beliefs of a group of people. While I don't particularly believe in their point of view, I'm happy for them to do so, and happy for organisations to work with them to an acceptable compromise.

Frankly, I think the whole thing is a mountain being made from a molehill.

Pants/Baseball caps arent religious items, turbans are. Get that into your head. Perhaps you are the one who needs to look up the meaning of secular.

Morlar

daithifleming wrote:

My god have you no undertstanding of constitutional law? If they allowed this to happen, based on the protection of a minority and then they attempt to block the next religious item that a bloke wishes to attach to his uniform, based on the fact that he is a minority, you break constitutional law. So the fact that you dont think the argument doesnt hold up doesnt matter, and you are being veru short-sighted in thinking that this wont lead to further problems down the road. France and the UK for me are examples of how not to handle multi-culturalism, so any argument that says we should follow their lead is immature and based on some fantasy you have in your heads.

That has pretty much been my point all along - if you read back you will see for yourself.

The repercussions of this dont just affect a sikh in the garda reserve - anyone who says it only affects a single sikh is either missing the point or being disingenuous in my view.

Its all religious minorities from anywhere in any Irish official uniform, male or female in Garda reserve, Garda Siochana, Army, Navy, Airforce, Firefighters Coast Guard etc - if you allow this change to an official uniform for a single sikh then you set a precedent which you cant then un-set.

People from minorities wearing religious garb in official uniforms does not (in my view) benefit cohesion and religious harmony/integration. All it does is set people apart - and for some (it seems) in a defiant kind of aggressively non integrationalist way.

Sikhs in the metropolitan police in London describing an Garda Siochana as being a racist organisation are being hysterical and playing the good old race card. Of all the police forces in the world to start slinging mud about the place the met is not the best placed to do that. Their assertion that an Garda Siochana are '40 years behind' the met - is condescending and dismissive, you could probably argue that its a racist viewpoint to take. In that it completely disregards our (as Irish people) right to make choices based on our views and do things our way. It arrogantly assumes that everything in Ireland follows the english lead which is not necessarily the case.

stipey

daithifleming wrote:

Pants/Baseball caps arent religious items, turbans are. Get that into your head. Perhaps you are the one who needs to look up the meaning of secular.

Getting ashes on Ash Wednesday is religous symbolism - there are 2 letters in today's Irish times to that effect. I am sure there are guards somewhere who will get ashes on Ash Wednesday - will they be made wash them off or will they be sent home.

I think the main difference is that, for the most part, Christian religions are slightly looser. It is not required that Catholics must wear a crucifix around their neck or ashes on their forehead at all times. Sikhs are required to wear a turban at all times unless it is completely impractical (such as when swimming) but I don't think this applies in this instance (unless he wishes to join the motorcycle or sub-aqua divisions).

Ekancone

stipey wrote:

Getting ashes on Ash Wednesday is religous symbolism - there are 2 letters in today's Irish times to that effect. I am sure there are guards somewhere who will get ashes on Ash Wednesday - will they be made wash them off or will they be sent home.

I think the main difference is that, for the most part, Christian religions are slightly looser. It is not required that Catholics must wear a crucifix around their neck or ashes on their forehead at all times. Sikhs are required to wear a turban at all times unless it is completely impractical (such as when swimming) but I don't think this applies in this instance (unless he wishes to join the motorcycle or sub-aqua divisions).

I had a sizeable argument built here and i somehow i managed to delete the whole ****ing thing! :mad:

In short, I would be opposed to a Garda having ash on his head and this is something that should be addressed. My other point was that if you allow this guy to wear a turban, you cant stop anyone else wearing any item that reflects their beliefs. To do so would be unconstitutional, and would make the foundations of our country a sham. I really dont understand why you fail to see this, i really cant...

faceman

seamus wrote:

Wow. Two of the most idiotic pieces of legislation I've ever seen. I'm surprised they're British.

altho i agree, im not actually surprised. When you look at the UK, a now "mature" multicultural society (mature as in it has been a massive multicultural society for decades), like other countries such as parts of the US, they created many problems in early years by segregating society. Ireland needs to learn from these mistakes. By introducing limited spread out social housing into all estates/areas in dublin, spreads out the ethnic minority community and can (try) allow for an easier transition to irish culture. By allowing ethnic minorities to grow in certain areas as opposed to all areas will only help to increase prejudices IMO. (unfortunately im speaking theoretically as Im not au fait with countries who have tried it this way.)

but gettin back on topic, in this particular instance I would not be keen on coppers wearing turbins. Its currently not part of the uniform and restricts wearing of the copper's hat. BUt if the uniform was changed or the turbin was indeed changed (Stick a gardai logo on it?) then i would not be opposed to it. but for now i voted No.

stipey

daithifleming wrote:

I had a sizeable argument built here and i somehow i managed to delete the whole ****ing thing! :mad:

In short, I would be opposed to a Garda having ash on his head and this is something that should be addressed. My other point was that if you allow this guy to wear a turban, you cant stop anyone else wearing any item that reflects their beliefs. To do so would be unconstitutional, and would make the foundations of our country a sham. I really dont understand why you fail to see this, i really cant...

The strange thing here, from my point of view, is that I am a committed athiest and I think the civil institutions in this country (from schools, to government departments, county councils and RTÉ) should to be secularised. However, I am not so arrogant as to believe that everybody should fall in line with my lack of religous beliefs. I believe that people should be entitled to be a member of any religion they wish (even Scientology).

I can see the point you are making. I can even see some sense in what Conor Lenihan has said on the issue (even though I detest the sight of the man and generally believe that he only opens his mouth to change which foot he currently has lodged there).

The fact remains however that Sikhs are required to wear a turban and it is for this reason that I believe allowing him to wear his turban while in uniform would not open the flood gates. It is very easy to deny people permission to wear a crucifix on a chain or to receive ashes because these are not a requirement of their religion.

This guy is, in effect, being told that if he wishes to be in the Garda reserve he must abandon a core religous belief (a requirment in fact) and that he is not welcome in the organisation if he will not do so. This, in addition to being arrogant in the extreme on the part of the gardaí, has to be in breach of the constutution.

Finally, it is difficult to draw up an applicable "shoe-on-the-other-foot" analogy because Catholicism (the religion with which i am most familiar) is less rigid and more disposed to a la carte followers so unfortunately this is not an exact parallell.... Imagine a situation where an applicant for a position in the garda reserve is told "well i know you are a very devout (and unmarried) Catholic but I'm afraid you can't become a member until you masturbate into this little cup / have sex with this women / bare false witness against this felow / dishonour your parents by calling them c**ts".

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

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.

That isn't what I asked you. I asked you why non-religious belief is to be considered unimportant.

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

They can update it, in some ways, but not in others then, no?

Yes.

It is illegal, under Article 44 of the constitution, to grant any specific religion special privileges. This is the nature of a secular state, and one I'm very happy to live in.

Changing the Garda uniform to accommodate one specific religion goes against the very nature of this secularity.

If you do it you set a precedent that any and all religions or beliefs must be accommodated. That is clearly unworkable, so at some point down the line, be it 5 years, 20 years, 100 years (assuming the ant people haven't enslaved us by then) the Garda are going to have to say "No, we cannot accommodate that change to the uniform" In doing so they will be granting one specific set of religion privilages that another set of religions don't have

That is unacceptable in a secular country who's constitution guarantees to treat all religion equally

You either have to accommodate every religion equally, or you have to accommodate no religion equally

That is the point of secularism

Any middle ground goes against the very nature of secularism and the Irish constitution, because it endows one religion over the other.

BuffyBot wrote:

There is no reason a Garda-standard turban couldn't be designed as part of the Garda uniform and issued to any Sikh officers who may decide to join the force or reserve in the future.

That isn't the issue. This isn't an issue of logistics, it is an issue of discrimination.

BuffyBot wrote:

Police forces in the UK have issued force specific turbans to officers there which fit the rest of their uniform range.

The UK don't have our constitution.

BuffyBot wrote:

Perhaps when the 10000th request comes in, perhaps then they can say it. As it stands, it's hardly a floodgate at the moment.

That is completely irrelevant.

What are they going to do, stop the Sikhs wearing the turbans when another religion is refused an alteration to the uniform, a year from now, or 10 years from now, or 50 years from now. They can't do that.

The short sightedness of people on this thread is very worrying. When making decisions like this one cannot simply live in the moment. It sets precedence that could effect the Guards for decades if not hundreds of years.

BuffyBot wrote:

Why can't each religion be taken on a case by case basis?

Because that is illegal under the Irish constitution, and goes against the very nature of a secular state designed to treat all religions equally

I find it deeply ironic and of great concern that people are missing the fundamental point that the Garda are actually preventing discrimination while at the same time posters here are actually calling for institutionalized discrimination, just not against the Sikhs.

jimmychin

religion is outdated.

i'm a 'new age' sikh -

i drink, i smoke, i cut my hair

but i still have faith

Zombrex

what_car

if they want to live here let them abide by our rules/regulations..

they have a brass neck trying to come in here and try to change things:mad:

philologos

I don't see how it is going to impact anyone at all. All they have to do is look at the turban and accept the Sikh officers for who they are... Sikhs!

The Real B-man

Well i think a uniform is there for a reason and changing it because of religon throws the idea of uniformity out of the window

My 2cent.

philologos

It's been modified in the UK to suit the police uniform. Surely the same could be done here? It actually matches quite well if you look at the images there.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

It's been modified in the UK to suit the police uniform. Surely the same could be done here? It actually matches quite well if you look at the images there.

Not the point, religious items should not be part of Garda. this is not the UK. Read our constitution.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

It's been modified in the UK to suit the police uniform. Surely the same could be done here? It actually matches quite well if you look at the images there.

As daithi says, the logistics of actually doing it isn't the point. The fact that it is Sikhs isn't the point. The fact that it is a turban isn't the point.

The point is that there is no way of doing this within the framework or spirit of the States commitment to secularism. All religions must be treated equally.

As I said to BuffyBot, making this change would actually facilitate future discrimination.

Tha Gopher

Couldnt care less in all honesty. However, i think they are correct to refuse- whatever skanger catches their attention is only going to either rip the piss or try to rip the thing off.

Correct me if im wrong but dont the Gardai ban officers from having significant facial hair (well, beards anyway, not sure but im fairly sure ive seen the odd cop with a tache). Some interpretations of Islam say that all muslim men must have a beard of a certain length (the Taliban made it law at one point). Presumably its more of a matter of opinion rather than a clear cut rule, as Ive known a few religious muslims who were clean shaven. But if you take the interpretation as compulsory conduct, how does that one work out?

Sleepy

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

Why?

Any and all faiths that believe in a higher being require a leap of faith. Our scientific and logical understanding of our world deems any faith in a higher being to be unfounded. Hence one chooses to make this leap of faith. Fair enough, most people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents, however as they develop mentally they become responsible for this leap of faith themselves. Otherwise they have only a blind faith I don't think anyone would agree that blind faith is something which should be accomodated in any walk of life.

I have no problem with a Sikh wearing a turban and can see the argument that a turban of appropriate colour with a fastening clip bearing the logo of An Garda Siochana wouldn't be any impediment to them doing their duties. However, as Wicknight keeps pointing out in this thread, you either allow an exception to the rule based on someone's personal choices and beliefs or you don't. There is no middle ground that is not discriminatory.

Frankly Jackass, your religious beliefs are making you extremely arrogant on this matter. If you honestly think that my belief system is less valid than yours because you believe that your own are commandments from a deity you choose to believe in, I honestly don't think you deserve an opinion.

Religions can ignore logic all they like. Laws however, cannot. They are held accountable in a court system where logic can create case law to overturn them. So, unless you're arguing that we should abandon our current legal system and instead take the Bible / Koran / The God Delusion / the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as our law (something I and virtually everyone else I know would actually take up arms against), I can't see how you think you have an argument.

Ekancone

Sleepy wrote:

Why?

Any and all faiths that believe in a higher being require a leap of faith. Our scientific and logical understanding of our world deems any faith in a higher being to be unfounded. Hence one chooses to make this leap of faith. Fair enough, most people inherit their religious beliefs from their parents, however as they develop mentally they become responsible for this leap of faith themselves. Otherwise they have only a blind faith I don't think anyone would agree that blind faith is something which should be accomodated in any walk of life.

I have no problem with a Sikh wearing a turban and can see the argument that a turban of appropriate colour with a fastening clip bearing the logo of An Garda Siochana wouldn't be any impediment to them doing their duties. However, as Wicknight keeps pointing out in this thread, you either allow an exception to the rule based on someone's personal choices and beliefs or you don't. There is no middle ground that is not discriminatory.

Frankly Jackass, your religious beliefs are making you extremely arrogant on this matter. If you honestly think that my belief system is less valid than yours because you believe that your own are commandments from a deity you choose to believe in, I honestly don't think you deserve an opinion.

Religions can ignore logic all they like. Laws however, cannot. They are held accountable in a court system where logic can create case law to overturn them. So, unless you're arguing that we should abandon our current legal system and instead take the Bible / Koran / The God Delusion / the Sri Guru Granth Sahib as our law (something I and virtually everyone else I know would actually take up arms against), I can't see how you think you have an argument.

Me too

AlanG

Should Islamic women be allowed wear a Burqa if they join the guards? Is it not the exact same issue?

Boggle

Jackass wrote:

It's been modified in the UK to suit the police uniform. Surely the same could be done here? It actually matches quite well if you look at the images there.

Seriously, this is NOT the UK. Have you read a single point on the thread? You keep sidestepping comments that don't suit you.

Would you propose to change our constitution to give preference to one religion over another. How about to accomodate each and every religion specifically?
If so, and please answer this because people have deliberately sidestepped the most awkward question: What if I start my own religion based on my own beliefs*? Does that have to be accomodated?

*A religion does not have to be a thousand years old, it merely has to be a belief structure - and to my mind, no one has to agree exactly with any given religion and so is free to have their own beliefs. So if I believe that "the message of startrek is sacred" or some other rubbish and want to wear a scotty badge, then I am entitled to do so just as much as someone else is entitled to wear a turban or something. (remember one mans religion may appear stupid to everyone else but that in no way negates his religion)
If the sikhs are therefore entitled to have their turban accomodated, would I not if I can show that it is in fact me religion???

(PS I DO NOT WORSHIP STARTREK!!!)

Wicknight wrote:

That is unacceptable in a secular country who's constitution guarantees to treat all religion equally

Technically having an alternate had which EVERYONE is free to wear at their own discretion is not bias towards a religion (it could be a football hat as said previously). But providing an alternative garment to suit any particular religion is anti-constitutional.

Zombrex

Boggle wrote:

Technically having an alternate had which EVERYONE is free to wear at their own discretion is not bias towards a religion (it could be a football hat as said previously). But providing an alternative garment to suit any particular religion is anti-constitutional.

Very true, which is why it has been pointed out that this issue isn't actually to do with the turban.

If the Garda wish to introduce a turban as part of the official uniform, or make any alterations to the uniform that they deem appropriate, I've no issue with that, though I assume they will have a good reason for this. I didn't mind at all when they introduced the stab vests for example.

As you say, the point isn't what they change, but why they change it.

If the change is done to facilitate a particular religion, that sets a precedence that request to alter the uniform for religious reasons are acceptable and will be entertained.

Such a precedence simply will not work.