Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

That's the point isn't it. Nobody has a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols. What most people have a problem with, is a representative of the state wearing religious symbols in the course of their duties.

The garda uniform is a symbol. Why can't you respect that as much as a religious symbol?

Mick86

Sleepy wrote:

Another interesting thing I just realised. As we have an unarmed Garda force, wouldn't this also open the door for an orthodox sikh to carry a kirpan thus placing two pieces of legislation directly against each other?

A Sikh is required to carry a Kirpan anyway as far as I know. There is no designated length of blade so any knife with a blade length of less than three inches can be carried quite legally.

indough wrote:

I'd say it's not too bad really for a population of about 60.6 million

Those are just the ones that spring immediately to mind. Following the example of the British police in all matters may not be the way to go.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Because you say so?

The Swastika is a Buddhist and Hindu religious symbol. Lets imagine a Hindu Policeman with his swastika necklace (if he chose to wear one) dealing with a Jewish person. No foreseeable problem there then.

philologos

Mick86 wrote:

The Swastika is a Buddhist and Hindu religious symbol. Lets imagine a Hindu Policeman with his swastika necklace (if he chose to wear one) dealing with a Jewish person. No foreseeable problem there then.

In this case the item isn't obligatory. Mind you I wouldn't have a problem with the crucifix. I'm sure on explanation the Jew would understand that he was not referring to the Nazi era.

saabi

jimmychin wrote:

ok, you got me.

i am a 'non practicing' sikh. is that allowed?

===

i can see both sides of the argument here, and i tend to side with the "its a uniform" so everyone should wear the same.

however this just means there wont be any sikh's joining the garda.

and for all that keep saying "you want to see a garda not a sikh garda" how do you feel if the garda you meet is african or indian - will it not be immediately obvious by the colour of their skin that this person may have different religious beliefs to yourself?

and for the other half saying that 'scumbags' will just take the p1ss and knock off the turban - is that actually a reason for not allowing it?

The reason for my question was a valid one. As from my experience and visit to India, I have seen "Sej Tari Sikhs" (Non Practicing Sikhs) to have greater respect and honour for the "Khalsa" (i.e. Baptised sikhs). I have seen non practicing sikhs rising to aid the cause of Baptised Sikhs and vica versa . Hence, I wasn't sure if you were a sikh or not.

“As this is the internet and anyone can claim to be anything.”

Personally, I feel this whole argument is tainted with discrimination. As Sikhs are not asking the entire Garda force to wear turbans or the Sikh insignia. The turban to the Sikhs is a practical way of keeping their hair neatly wrapped up.

Even non practicing Sikhs wear the turban now and then, as a reminder of their faith. (Sometimes going to the temple or getting married) "I am not sure, if you do?"

The integrity of our Garda force is in the difficult work they do, and not in their uniform.

Scumbags pick on normal Garda, never mind if the Garda is Purple, Pink, Indian, Black or a Sikh.

Integration is two way thing.

If Sikhs don't join the Garda force, I am sure it won't be their loss.

But as a nation, we are failing to accept that this Island of ours is moving through the times. Different colours will only help us make the picture richer. As we the Irish contributed in America.

On a closing point:

Just look at NI, more foreign Catholics are joining the PSNI than our own people.

saabi

Folks here is some additional info, you folks can verify it, as I am not sure:

"The turban's importance can be found in just about every culture and religion, starting with the ancient Babylonians to western religions such as Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as eastern traditions. The Old Testament proclaims, "Once they enter the gates of the court", implying God's court, "they are to wear linen vestments. They shall wear linen turban."
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the significance of the turban is further highlighted:
He put the turban upon his head and set the gold rosette as symbol of holy dedication on the front of the turban as the Lord had commanded him. Moses then took the anointing oil, anointed the Tabernacle, and all that was within it and consecrated it. (Leviticus 8,9)
Set the turban on his head and the symbol of holy dedication on the turban. Take the anointing oil, pour it on his head and anoint him. (Exodus 29-6)
"


If anyone is interest read on. (Apparently wearing the turban has some benefits):

"Physiologically speaking, the turban creates a dramatic effect on the body. The human skull is not solid, but is made up of 52 moving plates, whose alignment affects our well being and our mental processes. Osteopathic Doctors have developed a science of cranial adjustments to treat many general
and specific ailments. By tying the turban, and thus creating the proper pressure and angles, the bones of the skull are automatically adjusted, and remain aligned throughout the day. In situations of mental activity or emotional stress, when the cranial bones tend to go out of proper alignment, the turban contains and maintains the integrity of the skull. This contributes greatly to our strength and ability to succeed under pressure. In addition to this, the effect of the Kesh properly combed-up and the accupressure points that the turban presses at the temple contributes to the person's ability to maintain an elevated state of mind, a higher state of consciousness."

I AM NO EXPERTS FOLKS, JUST PROVIDING INFO.
All this info is available somewhere.

Boggle

jackass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Jacckass, noone has a problem with religious symbols - but you have an issue with the lack of them!

I asked you earlier and I ask you again to argue your point. Fanatics, as you appear to be, are not an aspect of any culture that will be tolerated here so - like I asked before - put some substance in your argument or go argue it somewhere where bull is tolerated. I know this is rude but coming into a discussion just to preach is also rude. Are you really so incapable?!?

You are trying to change a country on the back of notions which do not stack up and unwilling to listen to logic or experience. Don't forget, essentially you are the voice who represents the people writing into newspapers in favour of this - those people who have never seen a land outside their own and think that the constitution on is only good when it suits them.

Mods, you may assume I am getting personal, however the line that this lad has taken is way beyond reason and he has failed to argue a single point rather than just proclaim his(or her) wisdom. I have seen first hand twice the damage this kind of stupidity can wreak (Belgium and England) and I wont lie down and watch it happen here....

saabi wrote:

Personally, I feel this whole argument is tainted with discrimination. As Sikhs are not asking the entire Garda force to wear turbans or the Sikh insignia. The turban to the Sikhs is a practical way of keeping their hair neatly wrapped up.

I refer you to Wicknight's last few posts where he eloquently put an argument against religious discrimination. As for hair neatly wrapped up, female gardai have managed it a while so Sikhs should be okay.

olks here is some additional info, you folks can verify it, as I am not sure:

"The turban's importance can be found in just about every culture and religion, starting with the ancient Babylonians to western religions such as Judiaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as eastern traditions. The Old Testament proclaims, "Once they enter the gates of the court", implying God's court, "they are to wear linen vestments. They shall wear linen turban."
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the significance of the turban is further highlighted:
He put the turban upon his head and set the gold rosette as symbol of holy dedication on the front of the turban as the Lord had commanded him. Moses then took the anointing oil, anointed the Tabernacle, and all that was within it and consecrated it. (Leviticus 8,9)
Set the turban on his head and the symbol of holy dedication on the turban. Take the anointing oil, pour it on his head and anoint him. (Exodus 29-6)
"

So what? is this an argument in favour of allowing popular religions control this country or were you just bored.

Tell me, if a jew walked into a police station full of people who believed that the jewish killed christ, and who had symbols stating so on their shirt - is that really equality?I don't want a single iota on a shirt of a police man except the symbol. should that symbol change over time, then fine but please dont let whining fanatics dictate it!!

Mick86

Jakkass wrote:

In this case the item isn't obligatory. Mind you I wouldn't have a problem with the crucifix. I'm sure on explanation the Jew would understand that he was not referring to the Nazi era.

Maybe the Hindu could carry a placard explaining why he wears a swastika.:rolleyes:

saabi wrote:

Personally, I feel this whole argument is tainted with discrimination.

Naturally. Any argument that we have no obligation to pander to the whims of foreigners is automatically discriminatory.

Ciaran500

saabi wrote:

If anyone is interest read on. (Apparently wearing the turban has some benefits):

"Physiologically speaking, the turban creates a dramatic effect on the body. The human skull is not solid, but is made up of 52 moving plates, whose alignment affects our well being and our mental processes. Osteopathic Doctors have developed a science of cranial adjustments to treat many general and specific ailments. By tying the turban, and thus creating the proper pressure and angles, the bones of the skull are automatically adjusted, and remain aligned throughout the day. In situations of mental activity or emotional stress, when the cranial bones tend to go out of proper alignment, the turban contains and maintains the integrity of the skull. This contributes greatly to our strength and ability to succeed under pressure. In addition to this, the effect of the Kesh properly combed-up and the accupressure points that the turban presses at the temple contributes to the person's ability to maintain an elevated state of mind, a higher state of consciousness."

I AM NO EXPERTS FOLKS, JUST PROVIDING INFO.
All this info is available somewhere.

Bull

The skull is made of 22 bones that are sutured together and don't move based on brain activity. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cranial2.html

Sleepy

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

Why not?

mickoneill30

It's not just Ireland that has these debates. Here's one in America. This lady refuses to wear trousers as they're against her religion.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/68093.html

It could be worse though. Imagine the debate if the Amish ever tried to join the Gardai.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/6503

I propose a new religion that means I'll go to hell if I pay taxes. Anybody wishing to follow me?

faceman

mickoneill30 wrote:

It's not just Ireland that has these debates. Here's one in America. This lady refuses to wear trousers as they're against her religion.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/68093.html

I propose a new religion that means I'll go to hell if I pay taxes. Anybody wishing to follow me?

sorry dude, frank zappa beat you to it! altho his church was turned down by the american government! (Religious institutions in the US get tax breaks.) He was a staunch atheist!

As far as i remember from his biography, the intials of his church were C.A.S.H. but i cant remember what is stands for.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

Why not?

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

Sleepy

Something being old is no reason to respect it. There's many, many awful things I could point out that have always been fundamental aspects of our societies but that's not the point so I'm not going to insult you with those comparisons.

Like I pointed out to you earlier Jakkass, religion is a choice (I notice you still haven't addressed that point btw). If one person's personal choice is grounds to change the uniform of a state institution, all peoples' personal choices must be. There is no other equitable way to do this that treats all people as equals.

As some people's personal choices would render the uniform impractical for the role that they are fulfilling (or simply ludicrous), nobodies personal choices can be accommodated.

Even if we hold religion to be a more valid personal choice than an affiliation to a football team (which to be honest I don't), the same logic holds true: some religions' symbols and rules of adherrance would render the uniform of the Gardai impractical, ludicrous or even deeply incendiary (e.g. a star of David could be offensive to someone of Palestinian origin etc.) thus no religion's symbols can be allowed.

Like I've said, I've no problem with a turban or a garda wearing one from a practical or personal perspective. The problem actually comes from exactly what you're asking people to do: respect religion. If we afford one religion respect, all religions (even non-"recognised" religions) must be afforded that respect or we're discriminating based on faith which I think we can agree is not something we want to do.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I don't have a problem with anyone wearing religious symbols, and nobody should have a problem with it.

If you let people where what ever they want that is kinda missing the whole point of a uniform Jakkass

walrusgumble

Morlar wrote:

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.

out of interest is their any address or e mail that the consititutional argument of oppossing the ban be send to these arrogant, condescending and informed police officers?

aidan24326

Jakkass wrote:

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

Nothing got to do with wiping out religion you're going off on a tangent now.

This is really pretty simple.

If you're a sikh who wears a turban, and you have designs on being a garda, you have 2 choices. You accept that the turban cannot be worn while on duty, or you accept that the gardai is not the career for you (if removal of the turban is not an option).

People have to accept that their personal religious beliefs may come with a price from time to time. And personal beliefs are what they are, nothing more. It's amazing how attaching the label of religion always clouds the picture. If I said I wanted to be a garda and wear an unconventional non-uniform headpiece, for any other reason, however deep my convictions, I would not be entertained for a moment.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

The law is also a fundamental part of society and it should be totally seperate from religion. The Garda uniform should stay as it is. Gardai represent the law, not their religious beliefs. No turbans/burqhas or any other religous symbols should be allowed.

sunny2004

fairdeal wrote:

i saw this newsclip on bbc..hope people would reconsider their anti-turban stand. rather than pushing a community to a side, we should allow them to participate in society as proud irish sikhs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6740000/newsid_6742500/6742547.stm?bw=nb&mp=rm&news=1&ms3=4

I disagree ! I think the uniform is the uniform. unless the hat sits on top of the Turban than they are missing part of the uniform ..

And what about naturalists ?? are they next ? we could just have them running around in their suites (birthday)

philologos

Deleted User wrote:

The law is also a fundamental part of society and it should be totally seperate from religion. The Garda uniform should stay as it is. Gardai represent the law, not their religious beliefs. No turbans/burqhas or any other religous symbols should be allowed.

Firstly why? because you say so?

philologos

aidan24326 wrote:

People have to accept that their personal religious beliefs may come with a price from time to time. And personal beliefs are what they are, nothing more. It's amazing how attaching the label of religion always clouds the picture. If I said I wanted to be a garda and wear an unconventional non-uniform headpiece, for any other reason, however deep my convictions, I would not be entertained for a moment.

They shouldn't have to come with a price in a free society like ours. Why doesn't secular humanism come with a price if the rest of us do apparently?

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly why? because you say so?

I think the Why has been answered over the last few pages.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

They shouldn't have to come with a price in a free society like ours. Why doesn't secular humanism come with a price if the rest of us do apparently?

Because secularism is non-descriminatory; it says "this is the uniform, now do your job".

You want to give a select few religions the right to express their beliefs when they're supposed to be unholding the law in an unbiased manner, and you want to (by your own admission) not allow other religions (as well as those who, god forbid, have personal beliefs and practises/customs but don't subscribe to any particular organised group) to express and practice THEIR beliefs.

Please tell me how that isn't discriminatory. I'm all ears (or eyes).

bill_ashmount

Jakkass wrote:

Because faith has and always will be a fundemental aspect of our society. We can't just ignore this just because a select few want to wipe religion totally off the face of it.

Jakkass wrote:

Firstly why? because you say so?

No one wants to wipe religion away, that's not the issue. It's been explained numerous times to you in this thread and you keep coming back with invalid arguments. Let it go.

philologos

DaveMcG - surely if all faiths have to "pay a price" under another posters reasoning. It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

DaveMcG - surely if all faiths have to "pay a price" under another posters reasoning. It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

If someone wanted to wear a secular humanist hat in the Garda i would be against it. NO beliefs, religious or non-religous should be given special treatment/uniforms.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

DaveMcG - surely if all faiths have to "pay a price" under another posters reasoning. It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

That's like saying that if I don't allow someone to wear a swastika, then I'm siding with the Jews.

The constitution says that the state will not make any discrimination on the grounds of religious belief. The only way to guarantee that in this situation is either allow every single person with religious belief to express it whilst working as a Garda, or else allow nobody to do so.

You have already said that you would impose some restrictions on who may practise their religion in these circumstances. That would be unconstitutional, and discriminatory.

You said that you would amend the constitution to allow people to practise religion whilst working for the Gardaí. But you also said that you would impose restrictions.

Is it the case that you want to institutionalise religious discrimination so that the major religions (of which you are a part, coincidentally) are looked after, and everybody else is tossed aside?

If not, how do you propose to avoid being discriminatory without allowing a free-for-all vis-a-vis religious expression while representing the state?

daithifleming wrote:

If someone wanted to wear a secular humanist hat in the Garda i would be against it. NO beliefs, religious or non-religous should be given special treatment/uniforms.

Agreed

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Why doesn't secular humanism come with a price if the rest of us do apparently?

Do you understand there is a difference between secularism and humanism? Humanists cannot have their own version of the uniform any more than Sikhs can.

Secularism means that no religion or belief is put above any other one. All are treated equally by the State.

Humanists cannot have a special version of the uniform. Sikhs cannot have a special version of the uniform, Christians cannot have a special version of the uniform, Atheists cannot have a special version of the uniform etc etc

The only alternative to that is that EVERYONE can have a special version of the uniform. Anything in the middle is discrimination.

If you are against secularism that is fine, but just understand that you are promoting discrimination of belief if you do so. You might not care because the beliefs that you agree with are at the front, but then that isn't the point. Discrimination is discrimination.

Jakkass wrote:

It would be discriminatory to put secular humanists above all other faiths / belief systems?

That is the whole point.

If I as a humanist wanted to join the Garda and I wanted to wear a special version of the uniform that, say, removed the logo because I felt it insulted me because it was modeled on the original Christian Celtic crosses, I would be told no way, the uniform is the uniform.

But if the Sikhs are allowed a special version of the uniform that does not offend their beliefs, why can't I have a special version of the uniform? They would have to give me a special version of the uniform and design a completely new logo, just for me.

Dave!

Wicknight wrote:

They would have to give me a special version of the uniform and design a completely new logo, just for me.

How about this little baby? :cool:

Zombrex

Yes, that would be acceptable

Ekancone

DaveMcG wrote:

How about this little baby? :cool:

Well, it is what he believes... dont you dare persecute him!:D

cushtac

Sikh council will not challenge turban ban
Monday, 27 August 2007 12:53

The president of the Irish Sikh Council has dismissed reports that it is to pursue legal channels over a ruling which prohibits a Sikh garda reserve recruit from wearing a turban as part of his uniform.

Harpreet Singh said members of the Sikh community will meet with Garda Commissioner Noel Conroy to discuss the implications of the decision not to allow the recruit to wear his turban.

Mr Singh said he is hopeful that the matter could be resolved amicably.
Advertisement

It has been reported that the Irish Sikh Council has been in contact with representatives of a New York police officer who successfully overturned a similar ban there.

The garda authorities have said they are standing by their decision and have denied that the headgear ban is racist.



Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0827/turban.html

Sleepy

Don't tell me that common sense is actually going to win out in this country? :eek:

Zombrex

RTE wrote:

The garda authorities have said they are standing by their decision and have denied that the headgear ban is racist.

I hate the way they keep calling it a ban. Its not a ban, like "You cannot wear a turban on this golf course" is a ban. It is a uniform, the very nature of a uniform is that all items of clothes that are not part of the uniform are "banned"

Dave!

Yeah I was just gonna say that... Makes it sound like the Gardaí are systematically removing turbans from people's heads as they go about their business. "None o' dat carry-on now!"

philologos

Well. They are removing the turbans of the heads of potential recruits.

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

Well. They are removing the turbans of the heads of potential recruits.

They're removing all non uniform items from all potential recruits.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

Well. They are removing the turbans of the heads of potential recruits.

You havent a leg to stand on. You have proved that by continually ignoring any good points made in this debate. Is this guy JC from the Creationist forum in disguise?

dh2007

Where do you draw the line on this? If Sikhs are not allowed to wear the turban in the policeforce then surely it sets a precedent which would exclude them from many different professions?

What if a Sikh worked in a hospital as a nurse and as part of his job he had to wear a uniform? would he be asked to take it off?? Using the argument of 'look up the meaning of the word uniform' is pathetic. It goes beyond that.

I find it scary to see that so many people are against the wearing of the turban. Those of you who are against it, do any of you know a Sikh?? I bet that if you knew a Sikh personally you would have an altogether different view on things.

By disallowing the turban we are potentially excluding a whole community from our society. Amending our constitution has been done in the past.

Sleepy

dh, read the entire thread. Unless you're suggesting that a constitution which promotes discrimination is a good thing, there's no logical reason to allow this.

Jakkass, I give up. You're either incapabable of rational thinking or deep down know you're wrong but choose to continue bleating anyway.

Ekancone

dh2007 wrote:

Where do you draw the line on this? If Sikhs are not allowed to wear the turban in the policeforce then surely it sets a precedent which would exclude them from many different professions?

What if a Sikh worked in a hospital as a nurse and as part of his job he had to wear a uniform? would he be asked to take it off?? Using the argument of 'look up the meaning of the word uniform' is pathetic. It goes beyond that.

I find it scary to see that so many people are against the wearing of the turban. Those of you who are against it, do any of you know a Sikh?? I bet that if you knew a Sikh personally you would have an altogether different view on things.

By disallowing the turban we are potentially excluding a whole community from our society. Amending our constitution has been done in the past.

I am not going to put up with your laziness in not reading the points made in this thread. Every objection you have has been met in this thread and i refuse to repeat myself.

Snickers Man

Let me turn this whole debate on its head. (forgive the pun)

Given that the turban is essentially a practical means of tidying up a Sikh man's hair which his religion forbids him to cut, how would people who want the uniform to remain standard throughout accommodate in the Gardai perfectly capable Sikh men who have such long hair?

I suspect that there are, or certainly were, regulations in the Gardai requiring men to keep their hair cut short and neat so that this situation would not have arisen hitherto.

Now that it has, how do you allow Sikhs to participate fully in the new society into whcih they come without telling them: first cut your hair?

I fully accept that there are facets of other immigrant societies that will offend not so much our "culture", whatever that is, as our laws and we should not be afraid to confront them. (eg a woman unwilling to participate in an arranged marriage, honour killings between feuding families -- admittedly not something totally alien to our own culture--) but it just strikes me that this case is a really silly one on which to be taking a stand.

And one that the minister in question has made a complete hames of by positioning it as a case of "people not respecting our culture".

We are increasingly going to come up against issues like this where an accommodation is going to have to be reached which allows exotic cultures to participate in our own society without infringing our laws and without causing offence to reasonable people. with a little common sense there should be little or no difficulty coming to a reasonable accommodation.

the_syco

Love to see the reaction of a police officer if someone whipped off his Turban:D

=-=

If a 5 Gardai walks into the middle of a mob, made up of a gang of Sikhs, and a gang of scum, they will be seen as Gardai trying to stop a riot, and the mob may disperse.

If a 5 Gardai wearing a religious chain/lance/turban/etc walks into the crowd, they'll be seen as a 5 Sikh joining the gang of Sikh, and will be seen part of the Sikh by the scum gang.

philologos

Sleepy wrote:

Jakkass, I give up. You're either incapabable of rational thinking or deep down know you're wrong but choose to continue bleating anyway.

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith. I'm not too concerned about what you say anyway. I know I'm right because this is just going too far, and considering it's totally backward in comparison to other nations I can't see what is rational about your argument tbh with you. The most enlightened thing I've heard is "It's a uniform it cannot be changed"... Mind you we all knew that this country would reach this point sooner or later.

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

Snickers Man

irish_bob wrote:

pandering to religous minorities has never worked out in the uk or other countries with large immigrant populations so let that be a warning to us

Yeah that's a good argument. "We've been too nice to these feckin' immigrants and they don't respect us for it!"

What is it that causes resentment between "immigrant" and "host" communities?

In the case of asians in the UK, was it the provision of a modicum of social services in their own language, or Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech?

Was it the adulation reserved for such sportsmen as Amir Kahn and Naseem Hamed, or Norman Tebbit sneeringly demanding that they "take the cricket test" to determine how well integrated they have become?

in the case of the Irish in London, was it the GLC backing events like St Patrick's Day parades and large open-air Irish Fleadh's or the Daily Express's cartoonist JAK drawing pictures of simian-featured ghouls and labelling them the stars of a movie called "The Irish, the ultimate in psychopathic horror"

Was it the success on TV of Eamonn Andrews, Terry Wogan, Dennis Tuohy, Graham Norton, Dara O'Brian etc or decades of ****e "irish jokes" from the likes of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning?

Immigrants don't want to be patronised or pandered to; just a modicum of fair play and reasonable accommodation when issues such as how to control a Sikh policeman's flowing locks arise.

Ekancone

Snickers Man wrote:

Let me turn this whole debate on its head. (forgive the pun)

Given that the turban is essentially a practical means of tidying up a Sikh man's hair which his religion forbids him to cut, how would people who want the uniform to remain standard throughout accommodate in the Gardai perfectly capable Sikh men who have such long hair?

I suspect that there are, or certainly were, regulations in the Gardai requiring men to keep their hair cut short and neat so that this situation would not have arisen hitherto.

Now that it has, how do you allow Sikhs to participate fully in the new society into whcih they come without telling them: first cut your hair?

I fully accept that there are facets of other immigrant societies that will offend not so much our "culture", whatever that is, as our laws and we should not be afraid to confront them. (eg a woman unwilling to participate in an arranged marriage, honour killings between feuding families -- admittedly not something totally alien to our own culture--) but it just strikes me that this case is a really silly one on which to be taking a stand.

And one that the minister in question has made a complete hames of by positioning it as a case of "people not respecting our culture".

We are increasingly going to come up against issues like this where an accommodation is going to have to be reached which allows exotic cultures to participate in our own society without infringing our laws and without causing offence to reasonable people. with a little common sense there should be little or no difficulty coming to a reasonable accommodation.

Female Garda have the option of hair nets for their hair.

Ekancone

Jakkass wrote:

Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith. I'm not too concerned about what you say anyway. I know I'm right because this is just going too far, and considering it's totally backward in comparison to other nations I can't see what is rational about your argument tbh with you. The most enlightened thing I've heard is "It's a uniform it cannot be changed"... Mind you we all knew that this country would reach this point sooner or later.

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

You have just admitted to not reading any of the posts regarding this matter, i'm not gonna even read or reply to any of your posts in this thread from now on. Who in gods name made you a mod?

Ekancone

Snickers Man wrote:

Yeah that's a good argument. "We've been too nice to these feckin' immigrants and they don't respect us for it!"

What is it that causes resentment between "immigrant" and "host" communities?

In the case of asians in the UK, was it the provision of a modicum of social services in their own language, or Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech?

Was it the adulation reserved for such sportsmen as Amir Kahn and Naseem Hamed, or Norman Tebbit sneeringly demanding that they "take the cricket test" to determine how well integrated they have become?

in the case of the Irish in London, was it the GLC backing events like St Patrick's Day parades and large open-air Irish Fleadh's or the Daily Express's cartoonist JAK drawing pictures of simian-featured ghouls and labelling them the stars of a movie called "The Irish, the ultimate in psychopathic horror"

Was it the success on TV of Eamonn Andrews, Terry Wogan, Dennis Tuohy, Graham Norton, Dara O'Brian etc or decades of ****e "irish jokes" from the likes of Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning?

Immigrants don't want to be patronised or pandered to; just a modicum of fair play and reasonable accommodation when issues such as how to control a Sikh policeman's flowing locks arise.

Again, for the millionth time, this is not about being against immigration. I would oppose an Irish Catholic, whose roots can be traced back to the first human to set foot on this island, wearing a Catholic cross over his uniform.

Get that into your head.

Stereophonic

One word "No" to allowing this...

It's been the Garda uniform for generations and it hasn't been altered in any way like this and it should remain unchanged.

Respect the uniform and wear it is all I can say.

Snickers Man

daithifleming wrote:

Female Garda have the option of hair nets for their hair.

So you admit that there can be optional items in a generally recognised "uniform" dress code?

That's a start.

cushtac

Jakkass wrote:

Snickers Man does have a good point. How else are Sikhs meant to keep their hair manageable without the turban?

How about the small turban I've mentioned several times, including the pictures of it? :rolleyes: