Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Turbans vs An Garda Siochána
Comments
-
Snickers Man wrote:So you admit that there can be optional items in a generally recognised "uniform" dress code?
That's a start.
Of course, for the reasons of practicality, because it is universally applicable. It is not pandering to the private beliefs of an individual. Are you new to this thread? Because this has been gone over many times, i suggest reading it before you waste anymore time in this debate.0 -
daithifleming wrote:Female Garda have the option of hair nets for their hair.
Female Gardaí are told to tie up hair in such a way as to insure that it does not interfere with the wearing of the hat, fall over the ears or eyebrows or extend below the collar. There's no mention of hair nets.0 -
cushtac wrote:Female Gardaí are told to tie up hair in such a way as to insure that it does not interfere with the wearing of the hat, fall over the ears or eyebrows or extend below the collar. There's no mention of hair nets.
Oh right, i thought the Sikh was offered a hair net, misinformed i was. Ok then, he can tie the hair up.0 -
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?
Your options are:
1. Don't allow any religious paraphernalia into the uniform
2. Allow all religious beliefs to be expressed by Gardaí on the job
3. Allow some religious beliefs to be expressed by Gardaí
My question to you is: where do you draw the line? And why is it okay to draw the line at that particular point? Why should some people's religious beliefs not be accomodated?0 -
I've already answered this. All the concerns of adherents of the religions featured in the last census, should be considered. Although I would draw the line at obligatory required clothing, I would see no problem with the crucifix.0
-
Jakkass wrote:I've already answered this. All the concerns of adherents of the religions featured in the last census, should be considered. Although I would draw the line at obligatory required clothing, I would see no problem with the crucifix.
So if somebody comes in of a religion not listed in our last census they should be discriminated against?0 -
If they have any obligatory headwear etc, all should be considered. The Census is filled out by the people I can't see how that isn't a reasonable guideline.0
-
If they have any obligatory headwear etc, all should be considered. The Census is filled out by the people I can't see how that isn't a reasonable guideline.0
-
I've already answered this.Who in gods name made you a mod?Snickers Man wrote: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.
What part of "Ireland has had its fill of being dictated to by churches" do people not comprehend?0 -
Boggle wrote:Sol if I fill out that I'm a Rastafarian in the next one, should I be allowed to smoke Cannabis?
Good question. What we have to remember here is wearing a turban doesn't contravene the laws of the state. Whereas smoking cannabis does. So no would be my answer.0 -
Advertisement
-
Boggle wrote:I would have to second that. A mod should at least be willing to represent the forum properly in the ability to discuss a point. If everyone on here took your line the forum would be full of fanatics and no-one else.
Take a look at the forums beside "Mod:" underneath my username, I believe Humanities doesn't feature there.Boggle wrote:Then they should request a non-religiously affiliated piece of head wear. Requesting a piece of uniform that panders to one religion but not another is in violation of the constitution. This has been put forward many times and is continuously ignored.Boggle wrote:What part of "Ireland has had its fill of being dictated to by churches" do people not comprehend?0 -
Take a look at the forums beside "Mod:", I believe Humanities doesn't feature there.What is stopping the Gardaí doing a review of their dress code and taking in other religions should another issue like this ever occur?
I do however object to religion being incorporated.I hate to say it but a number of us don't see any problem with receiving spiritual guidance from our religious leaders.What we have to remember here is wearing a turban doesn't contravene the laws of the state. Whereas smoking cannabis does. So no would be my answer.
My points, and many others, are that if you allow preferential treatment for one religion, then you have to consider it for all... (I'm just using cannabis to highlight an aspect)0 -
As for the mod thing it's perfectly alright. It's always handy to take a look there first though
Well theres only so far that State and religion can be seperated. People will always vote taking their beliefs into account. Not that this is a brilliant example, but religious lobbies of voters exist in the United States for that reason. Christian Evangelicals and the Zionist lobby form a large part of the vote in the USA.
As for the cannabis, someone else clearly could. I wouldn't agree with it being passed as it contravenes the law at the minute and I'm not too cool with drugs and the psychological dangers of cannabis. I haven't done a conclusive study of cannabis but I've heard it leads to mental illness.0 -
So you're okay with the constitution being broken to accomodate the Sikh religion but you're not okay breaking legislation to accomodate the Rastifarian faith?What is stopping the Gardaí doing a review of their dress code and taking in other religions should another issue like this ever occur?
Religion is a personal belief system based on the rejection of known science and logic and taking a leap of faith. Some people who share similar beliefs band together to form churches, synagogues etc. and these in turn can become large institutions of many such people who share those similar beliefs. Within those very institutions there are wide and diverse opinions on the details of the faith being represented by that institution.
Mere numerical superiority does not grant someone of one of these affiliations the right to be treated differently than any other person. There is nowhere one can draw the line in the sand that isn't arbitrary. If we take your own faith, it effectively began with 13 men yet you're happy to dismiss the beliefs of those faiths who have less adherrants?
There is no way the Gardai can accomodate everyone's personal belief systems, nor should they have to.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.
Faith, while not a bad thing in itself, is illogical. There is no way you can make a reasoned argument based on it. The very fact that you're not bothered about what I say is effectively the problem with trying to govern based on faith. You seem to feel perfectly entitled to ignore my views because despite not being able to give a reasoned argument to show me the error in my thinking you "know" you're right.
That is fundamentalism, it is zealotry and frankly, it scares the crap out of me to see it active in Ireland.0 -
Sleepy wrote:So you're okay with the constitution being broken to accomodate the Sikh religion but you're not okay breaking legislation to accomodate the Rastifarian faith?
I thought the constitution said that no one religion should be given preference over another? But surely if all obligatory items of faith were included all religions would be catered for?0 -
Well theres only so far that State and religion can be seperated.
(I want one garda in uniform to be the same as the next garda in the same uniform - be he male, female, black, white, asian, muslim, catholic, Sikh, etc...)Not that this is a brilliant example, but religious lobbies of voters exist in the United States for that reason. Christian Evangelicals and the Zionist lobby form a large part of the vote in the USA.As for the cannabis, someone else clearly could. I wouldn't agree with it being passed as it contravenes the law at the minute and I'm not too cool with drugs and the psychological dangers of cannabis. I haven't done a conclusive study of cannabis but I've heard it leads to mental illness.I thought the constitution said that no one religion should be given preference over another?But surely if all obligatory items of faith were included all religions would be catered for?
(its like the guy earlier said, if a guy truly believes that United represents god and considers it his religious belief, then why not him? - I know plenty of fanatical football supporters!!)Or... this is the typical response you give out to all who argue from the point of faith.0 -
Imo, people shouldn't bring their religion to work.0
-
Snickers Man wrote:with a little common sense there should be little or no difficulty coming to a reasonable accommodation.
What you call "common sense" we call unacceptable levels of religious discrimination. Apples and oranges I guess :rolleyes:Snickers Man wrote:So you admit that there can be optional items in a generally recognised "uniform" dress code?
That's a start.
Again Snickers you are missing the entire point.
No one (or at least no one who seems to be arguing from a secular position, the anti-immigration crowd might have other ideas) objects to the a turban being part of the uniform, if it is just that, a uni-form element of the dress code. A uniform is after all just a uniform. That is the entire point of it
The objection is altering the uniform to suit the religious beliefs of one particular group in society. If you do that for one group you have to do it far all groups, no matter how big or small. And then you no longer have a uniform, so this clearly isn't practical so at some point you have start saying "NO! You cannot change that" And then you are discriminating against Garda based on religion. Both yourself and Jakkass seem to be constantly ignoring that fact, or claiming common sense will work that out. That is religious discrimination, and is unacceptable in a secular State.
This is nothing to do with the turban or the Sikhs. It has nothing to do with the practicalities of wearing a turban. It is to do with religious discrimination, and not opening the door to it.0 -
Jakkass wrote:I thought the constitution said that no one religion should be given preference over another? But surely if all obligatory items of faith were included all religions would be catered for?
The problem with that Jakkass is that you define "Obligatory" in very narrow terms and you define "faith" in very narrow terms, both of which is unacceptable in a free and open society where religion is decided by the person not the State. The State has no right to claim that a particular religious belief isn't valid enough to warrant recognition when others are valid enough.
In reality there is an infinite number of items can people can claim are obligatory to their faith. Heck there are an infinite number of faiths.
There is no rational way to say that a Catholic is allowed a certain object, but the Moon/UFO cult who require to dress up in Star Trek uniforms aren't a real faith and don't require a Star Trek uniform. They believe what they believe. Dressing up in a Star Trek uniform is no more or less rational than not cutting your hair if the person genuinely believes that is what they must do.
Once again I find it bizarre that myself, as an atheist, is defending the idea of religious freedom from State interference, against theists who wish to narrowly define, and therefore restrict and box in, religious expression.0 -
Advertisement
-
I voted no, I think we run the risk of becoming overly PC, if we start to succumb to different pandering...
The uniform is what it is, if this doesn't meet his requirements then its not the job for him ... i feel this is being done to make a point and try to erode further into the fabric of society...
The stance being taken by the Garda is the correct one and i for one support them on this.0 -
daithifleming wrote: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.
It is absolutely about how we deal with the consequences of immigration. The gobsheen minister made that clear in his statement.
it is a given that people from overseas will come here as long as we have a successful economy. it's how we handle the implications that is at issue here.0 -
Wicknight wrote:Again Snickers you are missing the entire point.
The objection is altering the uniform to suit the religious beliefs of one particular group in society. If you do that for one group you have to do it far all groups, no matter how big or small. .....
..This is nothing to do with the turban or the Sikhs. It has nothing to do with the practicalities of wearing a turban. It is to do with religious discrimination, and not opening the door to it.
Where in his statement did the minister in charge make any reference to the need to maintain a secular uniform? I actually think the secular argument is a valid one, but it is not the one the minister made. He basically said: "Do it our way or don't do it at all."
I personally think that this will be resolved by some sort of silly compromise involving a bandage or cloth of the right shade of blue with a garda crest that is not recognisable as a turban but which is very different from the current garda cap. The sort of thing that will be lampooned in later years.
These things breed reactions. why do white golfers dress like black pimps? Because of the "dress code" on most courses which forbids casual trousers.
So they keep to the letter of the law but infringe good taste and the original intention behind that law every day.
This is a really stupid issue over which to be getting into a fight with a perfectly law-abiding participative immigrant community. Keep the powder dry for more important issues.0 -
Snickers Man wrote:It is absolutely about how we deal with the consequences of immigration. The gobsheen minister made that clear in his statement.
it is a given that people from overseas will come here as long as we have a successful economy. it's how we handle the implications that is at issue here.
Agreed, i think even the government are making a mountain out of this debate, even they are turning it into a immigration issue. They should be just as opposed to a catholic Garda whose name is Wolfe Daniel O'Connell-Collins from wearing a catholic religious symbol over his/her uniform as they are opposed to a Sikh wearing a turban.0 -
Snickers Man wrote:it is a given that people from overseas will come here as long as we have a successful economy. it's how we handle the implications that is at issue here.
One feature that's pretty common in immigration is segregation. While this can largely be driven by socio-economic factors (such as the cost/availability of jobs & housing), it is also often driven by the immigrants themselves. This is natural - we all want to be comfortable. If you go to some event, for example, where there are a lot of people you've never met, but you bump into one person that you do know, you'll probably spend most of the rest of the day with them, even if you've never really known them that much beforehand. This occurs with immigrants too, but on a larger scale. This is what we need to combat to get better integration.
If we allow religious discrimination by immigrants, we are allowing them to unreasonably distinguish themselves, only creating more segregation.
Now, this is gone a little off-topic because ultimately this is not an immigration issue. As daithifleming says, it's doesn't matter if the Garda is from Dublin, Cork, Iran or Bangladesh - they are a Garda first and foremost and should not be aiming to separate themselves from the rest of the force.0 -
Wicknight wrote:Once again I find it bizarre that myself, as an atheist, is defending the idea of religious freedom from State interference, against theists who wish to narrowly define, and therefore restrict and box in, religious expression.
It's bizarre because it's ultimately not what you are doing. Catering for someones religious requirements is not something that should be taken lightly or compared to a football team of all things. There is no comparison whatsoever. We are going to have to go through other roadblocks in different elements of Irish society or even the police again with the hijab or other items of clothing. So why not cater for them all now instead of worrying what to do in the future? Surely that seems the practical thing to do.
Boxing in religious expression? I said the Census was a good guideline but other faith groups should also be catered for if they wish to be. Actually I think denying the Sikh applicant to the Garda reserve his turban is restricting religious expression.0 -
Advertisement
-
Wicknight wrote:The objection is altering the uniform to suit the religious beliefs of one particular group in society. If you do that for one group you have to do it far all groups, no matter how big or small. And then you no longer have a uniform, so this clearly isn't practical so at some point you have start saying "NO! You cannot change that" And then you are discriminating against Garda based on religion. Both yourself and Jakkass seem to be constantly ignoring that fact, or claiming common sense will work that out. That is religious discrimination, and is unacceptable in a secular State.
Let the Gardaí review their situation taking all religious creeds into account. Or even a period to let the relevant church bodies discuss what is obligatory and put it forward to the Gardaí if they have any items to put forward for a reformed uniform. I don't see that as discrimination. As for "unacceptable in a secular State", it's becoming too secular for my liking with this move. It's akin to what France did with the education system.0 -
Boggle wrote:Why is that? Why can a state not be run on reason instead of faith? Reason allows any person to follow his own religion. Reason also prevents a public servant from publicly endorsing a faith. Like I said before, I don't care what religion a garda is, I just don't want to have to know.
(I want one garda in uniform to be the same as the next garda in the same uniform - be he male, female, black, white, asian, muslim, catholic, Sikh, etc...)Boggle wrote:The church used to run Ireland too - is that really the kind of mindset you want to go back to? And seriously, why should we insist on copying a failing democracy? Next you'll want a system where you dare not get sick without health insurance and where the insurance companies will effectively seek out any reason not to pay you even if you can get that insurance!! (See Sicko if you want an opinion of how that good christian country treats its people!)Boggle wrote:How would you take it if a Rastafarian garda, who was possibly permitted the use of smoke on religious ground, busted you for doing it on recreational grounds? Do we just throw open the floodgates and let people make up their own rules or do we democratically (ish) legislate and then follow this legislation with zero bias towards any group?Wikipedia wrote:While there is a clear belief in the beneficial qualities of cannabis, it is not compulsory to use it, and there are Rastas who do not do so.Boggle wrote:That is what it says. Changing the uniform to suit a particular faith, without accomodating all possible faiths (both present, past and future) is therefore unconstitutional. And this is the crux of the pint which has never been addressed in this thread.
[quote=
So if you incorporate that one sentence into the constitution you feel that the problem will be averted? How do you prevent this from being abused going forward?[/quote]
I've suggested in another post that the relevant churches declare obligatory items with scriptural reference from their books to be considered for modifying to the uniform.Boggle wrote:Would you oppose evolution being taught in school???0 -
Jakkass wrote:So why not cater for them all now instead of worrying what to do in the future? Surely that seems the practical thing to do.Actually I think denying the Sikh applicant to the Garda reserve his turban is restricting religious expression.0
-
Jakkass wrote:It's bizarre because it's ultimately not what you are doing. Catering for someones religious requirements is not something that should be taken lightly or compared to a football team of all things.
It isn't up to you, it is up to the person who actually believes what they believe. It is not your place to tell them that what they believe isn't worthy enough, that they don't believe something as much as you do.
What right do you have, or what right does the State have, to tell someone that what they believe in isn't important enough to warrant the special treatment that another person gets?
On what grounds do you say that belief X is actually mandatory and special, but belief Y isn't so can be ignored and marginalized?
That goes against the very principles of freedom of religion and belief. It goes against the very principles of equality and secularism.
What would you say if the Irish State said that they recognized Christianity, Islam and Judaism as proper religions but everything else is clearly nonsense and therefore would not be entertained at all?Jakkass wrote:We are going to have to go through other roadblocks in different elements of Irish society or even the police again with the hijab or other items of clothing. So why not cater for them all now instead of worrying what to do in the future? Surely that seems the practical thing to do.
As I've asked you about a 100 times already do you have any idea how many beliefs are actually out there?
How can the Garda possibly allow everyone to where what every they want as part of the Garda "uniform".
And if you don't (you couldn't possibly and still retain any idea of a uniform) then on what possibly grounds do you say that one belief is more worthy or inclusion than another belief?
If someone says "I do not believe wearing blue is a healthy colour, it attracts bad energy and spirits and is unlucky" is that any more or less of a worthy belief than saying "I cannot cut my hair for religious reasons so I must wear a turban"?
Do you let the first person wear a red uniform? Do let the next person wear a uniform with a different logo because the logo conflicts with their beliefs? Do you let the next person refuse to get into a police car because it conflicts with their beliefs?Jakkass wrote:Boxing in religious expression? I said the Census was a good guideline but other faith groups should also be catered for if they wish to be.Jakkass wrote:Actually I think denying the Sikh applicant to the Garda reserve his turban is restricting religious expression.
Well that is because you don't understand what we are talking about.
How can the Guards possible cater for all beliefs. All of them, no matter what they are?
Explain that to me and you might have a point. Other than that you seem, as Seamus points out, to be just taking one position without making any attempts to think it through in any practical terms. Its all very well saying that the Garda should cater to all beliefs, but explain how that is in any way possible.0 -
The minister has basically said we are Irish and you do it our way. Which is fine, but not exactly a welcoming statement to immigrants or people of differing religious beliefs. Allowing Sikh Gards to wear turbans is much more accomodating and shows Ireland to be a country which recognises and accepts cultural and religious differences, in line, I believe, with the constitution.
This will all end up with the European court of huan rights who will find in favour of the Sikhs and cause even more of a stir than it has done.
The minister has handled this very badly imho.0 -
Advertisement
-
This post has been deleted.0
-
-
daveirl wrote:This post has been deleted.
A lot of it, yes, but I admit to having skipped a lot.
I have given my opinion, what's the problem.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:The minister has basically said we are Irish and you do it our way. Which is fine, but not exactly a welcoming statement to immigrants or people of differing religious beliefs.
It is about equality, its not about making one particular religion feel better. That was the point of removing specific mentions of certain religions from the Constitution in 1972. If it was about making particular religions feel better we would probably still have the special relationship going onFratton Fred wrote:Allowing Sikh Gards to wear turbans is much more accomodating and shows Ireland to be a country which recognises and accepts cultural and religious differences, in line, I believe, with the constitution.
You need to read the constitution then.
Article 44.22° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.
The point of these is to make sure the State remains secular and that it recongises all religions and beliefs equally.
The State should not make specific exceptions for certain religions or beliefs and not for others. Since no one has been able to explain how the Garda could possibly accommodate every single belief out there I think we can all agree that accommodating everyone isn't an option, it would go against the very point of a uniform if everyone could just wear what they wished.Fratton Fred wrote:This will all end up with the European court of huan rights who will find in favour of the Sikhs and cause even more of a stir than it has done.
Actually it is the other way around.
If the Garda allowed this every other religion or person with any particular belief could claim that they are being unfairly discriminated against by the Guards because they cannot wear their burka/knife/jedi robe/crystal pendent while being a member of the Guards (though this isn't a case for the ECHR as it falls well within our current discrimination laws).
Any State that properly implements separation of church and state, properly implements secularism, implements it in this fashion, because it is the only fair yet practical way of doing it.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:A lot of it, yes, but I admit to having skipped a lot.
I have given my opinion, what's the problem.
It's just that that point has been addressed already... If you accomodate Sikhs, then it sets a precedent and you have to accomodate every belief system (organised or not) -- unless you draw a line somewhere, and that would constitute discrimination. How are you supposed to reconcile that? You have to either allow everybody to express their religious beliefs, or else nobody. Anything else is discrimination.
That's the main point that's been made repeatedly.
edit: Jedi robe, lol0 -
DaveMcG wrote:edit: Jedi robe, lol
What you laughing at, they are cool
http://www.degraeve.com/jedirobe/
0 -
DaveMcG wrote:It's just that that point has been addressed already... If you accomodate Sikhs, then it sets a precedent and you have to accomodate every belief system (organised or not) -- unless you draw a line somewhere, and that would constitute discrimination. How are you supposed to reconcile that? You have to either allow everybody to express their religious beliefs, or else nobody. Anything else is discrimination.
That's the main point that's been made repeatedly.
edit: Jedi robe, lol
That point has been made at least thirty times, and we have yet to recieve a sufficient argument regarding this.0 -
Wicknight wrote:The constitution isn't supposed to be "welcoming"
It is about equality, its not about making one particular religion feel better. That was the point of removing specific mentions of certain religions from the Constitution in 1972. If it was about making particular religions feel better we would probably still have the special relationship going on
It was the Ministers decision that I was commenting on, not the constitution.Wicknight wrote:3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.Wicknight wrote:The point of these is to make sure the State remains secular and that it recongises all religions and beliefs equally.
The State should not make specific exceptions for certain religions.Wicknight wrote:Actually it is the other way around.
If the Garda allowed this every other religion or person with any particular belief could claim that they are being unfairly discriminated against by the Guards because they cannot wear their burka/knife/jedi robe/crystal pendent while being a member of the Guards (though this isn't a case for the ECHR as it falls well within our current discrimination laws).
Any State that properly implements separation of church and state, properly implements secularism, implements it in this fashion, because it is the only fair yet practical way of doing it.0 -
DaveMcG wrote:It's just that that point has been addressed already... If you accomodate Sikhs, then it sets a precedent and you have to accomodate every belief system (organised or not) -- unless you draw a line somewhere, and that would constitute discrimination. How are you supposed to reconcile that? You have to either allow everybody to express their religious beliefs, or else nobody. Anything else is discrimination.
That's the main point that's been made repeatedly.
edit: Jedi robe, lol
You can reconcile that and it has been proven it London and New York that it works.
Using Jedi knights as an arguement are poor, as is the cannabis one. Sikhism is an internationally recognised faith and culture and to be a "Baptised" Sikh, you wear a turban. Jedi knights are not an internationally recognised religion (yet) and they have no dress code that would prevent them from joining a Police force. Rastafarians are not obliged to smoke cannabis, it is part of their culture but not a mandatory part of their religion.
A female muslim who wears a Burkha would not join the Gards and I believe there are acceptable uniforms where a head scarf can be worn as well as a helmet.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:so because a point has been made, several times, that I don't agree with, I can't comment.:rolleyes:
You can reconcile that and it has been proven it London and New York that it works.
Using Jedi knights as an arguement are poor, as is the cannabis one. Sikhism is an internationally recognised faith and culture and to be a "Baptised" Sikh, you wear a turban. Jedi knights are not an internationally recognised religion (yet) and they have no dress code that would prevent them from joining a Police force. Rastafarians are not obliged to smoke cannabis, it is part of their culture but not a mandatory part of their religion.
A female muslim who wears a Burkha would not join the Gards and I believe there are acceptable uniforms where a head scarf can be worn as well as a helmet.
So you believe that a Sikh/Christians private beliefs are more important that another persons private beliefs (Such as a small 'unrecognised' relgion, which is totally discriminatory). Why?0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote:It was the Ministers decision that I was commenting on, not the constitution.Fratton Fred wrote:unless you are a Sikh who wants to join the Gards.
A Sikh or anyone else for the matter can join the Garda Reserves.
They are simply not getting a special version of the uniform just for them. If I joined the Garda tomorrow I wouldn't get a special version of the uniform just for me either.Fratton Fred wrote:I'll tell you what, lets settle this over a beer. Good Friday suit you?;)Fratton Fred wrote:I've seen Muslims take organisations, particularly schools, to the ECHR for not allowing girls to wear trousers to School. What's the difference.
The difference is that Irish discrimination law is in line with Europen Law over this matter. As I said no one is being stopped from joining the Guards based on their religion. The Sikhs are stopping themselves by refusing to wear the standard Garda uniform.
The Sikhs are saying "We are not going to wear this" and the Guards are say "Ok, but then you can't join the Garda"0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:You can reconcile that and it has been proven it London and New York that it works.Fratton Fred wrote:Using Jedi knights as an arguement are poor, as is the cannabis one. Sikhism is an internationally recognised faith and culture and to be a "Baptised" Sikh, you wear a turban. Jedi knights are not an internationally recognised religion (yet) and they have no dress code that would prevent them from joining a Police force. Rastafarians are not obliged to smoke cannabis, it is part of their culture but not a mandatory part of their religion.
God, one wonders who many times this has to be said.
What you have just described is discrimination based on religion, exactly the type of thinking our constitution was amended to protect people against.
Your religion isn't international recognized (recognized by who exactly, there is a standards committee now?), then you are out of luck. We will now discriminate against you. Whats that, we let the Sikhs have a special version of the uniform, but not you? Well they are recognized (by this mysterious international body), so that is tough on you. Your personal beliefs do not matter because there is not enough of you who share them. Cry me a river.
Seriously, do people honestly not get the problem with that???
You are advocating religious discrimination, but you seem to be rather ridiculously saying that it is ok so long as the religion is small then no one will care.Fratton Fred wrote:A female muslim who wears a Burkha would not join the GardsFratton Fred wrote:and I believe there are acceptable uniforms where a head scarf can be worn as well as a helmet.
Acceptable to whom? You? The Sikhs?0 -
daithifleming wrote:So you believe that a Sikh/Christians private beliefs are more important that another persons private beliefs (Such as a small 'unrecognised' relgion, which is totally discriminatory). Why?
That's not what I'm saying. A Turban is not a symbol (said before I know) it is an important part of the Sikh religion. Show me another religion that would want an important part of their religion worn as part of a uniform and we can discuss it.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:That's not what I'm saying. A Turban is not a symbol (said before I know) it is an important part of the Sikh religion. Show me another religion that would want an important part of their religion worn as part of a uniform and we can discuss it.
No, lets go back to your comment about recognised religions. You seem to think that unless this 'council' recognises a religion then that persons private beliefs are not of any importance. Why?0 -
Wicknight wrote:The difference is that Irish discrimination law is in line with Europen Law over this matter. As I said no one is being stopped from joining the Guards based on their religion. The Sikhs are stopping themselves by refusing to wear the standard Garda uniform.
The Sikhs are saying "We are not going to wear this" and the Guards are say "Ok, but then you can't join the Garda"
The Garda uniform requires a Sikh to choose between the force and their religion. It is not a case of "We don't want to" it's a case of "We can't wear that, can you make a change to accomodate us". They are not insisting the uniform be changed, thay are asking for a reasonable concession.
If you join and want to wer a turban, then you have that choice as well.
Besides all the arguements, the Gards are excluding a sector of the community and may well be missing out on the chance to recruit some first class Gards.0 -
Wicknight wrote:Don't be ridiculous, you cannot possibly know that.
I should have said Probably. the Burkha is a very strong statement of very strict Islamic beliefs. Generally women who wear a Burkha would follow those beliefs to the point of not working, not leaving the house without a male relative etc.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:The Garda uniform requires a Sikh to choose between the force and their religion. It is not a case of "We don't want to" it's a case of "We can't wear that, can you make a change to accomodate us". They are not insisting the uniform be changed, thay are asking for a reasonable concession.
If you join and want to wer a turban, then you have that choice as well.
Besides all the arguements, the Gards are excluding a sector of the community and may well be missing out on the chance to recruit some first class Gards.
But there are cases of Sikhs wearing smaller turbans so they can fit a motorcycle helmet on or a cricket helmet, etc. The Garda have no problem with this, but there is no compromise from this guy. Where do you draw the line? Im sure every Sikh in the world has his own personal take on Sikhism, should all of these single beliefs be accomodated somehow? Thats just ridiculous.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:Show me another religion that would want an important part of their religion worn as part of a uniform and we can discuss it.
Saying "It won't happen" is ridiculous. You cannot possible know what will or won't happen in the future.
Can you guarantee that no one after the Sikhs will ever wish to have the Garda uniform changed for reasons of person belief. This won't happen in a year, 5 years, 10 years 50 years, 200 years?
20 years ago if you asked someone what is the likelihood of a Sikh's wishing to change the Garda uniform you would have go "quite unlikely" after the person had picked themselves up of the floor from laughing so hard.Fratton Fred wrote:The Garda uniform requires a Sikh to choose between the force and their religion.
Your argument reminds me of when the Catholics tried to get Jerry Springer The Opera banned from TV. When it was pointed out to them that they didn't actually have to watch the show if they didn't like it the predictable response was "Why should I have to stop watching TV, they shouldn't broadcast it in the first place"Fratton Fred wrote:It is not a case of "We don't want to"Fratton Fred wrote:it's a case of "We can't wear that, can you make a change to accomodate us".Fratton Fred wrote:They are not insisting the uniform be changed, thay are asking for a reasonable concession.Fratton Fred wrote:If you join and want to wer a turban, then you have that choice as well.Fratton Fred wrote:Besides all the arguements, the Gards are excluding a sector of the community and may well be missing out on the chance to recruit some first class Gards.0 -
Fratton Fred wrote:I should have said Probably.Fratton Fred wrote:Generally women who wear a Burkha would follow those beliefs to the point of not working, not leaving the house without a male relative etc.
Again, a country is not run on "generally"0 -
Advertisement
-
Fratton Fred wrote:The minister has basically said we are Irish and you do it our way. Which is fine, but not exactly a welcoming statement to immigrants or people of differing religious beliefs. Allowing Sikh Gards to wear turbans is much more accomodating and shows Ireland to be a country which recognises and accepts cultural and religious differences, in line, I believe, with the constitution.
This will all end up with the European court of huan rights who will find in favour of the Sikhs and cause even more of a stir than it has done.
The minister has handled this very badly imho.
Are you for real? Have you even read the thread?
European Court of human rights :rolleyes:0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement