Turbans vs An Garda Siochána

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

and while the secularisation point could hold water if there was a widespread concerted movement towards achieving same in this country; there isn't.

We should be more secular, we aren't that secular, so lets stop trying to be secular

Have you thought that one through .... :rolleyes:

impr0v wrote:

This country has never been a secular one, to say otherwise is to be blithely revisionist about its history. If someone can present me with evidence that there is tangible evidence of a modern change in policy, I'll listen to their arguments.

The 1972 amendment to the constitution and the Garda ethics and standards guidelines.

impr0v wrote:

The argument is a different one if Sikhism doesn't oblige the wearing of the turban.

Sikhism doesn't oblige the wearing of the turban, it obliges that a Sikh doesn't cut their hair. As has been pointed out a billion times already on this thread plenty of Sikhs don't wear the turban.

But that is beside the point.

Even if Sikhism does oblige that one wear a turban that it is irrelevant. This has never been about the particulars of the Sikh religion. If you had bothered to read the thread you would realise that already.

impr0v wrote:

Allowing the turban to be worn does not mean any and all other requests must be acceded to.

That is EXACTLY what it means. On what grounds do you stop other requests?

impr0v wrote:

Article 44, the important bit which Wicknight somehow neglected to quote, protects a persons right to practice and profess their religion.

No one is stopping a Sikh, or anyone else, from practicing their religion. A Sikh who wishes to wear a turban doesn't have to join the Garda if they do not wish to.

Ekancone

jimmychin wrote:

nice post there impr0v.

i'm not for or against either option tbh but its an interesting debate.

and its interesting how worked up certain posters are getting at the thought of a foriegn garda ! !

You havent read a word have you?

jimmychin wrote:

ohh god forbid, that when i need the assistance of a gard he turns up in a turban ! !

Some people may have a problem with that, are they to be ignored?

jimmychin wrote:

...until next easter when pictures of 'secular' gards with funny ash painted on their foreheads will lead to someone getting sacked (or similar disciplinary action) just to make a point that religion doesnt play any part in the force !

I should hope so, i think anyone who has a problem with this issue should complain to the dept of justice/papers/radio stations. There should be no double-standards.

Sleepy

impr0v, I apologise for my previous outburst, hadn't read your second post which was arguing from a position bounds more intelligent than simply insulting a post which I thought was pretty clearly tongue in cheek whilst demonstrating a point.

I think what you're argueing is most likely what will happen tbh. It's something I disagree strongly with as I don't see any religion as being more valid than the nonsense I posted as earlier.

Strength of numbers believing a stupid idea does not defend that idea. Nor does strength of adherrants make any religion more credible or worthy of respect.

The fact we haven't yet untangled some of our state bodies from religious institutions is not a good argument to allow new forms of interference from religious bodies to undermine the goal of secularism defined in the constitution.

impr0v

daithifleming wrote:

But how come the Rasta has to cut his hair, what if his personal beliefs wouldnt allow him to do so? Why are the Sikhs personal beliefs more important than the Rastas in your mind? Can you see how complicated this would become in the future?

Can we stay away from the what-ifs?

If it is a case that he can't cut his hair then it's a very similar case to the one at hand and one that should be dealt with in the same way; calmly, with common sense, and with as much respect for the individuals rights as possible.

As I've said, the state would arguably have a better justification in that case, due to a general requirement for neatness. Sikhs have shown their willingness to compromise in terms of a modified turban, whereas it seems your theoretical rastafarian hasn't, again a factor that will have some bearing on the situation.

ruck-it

jimmychin wrote:

and its interesting how worked up certain posters are getting at the thought of a foriegn garda ! !

ohh god forbid, that when i need the assistance of a gard he turns up in a turban ! !

Actually I think it's interesting how you've come on here to try and make out people are small minded and yet have displayed incredible small mindedness by assuming that any Sikh must be foreign.

jimmychin

jimmychin wrote:

and its interesting how worked up certain posters are getting at the thought of a foriegn garda ! !

daithifleming wrote:

You havent read a word have you?

yeah, sorry 'foriegn' is not what i meant...

could i say 'different'? - no that doesnt really work either.

i retract the statement as i see what you're saying and i have read the entire thread.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

The constitution says in article 40.1 that it will not discriminate on the basis of gender, yet fathers aren't automatically granted guardianship of their children if they're born outside marriage, they have to apply to the courts at some expense to be granted it.

Getting off topic, but that isn't true. The father only has to apply to the courts if the mother contests that he isn't the father. If the mother confirms that he is the father all they need to do is to sign a declaration to that effect in front of a Peace Commissioner (obviously, otherwise how else is the State supposed to official know he is the father?)

Most maternity hospitals have a peace commissioner just for this reason.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

For you it is, and for me it is, but the state is legally required to respect that belief and I can't see any real harm in doing so. All things being equal perhaps he'll come round to your view and my view eventually but why have we such a vested interest in making sure he does?

Atheists arguably have that right, and it's a question of the courts balancing that right. Is it really a greater affront to the atheists belief to have a member of the police force wearing a (modified?) turban, than it is to have the state deny him the right to wear it? In my view it's not, but it's a question of degree and one that isn't easily answered in favour of either side.

Ok then, what if Muslims have a problem with the turban, and maybe Hindus do too, along with atheists. So you have a nice little group there, if it is a question of balance, should we discriminate against the Sikhs or the Muslim/Hindu/atheists? Either option is going to end in discrimination. Why not adopt a policy of not discriminating in favour of ANY religion over another?

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

For you it is, and for me it is, but the state is legally required to respect that belief and I can't see any real harm in doing so.

Where does that leave your "un-neat" Rastafarian?

jimmychin

ruck-it wrote:

Actually I think it's interesting how you've come on here to try and make out people are small minded and yet have displayed incredible small mindedness by assuming that any Sikh must be foreign.

maybe..

but my point was that it shouldnt matter whether a garda turns up in a turban, or dreadlocks, or a jedi robe as long as they do their job.

i know some people dont agree with this, thats fair enough and thats the argument here, you either let all religions do as the wish or you dont let any of them.

see i have read the posts:)

Fratton Fred

daithifleming wrote:

But religion is the very antithesis of common sense! Some people believe in wearing a turban, or in a guy that walked on water, or that some elephant with 8 legs is their diety! Why is that any more sensible than a Jedi religion? How come atheists have no rights to deal with a police force that has no religion broadcasted to the public. Why do you believe so much in discrimination?

A secular state respects people's right to follow a religion, otherwise it would be an atheists state.

religion is usually not a bad thing, it is the followers who cause problems.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

Can we stay away from the what-ifs?

In otherwords, lets avoid the potential implications of whats decided now? Oh of course, how silly of me. I apologise. :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Fratton Fred wrote:

A secular state respects people's right to follow a religion, otherwise it would be an atheists state.

That wasn't his point.

The point is that how can someone possibly decide what is or is not an acceptable religion to allow to alter the uniform.

You guys all seem to hate these "what ifs" that we keep throwing up, because they actually challenge your own notions of what is a religion and what isn't.

There is no common sense in religion, so arguing that its ok in future we can use our common sense to decide what is or is not acceptable is ridiculous.

Jakkass has said that there must be a large group of people for a religion to be recognised, and it is ok to ignore those that aren't big enough.

Both yourself and impr0v have stated other "common sense" reasons to not allow future alterations, such as neatness.

None of you seem to realise that this is the very close mindedness that you appear to be leveling at people who are attempting to defend secularism.

Zombrex

daithifleming wrote:

In otherwords, lets avoid the potential implications of whats decided now? Oh of course, how silly of me. I apologise. :rolleyes:

LOL .. was about to say the exact same thing

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

We should be more secular, we aren't that secular, so lets stop trying to be secular

Have you thought that one through .... :rolleyes:

Spare me the juvenile rolleyes please, it doesn't give any more credence to your arguments.

Sure, I don't for a second advocate the rolling back of whatever movement there has been towards secularism, and I'm all in favour of state and church separation. I don't believe that denying any religious minority the reasonable right to profess their faith is a necessity to those ends. Achieving a compromise in this situation does not raise the white flag to religion and open the state's arms to any and all comers who want to erect alters in the Dail chambers, it's a justifiable compromise that says we will make small concessions to individual rights when they don't conflict with the common good.

My point is that making the compromise doesn't conflict with where the state is currently at in terms of that separation, and doesn't prejudice where we should go with it in future. It's a small but important gesture.

Wicknight wrote:

The 1972 amendment to the constitution and the Garda ethics and standards guidelines.

The 1972 amendment involved the alteration of article 29 so as to enable joining of the EU. I presume you mean the 73 amendment.

That was certainly a welcome amendment, but it's nearly 25 years ago and you can contrast it with the other things I've mentioned in my original post.

If the state was actively secularist, wouldn't there be efforts to remove religious icons from public hospital wards and schools? Wouldn't the angelus have ceased being aired on RTE? I'm not saying there's no movement, I just don't think that there is to a degree which requires action such as this.

Wicknight wrote:

Sikhism doesn't oblige the wearing of the turban, it obliges that a Sikh doesn't cut their hair. As has been pointed out a billion times already on this thread plenty of Sikhs don't wear the turban.

But that is beside the point.

Even if Sikhism does oblige that one wear a turban that it is irrelevant. This has never been about the particulars of the Sikh religion. If you had bothered to read the thread you would realise that already.

Actually I did read the thread and like I said there certainly seems to be a confusion as to whether it is an absolute requirement or not. I'm aware that the essential requirement is that an adherent doesn't cut their hair, but I've chosen to take the view expressed in the mainstream media, and by the representative body of the religion in Ireland, over yours on the turban requirement.

As I've said before, if it is optional in any real sense, the argument for the prohibition is much more sustainable.

Wicknight wrote:

That is EXACTLY what it means. On what grounds do you stop other requests?

On a variety of grounds, as I thought I had explained. Give me another real-world example of a comparable requirement and I'll explain it to you again.

Wicknight wrote:

No one is stopping a Sikh, or anyone else, from practicing their religion. A Sikh who wishes to wear a turban doesn't have to join the Garda if they do not wish to.

If he wants to join the Garda Reserve force, and he's obviously capable of doing so having made it through the selection process and the training, he has to effectively disavow his right to do so, that's the same thing. It's a legal infringement on his rights by the state.

Ekancone

Fratton Fred wrote:

A secular state respects people's right to follow a religion, otherwise it would be an atheists state.

religion is usually not a bad thing, it is the followers who cause problems.

I never suggested that people dont have the right to practice religion. Despite the fact that i am very much an atheist, i am also a libertarian, and i would defend anyones right to practice religion. But i also believe that people have the right not to have to face any particular belief system when facing the working of the state such as garda, courts, etc.

We are far from reaching this secular state, and there is lot of ironing out to do (such as Gardas/TD's wearing ash) but because it isnt perfect now, DOESNT mean we should start going back to the old days of Rome-Rule with a mix of other religions pissing on the rest of us. I will do everything in my power to prevent that.

Ekancone

Wicknight wrote:

LOL .. was about to say the exact same thing

We are converging! Nooo, its groupthink!

impr0v

daithifleming wrote:

Ok then, what if Muslims have a problem with the turban, and maybe Hindus do too, along with atheists. So you have a nice little group there, if it is a question of balance, should we discriminate against the Sikhs or the Muslim/Hindu/atheists? Either option is going to end in discrimination. Why not adopt a policy of not discriminating in favour of ANY religion over another?

This is the kind of pointless hypothesising that this thread has been riven with.

Has there been any indication of the above situation arising, whatsoever? None to my knowledge, yet you put it forth to be considered in the scenario of a real situation that is occurring in this country at the moment.

If the legislators in this country had your talent for constructing 'what-if' scenarios then every piece of legislation would have to be of infinite length to take care of all the potential scenarios that could arise.

What actually happens in practice is that the legislation is as complete as can be and then if any disputes arise they're dealt with as they happen in the courts using, for the most part, common sense.

If you've anything constructive to say, as opposed to endlessly destructive, I'll address it. I think I've comprehensively set out, on a factual basis, what the likely reasoning of the courts will be in the current dispute, and I've indulged your hypothesising to a reasonable degree.

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

This is the kind of pointless hypothesising that this thread has been riven with.

Has there been any indication of the above situation arising, whatsoever? None to my knowledge, yet you put it forth to be considered in the scenario of a real situation that is occurring in this country at the moment.

If the legislators in this country had your talent for constructing 'what-if' scenarios then every piece of legislation would have to be of infinite length to take care of all the potential scenarios that could arise.

What actually happens in practice is that the legislation is as complete as can be and then if any disputes arise they're dealt with as they happen in the courts using, for the most part, common sense.

If you've anything constructive to say, as opposed to endlessly destructive, I'll address it. I think I've comprehensively set out, on a factual basis, what the likely reasoning of the courts will be in the current dispute, and I've indulged your hypothesising to a reasonable degree.

There is, thats why the constitution says the state will not discriminate others in favour of any one religion.

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

Getting off topic, but that isn't true. The father only has to apply to the courts if the mother contests that he isn't the father. If the mother confirms that he is the father all they need to do is to sign a declaration to that effect in front of a Peace Commissioner (obviously, otherwise how else is the State supposed to official know he is the father?)

Most maternity hospitals have a peace commissioner just for this reason.

Wrong. The unmarried father has no automatic rights in respect of his child. There have been judicial pronouncements in recent times that suggest that this may change, in which they hinted at certain pseudo-legal rights based on the blood link.

A father can ask the mother to sign the form you refer to and signing it grants him joint guardianship. If she doesn't, she's the only one with automatic rights. In many situations she'll likely sign the form as a matter of course, but it doesn't change the fact that he has no automatic right to guardianship.

impr0v

daithifleming wrote:

There is, thats why the constitution says the state will not discriminate others in favour of any one religion.

Such a proviso will not trump the personal right to profess or practice a religion.

Why would such a provision (art. 44.2.1) be included if, as per your view, protecting that guarantee would immediately contradict the obligation not to discriminate included in the very same article (44.2.3). It's logically indefensible.

Sleepy

impr0v, you seem to have a fairly firm grip on legal matters so let me ask you this:

How can a court legally determine which religions are valid and which are not without violating the constitution? IANAL but my understanding is that neither the courts, nor the legislature can rule against an article of the constitution?

Is this not exactly what they would be doing if our constitution contains an article declaring us a secularist state?

Again IANAL, but I'm under the impression that a legal challenge against RTE's broadcasting of the Angelus, the removal of religious icons from public hospital wards and schools etc. would stand a pretty strong chance of succeeding given this clause in the constitution. Am I wrong?

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

That wasn't his point.

The point is that how can someone possibly decide what is or is not an acceptable religion to allow to alter the uniform.

You guys all seem to hate these "what ifs" that we keep throwing up, because they actually challenge your own notions of what is a religion and what isn't.

There is no common sense in religion, so arguing that its ok in future we can use our common sense to decide what is or is not acceptable is ridiculous.

Jakkass has said that there must be a large group of people for a religion to be recognised, and it is ok to ignore those that aren't big enough.

Both yourself and impr0v have stated other "common sense" reasons to not allow future alterations, such as neatness.

None of you seem to realise that this is the very close mindedness that you appear to be leveling at people who are attempting to defend secularism.

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that for any person to decide what is and what isn't a religion on the basis of logic is nonsensical, but it's the state of play as it exists at the moment.

Since religion is legally protected, someone logically has to decide what constitutes a religion in order to avail of that protection and currently the courts have that role.

You may think that shouldn't be case, and I may agree that there are problems with it, but like it or not it's factually the case, as opposed to the what-ifs, which are constructions.

Secularism moves beyond secularism and into the very grounds it seeks to escape when it's used as a means to deny others their beliefs. It might as well be a fundamentalist religion espousing it's own beliefs as been better than any others.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

Spare me the juvenile rolleyes please, it doesn't give any more credence to your arguments.

I tend not to use it with my arguments, I normally reserve them for pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are. But you are right, it is obvious so they are unnecessary. Fun though.

impr0v wrote:

Sure, I don't for a second advocate the rolling back of whatever movement there has been towards secularism, and I'm all in favour of state and church separation.

Yes, so everyone around here keeps saying. Normally just before they then go on to explain how it is perfectly fine that we should discriminate against future religious requests on what ever grounds we come up with based on our "common sense"

impr0v wrote:

I don't believe that denying any religious minority the reasonable right to profess their faith is a necessity to those ends.

Neither do I.

Altering the official police uniform to what ever one wants based on personal belief is not a "reasonable right" btw.

impr0v wrote:

it's a justifiable compromise that says we will make small concessions to individual rights when they don't conflict with the common good.

That sounds lovely Impr0v, but none of that is definable and therefore completely unworkable. What is a "small concession", or more specifically what is not a "small concession". I certainly wouldn't call wearing a turban a small anything.

impr0v wrote:

My point is that making the compromise doesn't conflict with where the state is currently at in terms of that separation, and doesn't prejudice where we should go with it in future.

Yes but you are wrong. It does conflict with both those things. As has been pointed out.

impr0v wrote:

The 1972 amendment involved the alteration of article 29 so as to enable joining of the EU. I presume you mean the 73 amendment.

No, I meant the 1972 amendment. The 5th amendment to the constitution act is dated 1972

You can read it here if you want

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/cam/0005/index.html

And you may notice this -

1) The amendment of the Constitution effected by this Act shall be called the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

(2) This Act may be cited as the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972 .

In case anyone else doesn't know I'm talking about I am referring to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972

I hope that clears things up.

impr0v wrote:

That was certainly a welcome amendment, but it's nearly 25 years ago and you can contrast it with the other things I've mentioned in my original post.

Yes, I didn't realise we were moving backwards in terms of social equality and anti-discrimination. Apologies.

impr0v wrote:

If the state was actively secularist, wouldn't there be efforts to remove religious icons from public hospital wards and schools?

If you don't like me rolling my eyes perhaps you should stop positing things like this.

What exactly are you arguing with this point? Are you saying that we are not secular and shouldn't be secular?

impr0v wrote:

I'm aware that the essential requirement is that an adherent doesn't cut their hair, but I've chosen to take the view expressed in the mainstream media, and by the representative body of the religion in Ireland, over yours on the turban requirement.

It isn't my view. If you had genuinely read the thread you would realise that. It is totally irrelevant if you or I think Sikhs are or aren't required to wear this. You and I, or the State for that matter has no right to tell a person what they should believe. It doesn't matter what someone else thinks they should to, it matters what the person themselves believes.

Which is it is nonsense the argument that even if we allow this we can still tell other religions that we don't want altering the uniform that they aren't really a religion, or don't really believe what they believe strongly enough

impr0v wrote:

As I've said before, if it is optional in any real sense, the argument for the prohibition is much more sustainable.

Well no offense Impr0v but the very first hypothetical you threw your hands up. So that doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence that you actually believe this.

impr0v wrote:

On a variety of grounds, as I thought I had explained. Give me another real-world example of a comparable requirement and I'll explain it to you again.

Certainly. A Garda recruit wishes to wear a red Star Trek uniform to work each day. You might say that this isn't "real world" enough for you, but it has happened in the States.

impr0v wrote:

If he wants to join the Garda Reserve force, and he's obviously capable of doing so having made it through the selection process and the training, he has to effectively disavow his right to do so, that's the same thing.

He has not been disavowed anything. The Garda have stated a number of times that all the Sikhs can join the force, they aren't stopping them. They just have to wear the same uniform as everyone else It is up to them if they wish to do that or not.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

Wrong. The unmarried father has no automatic rights in respect of his child.

It is not wrong, I suggest you read up on this (and a few other things such as the dating of constitutional amendments) before you go around shouting that everyone else is wrong.

A father has "automatic" rights in respect of a child once the State actually knows that he is the father of the child.

You seem to be ignore the logistics of this. The State knows the mother is the mother because the child pops out of her. But how do you expect the State to know that the father is the father unless they both declare that he is.

What, should any man just be able to walk in to a hospital and say to a doctor "yep, thats my kid over there. Can I take him home now"

impr0v wrote:

A father can ask the mother to sign the form you refer to and signing it grants him joint guardianship. If she doesn't, she's the only one with automatic rights.

That is because the State knows she is actually the mother, but the State doesn't know who the father is. How would they? As soon as it is established who the father is, either through declaration of both parents, or a blood test through the courts, that father has guardianship.

I have no idea what other way you think this could possibly work?

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

Secularism moves beyond secularism and into the very grounds it seeks to escape when it's used as a means to deny others their beliefs.

What the hell are you talking about? :mad:

That is exactly what you are calling for, by arguing that the State should us "common sense" to declare that some religions and beliefs are worthy of accommodation and some aren't.

This is nonsense

bill_ashmount

impr0v wrote:

Secularism moves beyond secularism and into the very grounds it seeks to escape when it's used as a means to deny others their beliefs. It might as well be a fundamentalist religion espousing it's own beliefs as been better than any others.

Can you explain this to me? I can't understand it.

impr0v

Sleepy wrote:

impr0v, you seem to have a fairly firm grip on legal matters so let me ask you this:

How can a court legally determine which religions are valid and which are not without violating the constitution? IANAL but my understanding is that neither the courts, nor the legislature can rule against an article of the constitution?

Is this not exactly what they would be doing if our constitution contains an article declaring us a secularist state?

Again IANAL, but I'm under the impression that a legal challenge against RTE's broadcasting of the Angelus, the removal of religious icons from public hospital wards and schools etc. would stand a pretty strong chance of succeeding given this clause in the constitution. Am I wrong?

My last post above may be relevant in that to decide what is and what isn't a religion on the basis of logic is logically absurd, yet it has to be done.

In the context of charitable trusts where a trust (for simplicity's sake a bequest of money in the care of someone else for the advancement of religion) will not be valid unless it's for the advancement of a recognised religion, there have been some judicial efforts to define a religion. They are obscure judgements and involve tests such as whether they require worship of a deity, etc. In other words they don't stand up to much testing, though for interest's sake, I think such reasoning was used to declare the Freemasons as not constituting a religion.

In theory no court or piece of legislation can be contrary to the constitution, but some deft reasoning and the vagaries of interpretation can be utilised to do so indirectly. For example, the chief justice at the time used the equality clause (art 40.1) to justify the exclusion of women from jury duty under the Juries Act that existed at the time. He ended up on the dissenting side, but it serves to illustrate the example.

Provisions elsewhere in the constitution can also trump certain articles. For example, the family clause (art. 41) and the state's obligation to protect the place of the family in Irish law is used to defeat unmarried father's right, and in a particular case (O'B vs S) to defeat an argument that the inability of illegitimate children to claim their benefits from the estate of a parent who had died intestate (without leaving a will) violated Art. 40.1.

Obviously the intricacies of constitutional law are too myriad to outline here, but the courts have shown that they can post-justify a ruling that appears contrary to the constitution with some deft reasoning and other provisions.

There is nothing in the constitution to expressly declare Ireland a secular state, and defending an individuals rights (which are expressly protected) against such a provision would not necessarily be unconstitutional if they were. The over-arching purpose of the document is to guarantee a citizens rights against state power, and the courts will generally have regard to this.

However, the have on many occasion shown themselves capable of making policy based decisions. The doctrine of separation of powers enables the courts to refuse jurisdiction on any matter which is bona fide within the state's sphere of influence, though the latter is quite narrowly construed and cam be simply stated as allocation of resources issues and foreign policy.

As to the chances of success of your case, it's hard to say definitively. It is certainly arguable. The Campaign for Separation of Church and State previously challenged the state's funding of schools which were administered by religious denominations, on the basis that it contravened article 40.2.2, i.e. the obligation on the state not to fund any particular religion. They failed in that case, which can be categorised as one of the afore-mentioned policy decisions. The court took cognisance (I assume) of the effect that such a decision would have on education in Ireland (meltdown) and avoided ruling in favour of secularisation. The case however did lead indirectly to a right to opt out of religious instruction in such schools. I.e. joining the religion could not be a pre-requisite of receiving education.

I hope that sheds some light, as opposed to muddying the waters completely!

If I had to make a call on the angelus issue I say that it's a better case than the iconography but neither of them are clear cut by any means.

Conar

Sleepy wrote:

It's my religious belief that all Catholics, Muslims and anyone professing faith in a deity is a complete moron and it's a required part of my faith to wear a slogan on my clothing to that effect.

Can that be accomodated by a new garda uniform?

No? But my religion dictates that I have to wear that on my clothing. You're discriminating against me.

Honestly, if this somehow ever gets passed we should all take a stand and demand we can join wearing those slogans.

It would almost be worth it to show these non forward thinking kinda-secular-if-it-suits people the stupidity of their ways.

DublinWriter

Sikhs are not allowed to cut their hair. Most Sikh guys have hair down to their ass by the time the are adults. The turban is a very practical device that allows them tie-up their long hair.

This isn't a problem for the Metropolitan Police in London. They have a uniform standard issue turban for Sikh officers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/americas/3673733.stm

Of course we Irish aren't as pragmatic as the Brits. There will be committees formed, enquiries conviened, media hand-ringing and court-cases.

...and in the meantime we'll crow on about people not accepting 'Irish ways of life' which appear to me to be bindge-drinking, what ever shade of mè-feinism you're having yourself and calling Joe Duffy to complain about it all.

The answer to this issue is simple: standard uniform issue garda turban for Sikh members. Why can't we handle it the way the Brits do?

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

I tend not to use it with my arguments, I normally reserve them for pointing out how ridiculous your arguments are. But you are right, it is obvious so they are unnecessary. Fun though.



Yes, so everyone around here keeps saying. Normally just before they then go on to explain how it is perfectly fine that we should discriminate against future religious requests on what ever grounds we come up with based on our "common sense"


Neither do I.

Altering the official police uniform to what ever one wants based on personal belief is not a "reasonable right" btw.


That sounds lovely Impr0v, but none of that is definable and therefore completely unworkable. What is a "small concession", or more specifically what is not a "small concession". I certainly wouldn't call wearing a turban a small anything.


Yes but you are wrong. It does conflict with both those things. As has been pointed out.



No, I meant the 1972 amendment. The 5th amendment to the constitution act is dated 1972

You can read it here if you want

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1972/en/act/cam/0005/index.html

And you may notice this -



In case anyone else doesn't know I'm talking about I am referring to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution Act, 1972

I hope that clears things up.


Yes, I didn't realise we were moving backwards in terms of social equality and anti-discrimination. Apologies.


If you don't like me rolling my eyes perhaps you should stop positing things like this.

What exactly are you arguing with this point? Are you saying that we are not secular and shouldn't be secular?



It isn't my view. If you had genuinely read the thread you would realise that. It is totally irrelevant if you or I think Sikhs are or aren't required to wear this. You and I, or the State for that matter has no right to tell a person what they should believe. It doesn't matter what someone else thinks they should to, it matters what the person themselves believes.

Which is it is nonsense the argument that even if we allow this we can still tell other religions that we don't want altering the uniform that they aren't really a religion, or don't really believe what they believe strongly enough


Well no offense Impr0v but the very first hypothetical you threw your hands up. So that doesn't fill me with a lot of confidence that you actually believe this.


Certainly. A Garda recruit wishes to wear a red Star Trek uniform to work each day. You might say that this isn't "real world" enough for you, but it has happened in the States.


He has not been disavowed anything. The Garda have stated a number of times that all the Sikhs can join the force, they aren't stopping them. They just have to wear the same uniform as everyone else It is up to them if they wish to do that or not.

I'm sorry Wicknight but I don't have your appetite for pedantry so there's no chance in hell I'm going to take the time to pick through your response above to answer points that I've already answered. I'm happy enough that what I've said so far sets out the factual position on the issue, i.e. how it is as opposed to how it should be, and that I've corrected your ill-informed pronouncements earlier in the thread.

Apologies for the amendment confusion, the amendment in question was signed into law in January 1973, and states as such at the front of any copy of the constitution, which is why I referred to it as the 73 amendment. However, the actual act is a 1972 act, so it's probably more correct to assign it to that year.

bill_ashmount

DublinWriter wrote:

Of course we Irish aren't as pragmatic as the Brits. There will be committees formed, enquiries conviened, media hand-ringing and court-cases.

...and in the meantime we'll crow on about people not accepting 'Irish ways of life' which appear to me to be bindge-drinking, what ever shade of mè-feinism you're having yourself and calling Joe Duffy to complain about it all.

The answer to this issue is simple: standard uniform issue garda turban for Sikh members. Why can't we handle it the way the Brits do?

And another person complety ignores the arguments put forward. Well done.


PS: Just like to say thanks to Wicknight and Daithi, you've put your points across very well.

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

It is not wrong, I suggest you read up on this (and a few other things such as the dating of constitutional amendments) before you go around shouting that everyone else is wrong.

A father has "automatic" rights in respect of a child once the State actually knows that he is the father of the child.

You seem to be ignore the logistics of this. The State knows the mother is the mother because the child pops out of her. But how do you expect the State to know that the father is the father unless they both declare that he is.

What, should any man just be able to walk in to a hospital and say to a doctor "yep, thats my kid over there. Can I take him home now"



That is because the State knows she is actually the mother, but the State doesn't know who the father is. How would they? As soon as it is established who the father is, either through declaration of both parents, or a blood test through the courts, that father has guardianship.

I have no idea what other way you think this could possibly work?

Presenting how you think things should be as opposed to how they are comes easily to you, doesn't it? You'll aggressively defend things that you believe are fact, even though you're not sure, and where it's clear you've had no instruction whatsoever in the matters.

Perhaps the statement on the governments citizen information website regarding automatic guardianship will clear things up for you in regard to the above 'fact'.

Fratton Fred

bill_ashmount wrote:

And another person complety ignores the arguments put forward. Well done.


PS: Just like to say thanks to Wicknight and Daithi, you've put your points across very well.

another poster not reading valid points and dismissing them as someone who has not read the thread because their post does not agree with the views.:rolleyes:

impr0v

bill_ashmount wrote:

Can you explain this to me? I can't understand it.

Secularism as it's being espoused here is to deny individual rights in relation to religion as protected by law, in that sense it's analogous to some fundamentalist faith which denies women their rights to dress as they please.

To say 'we're not denying him his rights, he doesn't have to join the force' is analogous to saying 'we're not denying women their right to dress as they please, they don't have to go out in public.'

The self-righteousness that comes with realising that religion is for the birds seems to also bring a zealot's conversion-lust; Now that I don't believe, no concessions to a person's stupid beliefs will be made, even where such a concession would have little or no effect on me.

Rights are enforceable at all times, when the exercise of those rights doesn't conflict with public order and morality, and especially against the state. No one has adduced a convincing argument to show how the wearing of a modified turban would conflict with public order or morality.

It's all about the red Star Trek uniforms that they expect to become any issue some time in the future, or about how an atheist would be offended when his 999 call is answered by a turban wearing garda, yet a Garda who's had the same training as any other.

As someone said earlier in the thread, it's amazing how much righteous indignation such a small issue inspires in the rabid secularists. It's the altering of one Garda uniform to accommodate his religious beliefs. Doing so does not mean legal carte blanche for the Star Treks fans, etc., or even other religions, but this is a point that they're unwilling to comprehend.

Earlier in the thread they were swearing that the constitution was the ne plus ultra on this issue, yet when it's shown to them that making such a concession is perfectly compatible with the constitution, and is arguably required by it, they retreat into 'what-if he was a rastafarian who liked Star Trek' territory. The inevitable conclusion is that they believe the law should back up their belief, and when it does so it is to be obeyed, but when it doesn't it's to be rubbished.

He isn't a rastafarian or a trekkie, he's a Sikh who's willing to compromise and who has demonstrated that he wants to integrate and serve the community if the government would only similarly compromise. God bless their secular hearts that that strikes such fear into them.

Boggle

Impr0v wrote:

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that for any person to decide what is and what isn't a religion on the basis of logic is nonsensical, but it's the state of play as it exists at the moment.

Is it logical not to cut your hair? Does it make any sense whatsoever to wear a turban all the time??Is it logical to worship a deity which no-one has ever seen?

Logic and religion are completely alien concepts!

However, when you join the gardai, does the law not effectively become your religion? You swear by it and you abide by it and the uniform is the uniform of your religion. If something in your religion and something in the law conflict, then you abide by the law every time.

Actually, technically speaking, someone who places religion above the importance of his or her duty should NEVER be permitted into the force!!

A gard is a servant of the state, sworn to uphold the law. While on duty, nothing else is supposed to matter! I dont care if you are catholic or sikh, you pull on the uniform and you become one of the force and you become no different to any other garda and personally speaking thats how I think it should be!.

I'm happy enough that what I've said so far sets out the factual position on the issue, i.e. how it is as opposed to how it should be,

No you've highlighted your interpretation of things amd opt not to argue the repercussions of your chosen stance with Wicknight or anyone else.

In theory no court or piece of legislation can be contrary to the constitution, but some deft reasoning and the vagaries of interpretation can be utilised to do so indirectly.

This my favourite argument: On one hand you bemoan how the constitution can be circumvented by pretty words and on the other you want to sidestep the constitution to grant "Special Status" to the sikhs.

Next up, the guy who wants the teaching of evolution banned from schools cos it is defies creationism!!How far exactly do we bend over to appease religious nuts??

Remember, to everyone outside your chosen religion, all religious people are religious nuts!!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

impr0v

Edit: This is in reply to Boggle.

Way to pick points out of context. You quote me saying it's nonsensical and then agree with me in exclamation marks!!!! That doesn't change the fact that there is no other process whereby a religion is legitimised in this country.

So the law is a religion now?

I'm tired saying that he has a very good chance of getting the ban lifted under the constitution as it stands, and failing that, under the ECHR. It is the Garda commissioner and the Monty Python minister for integration who are side-stepping the constitution, as you put it. Who said anything about special status?

Read the rest of it will you please, rather than picking an isolated quote which you think says one thing and taking umbrage at that.

mickoneill30

Fratton Fred wrote:

another poster not reading valid points and dismissing them as someone who has not read the thread because their post does not agree with the views.:rolleyes:

They're valid points are they?

They were
"The answer to this issue is simple: standard uniform issue garda turban for Sikh
members. Why can't we handle it the way the Brits do?"

I'm not going to say anything about those valid points as those are what have discussed over the last 11 pages and there's been enough repetition already.

impr0v

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

France and Turkey are good examples of nations which have consistently and aggressively pursued a secularist agenda. If Ireland was in a comparable position then this ban would be much easier to justify by the state.

Maybe this is the first step on that road, but it's a curious one.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Boggle

France and Turkey are good examples of nations which have consistently and aggressively pursued a secularist agenda. If Ireland was in a comparable position then this ban would be much easier to justify by the state.

One step at a time. This country was ruled by the frock for many a year and it takes time to effectively make changes. That and the govt are quite lazy and will make every effort not to have to spend money on basic needs... (Proper public schooling, healthcare, etc)

Way to pick points out of context. You quote me saying it's nonsensical and then agree with me in exclamation marks!!!!

Explain please... Cause this is hardly building a case.

So the law is a religion now?

As far as those working in it are concerned yes! The law is infallible, if it says something then its right without argument. The law supercedes any religion and therefore is effectively a religion to a policeman. Whether he/she agrees with it or not!
(The debate side is left to court!)

I'm tired saying that he has a very good chance of getting the ban lifted under the constitution as it stands, and failing that, under the ECHR.

Lots of people abuse wordings of the law and the constitution. Doesn't make it right. As for the ECHR, did anyone in France ever take their schools to court over banning religious symbols? How'd they fare??

It is the Garda commissioner and the Monty Python minister for integration who are side-stepping the constitution, as you put it.

Doubt it. They are just looking for a combination of an easy and a polupar ride. Doesn't mean their wrong, just doesn't mean that they're right for the wrong reasons. ("Riddle me this, batman"-esque innit?!?)

Read the rest of it will you please, rather than picking an isolated quote which you think says one thing and taking umbrage at that.

You first! We have been through whether making a change in an official uniform on the grounds of religion is a good thing to do. I have also mentioned my experience in England and Belgium to give first hand experience of integration handled badly - and less badly! You have read some links and think you are well advised!

PS I have read the rest of what you said and you managed to become the first person in 20 pages to cop that the right to practice religion is also catered for in the constitution and thats what youve latched onto when you imply:

Secularism moves beyond secularism and into the very grounds it seeks to escape when it's used as a means to deny others their beliefs.

Who is denied their beliefs? Is he in some way denied the right to be a sikh? Not at all! Off duty, he can be a sikh as much as he wants, but when he starts work he becomes a gard.
Not a sikh or catholic gard - just a gard.
And a gard, as aid before should JUST represent the law.

To say 'we're not denying him his rights, he doesn't have to join the force' is analogous to saying 'we're not denying women their right to dress as they please, they don't have to go out in public.'

How is it abnalogous? Women have EQUAL rights to men and are permitted to what men are entitled to do. Sikhs are also equal. (Unless you are saying that a jewish gard is entitled to wear a scullcap or a catholic wear a big cross over his uniform!)

Now that I don't believe, no concessions to a person's stupid beliefs will be made, even where such a concession would have little or no effect on me.

Actually, people are saying that no special rights should be adorned based on religion. Noone is advocating placing of undue burdens on religion.

No one has adduced a convincing argument to show how the wearing of a modified turban would conflict with public order or morality.

No-one tried. NO-one wants to ban the turban, just make sure that an officer of the law does not wear both a religious AND a law enforcement hat. (excuse the pun)

Doing so does not mean legal carte blanche for the Star Treks fans, etc., or even other religions, but this is a point that they're unwilling to comprehend.

Now you have shown how little attention you actually pay... No special status to a particular religion means that every religion, and ultimately when someone succesfully argues that his beliefs represent his religion, has the same rights to SPECIAL FAVOURS as any other religion.

it's shown to them that making such a concession is perfectly compatible with the constitution, and is arguably required by it,

No you haven't. You have pointed out there is some potential for a legal argument but have never demonstrated how this can be a succesful one.

he's a Sikh who's willing to compromise

How has he compromised? How about this: Welcome to Ireland, where you may practice any religion you like without the CATHOLICS looking funny at you and where catholic run schools will give immigrant (Sikh) children preference over Native (catholic) children. All we ask is that, if you wish to be a gardai, then you wear the same uniform as every other gard and which others have worn for generations while representing the law. Compromise?
As for those native sikhs, you will be treated equally to everyone else, all we ask is that you follow the same rules as anyone else.

Disappointed I bothered to type that now...

Again, I suggest you go live in a few other countries and make friends with people of other religions for a while before you consider yourself even remotely informed on the matter . People wont be happy until the bleeding hearts, with the best of intentions, lead to an entirely segregated country like Britain!

johnnyskeleton

Is there any chance they could have a turban with a little garda badge pinned to the front?

I don't see anything wrong with wearing a turban with a garda uniform, unless that's a serious fashion faux pas this season.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

I'm sorry Wicknight but I don't have your appetite for pedantry so there's no chance in hell I'm going to take the time to pick through your response above to answer points that I've already answered.

Fair enough. One wonders why you are here though. And why you feel the need to argue about dates of constitutional amendments

impr0v wrote:

Apologies for the amendment confusion

There was no confusion impr0v, I always knew what amendment we were talking about. I would have thought everyone did.

impr0v wrote:

Perhaps the statement on the governments citizen information website regarding automatic guardianship will clear things up for you in regard to the above 'fact'.

Please quote me back which part of that says a father has to go to court to get guardianship of his child once it is established that he is the father.

That is pretty much exactly what I've already told you, so I'm not quite sure your point. You originally argued that a father had no right to his child and had to apply to the courts to obtain that right, and that this was a form of sexual discrimination. I said that was wrong, that a father simply has to let the state know he is the father through a formal declaration (how else is the state supposed to know he actually the father). The only reason the mother is given this right straight away is that the State knows she is the mother. It is ridiculous to call this a form of sexual discrimination. Simply granting anyone who turns up and claims to be the father of a child guardianship of that child would be completely unworkable (you seem to like arguing from positions of unworkablility)

You continue to say that I'm wrong and now quote me back a web page that says exactly what I've been saying all along.

Your passion to argue over irrelevant points from a position of ignorance is rather bewildering.

Zombrex

impr0v wrote:

Secularism as it's being espoused here is to deny individual rights in relation to religion as protected by law, in that sense it's analogous to some fundamentalist faith which denies women their rights to dress as they please.

Please tell me which poster here is arguing that Sikh's cannot dress as they please. Or which poster here is saying that a woman who joins the Gardai can dress as she pleases.

You seem to have no clue about what posters here are actually talking about. No one is saying that Sikhs should not wear turbans if they so wish.

It seems to me that on this thread when ever someone cannot debate an argument properly they just find it easier to make out that the other sides position is right up there with the Nazi's.

We have already had that with people trying to make out that mine, and others who agree with me, were arguing from a position of racism or xenophobia.

Now you are ridiculously trying to make out that this "aggressive secularism" wishes to destroy individual freedom.

Answer me this, does a person have a right to wear what they want while performing a job in an organisation that requires a set uniform?

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

mickoneill30

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What's this ban that people are talking about?

I thought it was that the Gardai didn't want to change their uniform for religions. The turban is what instigated the debate but I'm sure they won't change their uniform for any religious or other clothing. That's not a ban.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mickoneill30

Not just you. There's a few in this humungous thread. You're just the one I quoted.:D

Ekancone

impr0v wrote:

Secularism as it's being espoused here is to deny individual rights in relation to religion as protected by law, in that sense it's analogous to some fundamentalist faith which denies women their rights to dress as they please.

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

impr0v

Wicknight wrote:

Please quote me back which part of that says a father has to go to court to get guardianship of his child once it is established that he is the father.

That is pretty much exactly what I've already told you, so I'm not quite sure your point. You originally argued that a father had no right to his child and had to apply to the courts to obtain that right, and that this was a form of sexual discrimination. I said that was wrong, that a father simply has to let the state know he is the father through a formal declaration (how else is the state supposed to know he actually the father). The only reason the mother is given this right straight away is that the State knows she is the mother. It is ridiculous to call this a form of sexual discrimination. Simply granting anyone who turns up and claims to be the father of a child guardianship of that child would be completely unworkable (you seem to like arguing from positions of unworkablility)

You continue to say that I'm wrong and now quote me back a web page that says exactly what I've been saying all along.

Your passion to argue over irrelevant points from a position of ignorance is rather bewildering.

The state knows he's the father as his name is on the birth cert. Being a father and being a guardian are two very different legal positions. The mother has automatic guardianship, the unmarried father doesn't, whether or not the state knows he's the father. If she doesn't contest the guardianship issue there's no problem and she signs the form with him, if not, he is obliged to go to court to try and achieve it.

Is that finally clear to you? Your quest to reform family law is admirable, but no less stubbornly ignorant for being that.