Exploding turbans

[SaligoBay]

I exaggerate.  [;)]

French Sikhs must remove turbans for driving licence photos

Associated Press in Paris
Tuesday March 7, 2006
The Guardian

France's highest administrative body ruled yesterday that Sikhs must remove their turbans for driving licence photos, calling it a question of public security and not a restriction on freedom of religion.

The Council of State's ruling reversed an earlier decision in favour of Shingara Mann Singh, a French citizen who refused to take off his turban for a photo in 2004.

While the turban is an article of faith for Sikhs, the council ruled the requirement was necessary for "the interests of public security and protection of order".

The case gained attention amid uneasy relations between France's religious minorities and the government over a 2004 law - aimed at Islamic headscarves - banning conspicuous religious signs in public schools.

The small French Sikh community joined in public protest against the ban, which forced Sikh students to remove turbans or be expelled.

Mr Singh's lawyer, Patrice Spinosi, warned that his client may take the case to other tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights.

 

Oh yawn, here we go again!  [:D]

 

[Deimos]

Whereas in Canada Sikh school children are now allowed to take daggers into school:

“Schools across Canada must allow Sikh students to bring small daggers with curved blades in with them because of a controversial supreme court ruling that places freedom of religion above safety concerns.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,,1724838,00.html?gusrc=rss

Ian

[Viv]

How ridiculous!

I used to know a Sikh very well and he once told me that their religion did not actually require them to carry the physical dagger ( can't remember the proper name at the mo) but that carrying a small non real one ,like the one he had tucked in the band of the turban , or even a  photo would suffice.

It is a pity that some of these lawyers don't actually do their homework and find something out about these religions!

[Hoddy]

I agree with you Viva, this is utterly ridiculous. Do the people who made this decision not know that underneath the turban is hair which is never cut ? Being forced to have your photograph taken with a mass of long curly hair, or even showing your bald spot, would surely make a man less identifiable rather than more. What nonsense.

Hoddy

[Tony F Dordogne]

I didn't think the 2004 law was aimed specifically at Muslim girls wearing headscarfs as the Guardian piece indicates but at all religious iconography in state schools and that if covered Judaism, the wearing of crosses etc.

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]I didn't think the 2004 law was aimed specifically at Muslim girls wearing headscarfs .[/quote]

But many Muslims interpreted it as just that.

[Tresco]

It wasn't only Muslims who interpreted it that way. I did too.

I thought it was one of the shoddiest, ill thought out laws which was created with the very visible 'veil' in mind and not less noticeable things like skull caps and particularly crucifixes which are often worn under clothing anyway.

I think the 'daggers' are not real, sharp daggers, but imitation, as another poster suggested. 

[Deimos]

[quote user="Tresco"]

I think the 'daggers' are not real, sharp daggers, but imitation, as another poster suggested.

[/quote]

Article suggests to me they are real daggers (but I know nothing more about it than is in this article). Bit of a side-track from the subject of the thread but thy say that only one in 10 Sikh’s in Canada are orthodox” and whilst these orthodox Sikhs are forbidden to use such daggers as weapons, what about the non-orthodox ones who also insist on their right to carry such a dagger (yet are not quite so orthodox about not using it).

I don’t think there would be court cases, etc. if they were pretend ones or photos of daggers.

Ian

[Deimos]

Unsure of the rights and wrongs. Seems a lot of this is the world’s current inability to find a sensible balance about things. Clearly, women who have to keep their faces covered for religious reasons might quite reasonable be required to remove their 100% face covering (or part anyway) in order for some ID photo (otherwise the photo could clearly be of anybody). I guess it’s a question of degree – can the person be recognised, does the dress interfere with or prevent normal required activities (e.g. police identifying that the driver really does have a license, a school teacher being able to identify pupils).

I do find it disappointing that when we have state torture of prisoners, kidnapping and indefinite imprisonment of people without trial, legal defence, presentation of evidence, etc., etc. so many things seem to have become “human rights” and seem to end-up in the “European Court of Human Rights” (e.g. fox hunting and somebody the other day who was infertile after cancer treatment wanted to use her eggs fertilised by her ex-partner but ex had withdrawn permission – and it ended-up in the European Court of Human Rights).

Ian

[The Riff-Raff Element]

What next one wonders? Given the extent to which some ladies of my

acquaintance dramatically change their appearance over the course of a

year by use of hair colourings, make-up, fake and not-so-fake tan, and

(one case) tinted contact lenses, are we expecting to see such

accoutrements prohibited in driving licence and passport photographs?

It would seem only reasonable.

I rather thought that the point of these new biorhythmic (or whatever

they are called - eurhythmic? Doesn't matter.) IDs was that they could

penetrate disguises? Is this correct? If so, presumably this is just an

exercise in chain jerking.

[Quillan]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

[quote user="Tony F Dordogne"]I didn't think the 2004 law was aimed specifically at Muslim girls wearing headscarfs .[/quote]

But many Muslims interpreted it as just that.

[/quote]

But only because they are the largest ethnic religion in France.

This is a law that goes back to Napoleon when he disenfranchise the church and was never originally aimed at anyone other than French subjects living in France and as such the law relates to general terms under which these ethnic religions find themselves under. In modern times it is not meant to be aimed at any particular group whatsoever, it applies to all.

Is the Guardian and Sun connected because did not the Sun get really agitated about this last year. To be honest what the French do has little or nothing to do with either of the two news papers. Both papers purport to have some amount of professionalism (not to sure about the Sun) so should not both do their homework before printing articles that to my mind incite racial problems.

I had a guest who was really upset about the Sun thing last year and asked me about it. I told him it was rubbish, used as toilet paper by many and certainly did not reflect most decent people’s attitudes towards the French. I also told him how embarrassed and sad I was about it. It is something some French remember very clearly it would seem and not in a nice way

[SaligoBay]

[quote user="Quillan"]Is the Guardian and Sun connected because did not the Sun get really agitated about this last year. [/quote]

Strangely, Quillan, I don't consult the Sun to help me form my opinions on French matters!  Yes, I do look at the Grauniad online, because it's easy to read, and has lots of articles about France for all those dahlings who want to move here because it's so simply divine.

I got that from a very active French Muslim forum that I follow.   Many French Muslims DID feel that it was aimed at them, and I think they have a point.

[Quillan]

[quote user="SaligoBay"]

I got that from a very active French Muslim forum that I follow.   Many French Muslims DID feel that it was aimed at them, and I think they have a point.

[/quote]

Then somebody needs to explain it to them verly clearly or is it that they refuse to listen. I get quite upset when I visit a muslim country and can't wear my shorts and my wife can't wear what she wants but it's their law and their country. They would not change the law if I went to live there I am sure.

[SaligoBay]

Indeed, a thorny subject, and one that we're not encouraged to discuss honestly these days.

If someone was born here, perhaps their parents were also born here, does that not mean that France is also "their" country?

 

[Tresco]

"...This is a law that goes back to Napoleon when he disenfranchise the church and was never originally aimed at anyone other than French subjects living in France and as such the law relates to general terms under which these ethnic religions find themselves under. In modern times it is not meant to be aimed at any particular group whatsoever, it applies to all." (Quillan)

"...I get quite upset when I visit a muslim country and can't wear my shorts and my wife can't wear what she wants but it's their law and their country. They would not change the law if I went to live there I am sure. (Quillan)

The law was amended in 2004, and they admitted afterwards that they had failed to consider the impact on sikhs who wear turbans, which is another very 'conspicuous' symbol by it's nature, unlike small crucifixes.

If they had not gone so heavy handed, I believe many of the problems relating to unsafe/inappropriate dress in science/PE lessons could have been resolved.

Your (or ineed my) desire to wear shorts on holiday doesn't really match up to a childs desire/right to a public education, and not have that desire/right conflict with their faith - whatever it is. Personally, i'm not mad on all this veil buisness. It's the affect on the children concerned that botherd me about this law. Some older girls who had never really worn it adopted it almost in protest, and some who had worn it only at the behest of their deeply religious parents may have ended up being taken out of public school.

For anyone who is interested Wikipedia have a page which gives the history of this issue and sets out various views on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

[Quillan]

I personally think that children wearing religous symbols are just an extension of their parents religion and/or ego. Many are not able to nor really give it much thought as to what religion is actually about (although they might think differently) and few really have a firm grasp or understanding of it. Personally I think it's good to teach children about the many varied religions around the world and to teach them to be tolerant to others BUT they should be left to adulthood to make a desission as to which faith they wish to follow.

Basically I don't like the idea of parents forcing religion on to children, they should be left to make their own mind up when old enough.

[Tresco]

Basically I don't like the idea of parents forcing religion on to children, they should be left to make their own mind up when old enough. (Quillan)

Oh how I agree with this: not the symbols, but the values and beliefs, apart from the general things like 'do unto others' etc.

Now, I don't like this, because it is 'religion', but don't we all consciously and unconsciously try to impart our values and beliefs to our children?  Do we not all despair in some way when our children grow up and in some way demonstrate that they have rejected one or more of the values and beliefs that we tried to inculcate in them? I'm thinking of my parents, who had a whole tribe who grew up, then had pre-marital sex, some 'illegitimate' children, some divorces, and are simply not bothered what two people do in bed together etc. etc. I am not saying any of these things are good or to aspire to, just that as we moved in fairly open circles we learnt that these things happen and that the people they happen to are, well, pretty much like everyone else.

I still kind of admire my Deeply Christian Sis for not having her children baptised when they were babies, she said it was 'up to them', and she would not 'impose' her beliefs on them, but those same children went to every Mass, bible study groups, 'faith' schools'; all their friends were devout Christians (or came from devout Christian families at any rate). Out of 4, 3 of them decided round about 16/17 to be baptised. It is so much part of their lives, and always has been.

This is one of the reasons I have the concern about the law which may cut off people of one faith off from a perfect opportunity to knock around with people of other, or no faith.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="Tresco"]

Basically I don't like the idea of parents forcing religion on

to children, they should be left to make their own mind up when old

enough. (Quillan)

Oh how I agree with this: not the symbols, but the values and beliefs, apart from the general things like 'do unto others' etc.

Now, I don't like this, because it is 'religion', but

don't we all consciously and unconsciously try to impart our values and

beliefs to our children?  Do we not all despair in some way when

our children grow up and in some way demonstrate that they have

rejected one or more of the values and beliefs that we tried

to inculcate in them? I'm thinking of my parents, who had a whole tribe

who grew up, then had pre-marital sex, some 'illegitimate' children,

some divorces, and are simply not bothered what two people do in bed

together etc. etc. I am not saying any of these things are good or to

aspire to, just that as we moved in fairly open circles we learnt that these things happen and that the people they happen to are, well, pretty much like everyone else.

I still kind of admire my Deeply Christian Sis for

not having her children baptised when they were babies, she said it was

'up to them', and she would not 'impose' her beliefs on them, but those

same children went to every Mass, bible study groups, 'faith' schools';

all their friends were devout Christians (or came from devout Christian

families at any rate). Out of 4, 3 of them decided round about 16/17 to

be baptised. It is so much part of their lives, and always has been.

This is one of the reasons I have the concern about

the law which may cut off people of one faith off from a perfect

opportunity to knock around with people of other, or no faith.

[/quote]

Ok - but is is not part of a parent's job to provide moral boundries

for children? Given that most of what is considered "morally correct"

stems in some way from a religious base, are we not all therefore

dependent upon religions for the moral codes we present as "right" to

our offspring even though we may pretend that we are not preaching

someones gospel? Without these religions would we simply not be

precipitating an anarchy? Or have I just been reading a bit too much

Hegal? I do like the Idealists though - far more jolly than those dull

sods who warble on about Nihilism and the pointlessness of being.

[Quillan]

[quote user="Tresco"]

Basically I don't like the idea of parents forcing religion on to children, they should be left to make their own mind up when old enough. (Quillan)

Oh how I agree with this: not the symbols, but the values and beliefs, apart from the general things like 'do unto others' etc.

[/quote]

I have a cousin who is a born again and I have had to tell her on more than one occasion to leave it out when she has visited us. It rather puts us off visiting her as it’s all well and good me telling her in my home but I can’t really tell her in her own home. She is also a social worker would you believe and was involved in that think up in Scotland on some island where they took the kids away because their parents were ‘devil worshipers’ or something. All turned out to be a load of rubbish of course but look how much damage it did to the families and my cousin got promoted to boot.

I admire your sister for the baptism thing but I have to say that the problem is that she and her husband will move in particular circles with people who practice the same religion as her and they will have children etc, etc so it does somewhat limit her children’s exposure to believers of other religions and those that can’t be bothered at all. This I think is not a good thing. The only way we will all get along is if we are educated to understand and respect other peoples customs and religions which will make us all far more tolerant as adults. Well in a perfect world I would like to think it would.

Four or five pints of beer seems the best way to have this sort of conversation I think.

 

[Tresco]

I agree with both what you and Jond have said in your last posts, apart from the beer thing. My 5 pints days are long over.

These Christian nephews and nieces are really very charming specimens. They go raving, they get drunk, as well as all the responsible things they do. I saw one of them rolling his eyes when Devout Christian Sis informed me that when she and her family would be taken into Paradise on Judgement Day, I would be cast into some eternal fire. [6] 

Still, she said it so nicely, and I still like her very much indeed.

[Iceni]

Rules and laws should be applied evenly whatever one's skin colour, beliefs or sexual bent provided the aforementioned are not illegal of course. But AFAIK  my passport photo or similar must be taken without hat or other head covering unless I lie and claim to be of the Sikh religion or possibly a Muslim woman. Flippant examples I know but further fuel for the NF/FN cries of "1 law for them and another for me".

Government interference rarely solves anything so why don't they stop ? Why do they see every day as a challenge for new ways to waste our money ? Except of course that is the only thing that they do well.

John

not

[Tresco]

I don't see the problem really about passport photos. The thing about the various veils/headscarves etc are to do with modesty. Passport photos by their nature are hardly likely to lead to a vast amount of lustful behaviour. In most of mine I look uncomfortably like the Myra Hindley 'mug shots'.

I also think Sikhs can wear helmets with some sort of symbolic turban under it if neccessary. As John suggests, so many of these things could and should be sorted out without a law, so expensive to draft, so difficult (and expensive) to enforce.

Edit/ I've just realised the passport photos have to be checked against the real live person! I havn't seen any outbreaks of lustful behaviour at airport check-in desks so far, but perhaps this explains the very long queues people on those flights have. Perhaps from the 'maintain modesty at all costs' view, this is a good reason to have biometric data rather than photo's?