Guest London jwaan

Discrimination against disabled people in gurdwara

9 posts in this topic

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675?

This got to court!! Er really?? Where in the gurus teaching was this advocated? I think somewhere a jagsaw interpretation has been applied.

In a similar vein should elderly people with knee/hip issues be banned from darbar halls because they can't sit on the floor? Or are they not sikh if they sit on a chair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a thread about this for 5 days on this forum but........there is no way in hell Guest London Jawan could resist. The excitement of being able to show Sikhs as extremists got too much for him. £5 note threads yesterday and this one today. This Indian viewpoint muppet gets blindness when opportunities like this come along.

Benti to Admin and Mods:   London Jawan Singh's account obviously hasn't been approved yet so now is the time for you to look at his behaviour and base your decision on that. In his first 2 weeks as a guest on this forum every single one of his posts have been either attempts at showing Sikhs as taliban type extremists or provoking fights and arguments through insults. If a man can come through the moderation process after acting like that really would render the moderation process pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/02/2017 at 9:07 PM, Guest London jwaan said:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675?

This got to court!! Er really?? Where in the gurus teaching was this advocated? I think somewhere a jagsaw interpretation has been applied.

In a similar vein should elderly people with knee/hip issues be banned from darbar halls because they can't sit on the floor? Or are they not sikh if they sit on a chair?

this was settled out of court and it is clear from reports that 5 people were suing for compensation of 150,000 pounds , that is not about establishing equality but lining pockets of the charitable trust's money.

Edited by jkvlondon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of that do you think it was correct to do that in the first place? 

Do you think elderly people sitting on chairs is beadbi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/02/2017 at 11:41 PM, jkvlondon said:

this was settled out of court and it is clear from reports that 5 people were suing for compensation of 150,000 pounds , that is not about establishing equality but lining pockets of the charitable trust's money.

Not only factually incorrect, that's a pretty ignorant interpretation jkvlondon.

Where in our religion does it say that you section off disabled members of the sangat like lepers??

Actually they brought the court case to remove this discrimination.

What they were awarded was costs. For the benefit of your mental limitations, what that means is legal costs incurred in bringing the case to the court. What the definition of costs NEVER includes in the UK is compensation. By indicating that they were money grabbers is an outrageous example of you talking right out of your jagsaw.

In addition, it wasn't settled out of court, a proposal by the gurdwara on how this would be stopped was presented to the court and agreed. 

So all in all, a pretty ignorant post by you. Fake sheikh type reporting springs to mind. 

It would be helpful if you could actually get your facts straight before commenting.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2017/02/22/calls-for-sikh-temple-boss-to-quit-after-legal-battle-with-disabled-worshippers/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/03/2017 at 11:53 AM, Guest London jwaan said:

Not only factually incorrect, that's a pretty ignorant interpretation jkvlondon.

Where in our religion does it say that you section off disabled members of the sangat like lepers??

Actually they brought the court case to remove this discrimination.

What they were awarded was costs. For the benefit of your mental limitations, what that means is legal costs incurred in bringing the case to the court. What the definition of costs NEVER includes in the UK is compensation. By indicating that they were money grabbers is an outrageous example of you talking right out of your jagsaw.

In addition, it wasn't settled out of court, a proposal by the gurdwara on how this would be stopped was presented to the court and agreed. 

So all in all, a pretty ignorant post by you. Fake sheikh type reporting springs to mind. 

It would be helpful if you could actually get your facts straight before commenting.

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2017/02/22/calls-for-sikh-temple-boss-to-quit-after-legal-battle-with-disabled-worshippers/

 

I read the actual people's accounts  and yes it was settled out of court because the gurdwara agreed to install an external lift to the building and remove the boards .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

I read the actual people's accounts  and yes it was settled out of court because the gurdwara agreed to install an external lift to the building and remove the boards .

I would suggest that the peoples own accounts didn't state that they were looking for compensation of 150,000 pounds as you have stated.

You have a lot to learn if you believe that covering legal costs and sing for compensation are the same thing.

What your effectively doing is suggesting that they were in the wrong for bringing legal action against being discrimination. The 150k costs is the fault of the committee for making up their own rules and interpretation of sikhi.....much like you and our resident behvkoof jagsaw....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675

Have a read of the link. It clearly states that "The terms of the settlement were approved during a hearing at Birmingham County Court on Monday"

That is not an out of court settlement. An out of court settlement means both parties agreed to a compromise that did not involve further court involvement. This is not it.

Please elaborate on your source that shows "it is clear from reports that 5 people were suing for compensation of 150,000 pounds "

clear. Do you understand the meaning of the word clear? Actually is not clear at all. It is an entirely fabricated conclusion by you based on distorting the true facts. Nice one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/03/2017 at 9:46 AM, jkvlondon said:

I read the actual people's accounts  and yes it was settled out of court because the gurdwara agreed to install an external lift to the building and remove the boards .

No you didn't. As the actual people's accounts would not have said that "Yes we are seeking 150,000 pounds in compensation". The only thing that is clear, is that you are talking right out of your jagsaw, and have slandered members of the sangat who were discriminated against in direct contravention of sikhi.

And the following link clearly shows that a proposal was taken to the court and agreed by the court. An out of court settlement is one where both parties agree on a compromise that requires no further from the court. The link below states :

"The terms of the settlement were approved during a hearing at Birmingham County Court on Monday."

How is that an out of court settlement, Einstein?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39029675

Whats your counter argument? That the facts are misreported by the BBC as it's an Abrahamic institution that is pro Indian govt  and against sikhi? And you know better? That's the typical nonsense presented by both you and jagsaw. 

And to be clear, this is not about a lift. This is about hiding disabled members of the sangat behind screens to ostracise them. 

There would have been no issue or financial damage to the gurdwara had the committee not been pigheaded and removed the screens in the first place. So the fault is that of the committee, not of the sangat who took it to court, who you have tried to tar as money grabbers.

If their accounts oppose that, please quote your source. Benti to you to not make stuff up and post it as if it was fact.

Otherwise we can assume that based off evidence I have provided, that you have not, you were in fact talking out of your jagsaw......

Waheguru JI ka Khalsa, Waheguru JI ki fateh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa
      Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh, ji 1stly, I see a clear difference between amritdharis and hindus because our guru sahib jis have denied certain hindu practices (and if it ever felt like I have said there is no difference in the past then I am sorry for my mistake). 2ndly I agree with sikhs not wearing hindu threads. What I was saying in my post was that I have no objection with strangers in real life because who am I to advise a stranger since I don't know anything about them. Hindu threads are not gurmat.. practices that our guru sahib jis have not taken part of is not seen as part of sikhi to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding Singh ji.. There are a lot of things I've changed my mind on due to the cycle of learning. Another reason why I choose to not advise people to practice anything other than patth.  bhull chuk maaf kijye Vaheguru ji Ka Khalsa Vaheguru ji Ki Fateh
    • Bit of a leap your making my friend by implicitly saying all Hindus see shiva as a devta as 'god' Hindu philosophy has many congruent philosophical threads as sikhi. One of which is that there are many avatars or more accurately characteristics of Ongkaar. The term Vahiguroo is used in the Bhagat bani and to reduce it to a definable 'object'  is no different than idolatry ..  The dominant practices  of Hinduism as well as Islam is what was criticised and rejected.. Guru Nanak Dev Ji taught us to transcend narrow ideas, the foolishness in creating and trying to own the truth.. 
    • By saying the above she is trying to obscure the clear difference between Sikhs and Hindus.  If a person wants to worship the Gurus then worship the Gurus as they taught.  Instead these Hindus are worshipping in their manmat way.  Saying Vaheguru before an idol as a form of worship is no different for when Sri Guru Nanak Dev ji tells Hindus not to worship idols by saying a devi or devta name.  Vaheguru description and form of worship is given in Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji.  If Hindus want to worship by saying Vaheguru then follow Gurbani instructions.  Gurbani uses the name shiva to describe an attribute of Vaheguru.  But Hindus are worshipping Shiva the devta who came down went against Vaheguru Hukam and died.  By saying vaheguru before a shivling the Hindus are calling shiva thee Vaheguru.  They are being clever by taking gullible people to worship a shivling of Shiva.   Sikhs do not wear Hindu threads.  These threads have some sort of manmat behind them.  This poster does not clearly say she objects to Sikhs wearing these threads because she thinks according to Gurmat wearing a thread is right.  Now in this topic she is going on about how she does not tell others what to do.  She is a bold face liar because anyone can see her objections to Sikhs eating meat on a different topic.  Also she is trying to give merit to wearing threads by saying a lot of people do it.  Again another Hindu fable to get others to follow them to reincarnation.  Sikhs will always have a problem with the Hindu thread because it creates some to be more deserving of Gods worship because they were born in a certain family than another who was born to a so called lower family lineage.  Some threads are worn to keep away evil spirits which is also against the Sikhs teaching.  
    • Is there something wrong with saying jai shri Ram