Jump to content

EU COURT ENDORSES A BAN ON SIKH TURBAN


CHaamCHrick
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, CHaamCHrick said:

http://dalkhalsa.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/eu-eu-court-endorses-ban-on-turban-w.html?m=1

I am not sure if they are going to ban the Sikh turban in the EU or the UK? Can someone please translate what is being said on the video. Why is no one talking about this in the gurdwaras or Sikh channels? 

When you asked if someone could translate the video, I thought it might be in French or something, but it was just in normal Punjabi. Don't take this the wrong way, but I would like to encourage you, friend, to learn Punjabi. There are a ton of resources on the Internet, not to mention just talking in Punjabi with your parents, starting with the absolute basics ("mera naam Chaamchrik hai"). Without Punjabi and Gurmukhi, we can't have a relation with our Guru.

We, as Sikhs, should no more countenance not learning Punjabi than we would countenance not learning English, which we wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ranjeet01 said:

The North African community in Europe is an extremely belligerent one. It is one that Europeans are very aware of from the Carthage days, the Moors, the Barbary coast.

Only the Spaniards in the 15th century and the Romans in the Punic Wars knew how to deal with them.

 

When the likes of France decided to open their doors to the same third-world people they subjugated and oppressed in the name of colonialism, what on earth were they hoping would happen in the future? Sure, the same could be said for us and a few others, but i think our mentality is slightly different to the likes of the Algerians and others of that ilk. 

Was the collective guilt for WWII so immense that it destroyed all sense of pragmatism? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kcmidlands said:

This all relates to France's obsession (and law) with banning religious symbols in schools and the workplace, it started with the banning of a full burka because it covered the face and any religious dress that cover's the full face.

I think this comes down to the difference in freedom in the Anglo-American sense (which is freedom to do what you want), and freedom in the French sense (freedom to do what the state wants you to do).

I believe the Anglo conception of freedom is more compatible with the Sikh sense since we did not pass any laws in the Sikh Raj forcing people to wear kanghas or karas (as far as I know).

There is a sense of discrimination in the French law, though, because only "ostentatious" symbols are banned, includinge "large" crosses. So what's a "large" cross? Something human-sized, like the one Jesus Christ was crucified on? And so "small" crosses would automatically be the size that Christians wore anyways.

Not only that, but there have been cases of principals of schools sanctioning (Muslim) girls for wearing long dresses, because, according to them, that's "ostentatious". Meanwhile, it's just fine for French-origin girls to wear whatever they want, including long dresses. By that theory, even if we take off our turbans, our long, uncut hair plus beards can be easily called an "ostentatious" religious display.

Finally, there's the issue of Christian nuns, which AFAIK, have not been sanctioned in any way. While acknowledging the problem of radical Islam, I bristle at the blatant discrimination of some Europeans while being blind to their own faith traditions of covering up or religious displays. Here's one Italian with a moderate view:

Quote

“We have nuns on the beach all the time,” Marco Beoni, a barista at a coffee bar along the sea near Sabaudia, about an hour south of Rome, told The Daily Beast. “They go in the water in their skirts and sit on blankets just like everyone else. Who cares what they are wearing. What’s the problem?” 

Then there's the issue of the burqini, which far-rightists and leftists are having trouble banning because it's basically a wet suit with a built-in cap. Since many pools are used for scuba instruction, it would seem extremely difficult to ban wet suits. The anti-burqini crowd delves into ridiculousness when it says it's banning burqinis because of "hygiene" reasons.

Does anybody know what "hygiene" reasons those could possibly be?

I think much of the anti-religion animus derives from the anti-religious tilt of the French revolution, whereas in other countries it is less so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

When the likes of France decided to open their doors to the same third-world people they subjugated and oppressed in the name of colonialism, what on earth were they hoping would happen in the future? Sure, the same could be said for us and a few others, but i think our mentality is slightly different to the likes of the Algerians and others of that ilk. 

I think the reason for free immigration from Algeria was that France was maintaining the pretense that Algeria is just a part of France, and that moving from Algiers to Paris was no different than moving from Marseilles to Paris. They did have to give Algeria up at some point, maybe that would have been the time to deport the Algerians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BhForce said:

I think the reason for free immigration from Algeria was that France was maintaining the pretense that Algeria is just a part of France, and that moving from Algiers to Paris was no different than moving from Marseilles to Paris. They did have to give Algeria up at some point, maybe that would have been the time to deport the Algerians. 

It was free movement from Algeria to France? Gosh, i never knew that. I assumed it was a similar immigration policy to the one the UK adopted for its former Eastern colonies. 

I'm not condoning current Algerian actions and attitudes, but from what I've read the French were despicably cruel when they were over there. It's quite horrific the extent to which they held power over those people and that country. All the more baffling as to why they'd be so magnanimous in allowing them access to France in such considerably huge numbers. Was it a desire to atone for past sins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

It was free movement from Algeria to France? Gosh, i never knew that

"After the war, after Algeria gained its independence, the free circulation between France and Algeria was once again allowed, and the number of Algerian immigrants started to increase drastically. From 1962 to 1975, the Algerian immigrant population increased from 350,000 to 700,000."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_France

To be fair, many of them were supporters of France in the Algerian independence war, which made them "moderate" in the eyes of the French.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RanjeetSingh said:

no idea who this uncle ji is but to be honest, age does not equal wisdom.

Jk's on you bro, Uncle ji is right.

29 minutes ago, RanjeetSingh said:

unless from a direct eu rep or law union, its just hearsay and over exaggerated crap as usual

Playing down future threats is what got our nation in our current predicament. I say it's great that Uncle ji is presenting future threats. In any case, seeing as you don't accept Uncle ji's word for it, you'll surely be able to accept the New York Times, no?

Ban on Head Scarves at Work Is Legal, E.U. Court Rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Le Pen when asked about Sikhs and the turban said something along the lines of 'Sikhs are a minority who we don't hear much from; which is a good thing'. Too tired to find the exact quote.

So yano... better pack your bags coz I think this Paris shooting may just have sealed the deal for Le Pen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the decision:

"Legal experts said the court’s ruling could give greater leeway to employers across Europe to regulate religious attire in the workplace, as long as they did so with neutral policies that did not target Muslims."

So, a Sikh-owned firm could have a policy that you have to have uncut hair, beards, etc., plus cover your hair and so forth, have a kara, and tie a turban, and it would be OK, right? That would be neutral, too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use