Jump to content
CHaamCHrick

EU COURT ENDORSES A BAN ON SIKH TURBAN

Recommended Posts

BhForce    519
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RanjeetSingh    20

no idea who this uncle ji is but to be honest, age does not equal wisdom.  unless from a direct eu rep or law union, its just hearsay and over exaggerated crap as usual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    519
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S4NGH    541

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    519

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    519
1 minute ago, S4NGH said:

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.

If that's an accurate quote, I surmise what she may be saying is "if you're not making trouble for France, then I don't have a problem with you". Sikhs are just going about their business, not driving semi-trucks into crowds.

If she is elected, I think what our peeps in France would have to do or should do is make a separate peace with the French government, not lumping themselves in with the Muslims. You have to deal with the government you have, not the government you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S4NGH    541
16 minutes ago, BhForce said:

If that's an accurate quote, I surmise what she may be saying is "if you're not making trouble for France, then I don't have a problem with you". Sikhs are just going about their business, not driving semi-trucks into crowds.

If she is elected, I think what our peeps in France would have to do or should do is make a separate peace with the French government, not lumping themselves in with the Muslims. You have to deal with the government you have, not the government you want.

Here it is:

In response to the question if a Sikh person be allowed to wear a turban, Le Pen, head of the National Front, states, “No, not in public.  We don’t have a lot of Sikh people in France.  We don’t really hear much from them, or about them, which is good news.”

Our people have been trying to work with their government for a very long time. Twice they've taken them to the UN courts and won both times. All to no avail. Only two people exist in France; The native white French and the foreigner.

Edited by S4NGH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kira    1,218
6 minutes ago, S4NGH said:

Here it is:

In response to the question if a Sikh person be allowed to wear a turban, Le Pen, head of the National Front, states, “No, not in public.  We don’t have a lot of Sikh people in France.  We don’t really hear much from them, or about them, which is good news.”

Our people have been trying to work with their government for a very long time. Twice they've taken them to the UN courts and won both times. All to no avail. Only two people exist in France; The native white French and the foreigner.

wooow what a menopausal cow lol. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    519
1 minute ago, S4NGH said:

Here it is:

In response to the question if a Sikh person be allowed to wear a turban, Le Pen, head of the National Front, states, “No, not in public.  We don’t have a lot of Sikh people in France.  We don’t really hear much from them, or about them, which is good news.”

OK, well the "not in public" changes the whole thing. In general, the feeling of the Left is that religion, if allowed at all, is something that is to be totally internal, and have no external manifestation whatsoever, not even to the extent of favoring one policy or another, certainly not to favoring one form of dress or another or one type of food or another. This feeling is deeply embedded in French thinking since its revolution, which is what Le Pen is defending, causing her to be mistakenly identified as a far-right candidate. In reality she is a strident nationalist leftist. People call her a conservative, but she is conserving the French revolution, which is leftist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S4NGH    541
12 minutes ago, BhForce said:

OK, well the "not in public" changes the whole thing. In general, the feeling of the Left is that religion, if allowed at all, is something that is to be totally internal, and have no external manifestation whatsoever, not even to the extent of favoring one policy or another, certainly not to favoring one form of dress or another or one type of food or another. This feeling is deeply embedded in French thinking since its revolution, which is what Le Pen is defending, causing her to be mistakenly identified as a far-right candidate. In reality she is a strident nationalist leftist. People call her a conservative, but she is conserving the French revolution, which is leftist.

Yeah my bad. My paraphrasing did very little justice. It's late and I couldn't be bothered finding the quote. Muafi ji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ranjeet01    1,097
8 hours ago, MisterrSingh said:

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?

French are different from the English. Their francophone-ness makes them see things very differently.

It's not quite the racial thing per se as what we would think it to be.

For example, there are many people of Afro Caribbean origin that are members of the French National Front because they are considered French rather than black.

Like a lot countries post WW2, France needed extra labour and so in that sense for them it would be from French speaking colonies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
9 hours ago, S4NGH said:

Yeah my bad. My paraphrasing did very little justice. It's late and I couldn't be bothered finding the quote. Muafi ji.

then what is the difference between their law and shariah for us ? absolutely nothing ... maybe somebody should point that out, along with a reminder of the revolution's motto  "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité"  if we helped ensure the first twice, and act in the spirit of the other two aspects where is our failure to comply ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S4NGH    541
1 hour ago, jkvlondon said:

then what is the difference between their law and shariah for us ? absolutely nothing ... maybe somebody should point that out, along with a reminder of the revolution's motto  "Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité"  if we helped ensure the first twice, and act in the spirit of the other two aspects where is our failure to comply ?

Have you considered taking up public speaking? I think that somebody could be you penji ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BhForce    519
4 hours ago, jkvlondon said:

then what is the difference between their law and shariah for us ?

Very salient question. You're right, it's no different for us.

The radical Muslims want to force us to cut our hair and trim our beards, shave our mustaches, and envelop our women into tents

The radical French want to force us to be clean shaven with nary a kakkar and for our women to wear mini-skirts and bikinis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jkvlondon    3,419
5 minutes ago, BhForce said:

Very salient question. You're right, it's no different for us.

The radical Muslims want to force us to cut our hair and trim our beards, shave our mustaches, and envelop our women into tents

The radical French want to force us to be clean shaven with nary a kakkar and for our women to wear mini-skirts and bikinis.

both say don't propagate your faith, don't look like a sikh, behave like a sikh else we will bring the weight of the law onto your head. Maybe we should act as if Guru Nanak and Waheguru ji made a mistake and apologise for existing ...NOT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Very nice post. 
    • Where in his Bani or his writings does Guru Gobind Singh give any indication of having that motive for helping Bahadur shah? You should not impose your own motives/agenda on Guru Sahib and assume that you speak for him, particularly when there is zero scriptural evidence for your position. Neither is there any historical evidence that I'm aware of - the histories say that Guru Sahib's motivation for allying with him was the condition that non-Muslims would be treated fairly under his regime. So, I ask you, how do you know that was Guru Sahib's motive for helping Bahadur Shah?     
    • The Dogras were the most immediate cause of the empire's downfall, but the fundamental cause for the collapse of the Sikh Kingdom was Ranjit Singh's fatal decision to make himself king of the Sikhs and replace the Khalsa's republicanism (Sarbat Khalsa, Gurmatta, Jathedari) with a system of absolutist monarchy which centralized all power in his hands - this had no place in a 'Sikh' nation. His miscalculation ensured that the kingdom would all but fall apart his death and be vulnerable to vultures, particularly in light of the uselessness of his heirs.  I disagree veerji. This Sikh kingdom would never have become as powerful as it did if not for non-Sikhs. The Sikh Empire was so successful while Ranjit Singh was alive precisely because he managed to integrate and secure the loyalty of the Punjabi musalman who constituted most of his subjects - and thereby ensured economic productivity and public order. The Khalsa army of the Lahore durbar was also not just made up of Sikhs - all cavalry were Sikh, but virtually the whole of the artillery was Muslim, as was a significant portion of the infantry of the regular army (included Pathans, Punjabi Muslims and Gurkhas). Secondly if not for the induction of non-Sikh European officers into the Sikh army, it would never have relinquished its fixation with irregular cavalry or its revulsion at the idea of infantry. Without the innovations of these non-Sikhs, therefore, the Fauj would never have advanced to first rank among the armies of Asia. An army composed entirely of cavalry is fine when you're fighting a guerilla war, not so much when you're building and defending an empire against men with guns and artillery.  Furthermore not all non-Sikhs in the kingdom were disloyal to the durbar, and not all Sikhs were loyal. The Muslims of Punjab routinely resisted the calls of the Afghans (and later, the mutineers of 1857) to join them in jihad against the infidel Sikhs. The Fakir brothers (Muslims) were loyal to Ranjit Singh's memory to the last, as were several of the other Hindu Dogra generals of the Khalsa army (Dogras are a race, not a family. It was one family of Dogras in particular which caused most of the trouble). And while there were good, loyal Sikh nobles such as the Attariwalas and the Nakkais, there were many more who were fickle and treacherous.  Rani Jindaan was notoriously corrupt , as were the Sandhawalias, who murdered Sher Singh, the only successor of Ranjit Singh with even a shred of competence, by blowing him to pieces with a shotgun. I think your stance is way too absolute bro.   An empire is by definition multicultural and cosmopolitan. The Vatican is not the most apt comparison here (It is a country in name only).   
    • The passage reads: Vol I, Life of Guru Nanak, p51
    •   This is indeed a good post.     
×