Jump to content
InderjitS

Brothers charged with unlawful behaviour at Leamington Gurdwara cleared

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Clever wording! You mean they lies under oath as Sikhs I'm guessing on a ghutka.. 

And here was me thinking in sikhi we had a tradition of standing up for our beliefs and not denying them.. 

They should be ashamed of themselves they couldn't face the consequences of their actions which if they did it for their beliefs should have been easy. Their  sikhi was so cheap they lied to get off what was probably only ever going to be a small fine. 

If these guys aren't  the guardians of sikhi they are the problem.. 

On top of which they made false allegations against the gurdwara Committee 

Disgraceful behaviour 

 

Before jumping to conclusions based on news reports why not reach out to them and see what the score is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldnt bother taking this Sukhvirk characteer seriously he's a bit of a troll , I'm pretty sure it's the same guy who trolls on various facebook groups as well .. recently he was trying to argue that "baba vishvakarma ceromonies and pooja " should be allowed in Gurdwaras and are not contradictory to Sikhi...in resoponse to the Leeds Ramgarhia Board issue, also seen him advocating support for sham anand karajs and other anti Sikh behaviour... Wouldnt actually be surprised if this guy wasnt even a Sikh...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

Before jumping to conclusions based on news reports why not reach out to them and see what the score is. 

You yourself accepted that in their submissions they claimed that they were not their to protest against the marriage 

 

2 hours ago, Cisco_Singh said:

I wouldnt bother taking this Sukhvirk characteer seriously he's a bit of a troll , I'm pretty sure it's the same guy who trolls on various facebook groups as well .. recently he was trying to argue that "baba vishvakarma ceromonies and pooja " should be allowed in Gurdwaras and are not contradictory to Sikhi...in resoponse to the Leeds Ramgarhia Board issue, also seen him advocating support for sham anand karajs and other anti Sikh behaviour... Wouldnt actually be surprised if this guy wasnt even a Sikh...

I don't think your sikh... I had you down as the thong song fella? 

 

Everything I have said is based published evidence.. You just don't want to admit you're mates don't have the integrity and conviction of opinion they should.. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

You yourself accepted that in their submissions they claimed that they were not their to protest against the marriage 

Point is we cannot rely solely on the press. I agree with some of your sentiments but I'm happy they are free. We need more people to potentially put their careers on the line to protest against iffy committee members who clearly have no respect for Maryada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, InderjitS said:

Point is we cannot rely solely on the press. I agree with some of your sentiments but I'm happy they are free. We need more people to potentially put their careers on the line to protest against iffy committee members who clearly have no respect for Maryada.

Except they didn't put their career on the line. They lied to get out of it.. I did ask questions of the sikhpa and syf yesterday and their silence on the issue speaks volumes 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2018 at 10:20 AM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Shameless.. These guys in court lied under oath on ghutka and you guys are praising them! Disgraceful 

Do you know that they took an oath on a gutka? If you would spend more time in Sikh circles, you'd know that Sikhs (other than Capt. Amrinder SIngh) don't take oaths on gutkas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

They should be ashamed of themselves

Are you the same person who said in the thread about Jagmeet SIngh's fiancee:

On 2/12/2018 at 8:38 AM, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Seriously! How and what right do you have to label her patit! 

It's OK for you to call them shameful, but @jkvlondon can't call her patit?

So it's OK for you to condemn someone, but not OK for someone else to do so?

  • Confused 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BhForce said:

Do you know that they took an oath on a gutka? If you would spend more time in Sikh circles, you'd know that Sikhs (other than Capt. Amrinder SIngh) don't take oaths on gutkas.

Well usually in British courts a ghutka is used.. To be fair even if they didn't take a oath on anything the fact that the just outright lied is bad enough.. Why couldn't they just tell the truth and face the music.. If they had conviction in what they believe 

 

13 hours ago, BhForce said:

Are you the same person who said in the thread about Jagmeet SIngh's fiancee:

It's OK for you to call them shameful, but @jkvlondon can't call her patit?

So it's OK for you to condemn someone, but not OK for someone else to do so?

Calling someone shameful and someone a apostate are totally different things.. I love how your relativism helps you justify their actions.. I guess you think its OK to just lie 

 

MOD note- Please contain your replies to one post, it isn't hard.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cisco_Singh said:

I wouldnt bother taking this Sukhvirk characteer seriously he's a bit of a troll , I'm pretty sure it's the same guy who trolls on various facebook groups as well .. recently he was trying to argue that "baba vishvakarma ceromonies and pooja " should be allowed in Gurdwaras and are not contradictory to Sikhi...in resoponse to the Leeds Ramgarhia Board issue, also seen him advocating support for sham anand karajs and other anti Sikh behaviour... Wouldnt actually be surprised if this guy wasnt even a Sikh...

Anything's possible, but I think he is a Sikh, because you must surely know that there are plenty of people like @Sukhvirk1976 in our community. Although I recognize it can be tedious explaining Sikhi to him, I think it is worth it because most of the people that come to this forum don't log in and post. They are the casual Sikhs, and they harbor many of the same misconceptions as Sukhvirk. 

So think of your answering Sukhvirk as answering the doubts of those lurkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, it shouldn't have been dealt in courts to begin with. Singhs who are taking Panj pyares role should've been involved in this whole fiasco, this is where leadership is failing squarely.

In fact no youths should've been involved in the protest during interfaith marriage as its broader panthic issue where leaders need to be get involved work out solution case by case basis. There are so many scenarios where youths are protesting and blocking failing to provide any kind of adequate solution or accommodation and try to enforce it with intimidation- leaving family with no choice to call authorities.

Singhs taking role of panj pyares should take leadership role little more seriously. I am sorry panj pyares role is not part time job, they are supposed to deal with issues in the community. They should be further honored, listen to, paid to do full time duties so they can concentrate on their role full time leave their jobs aside.

When is the last time you heard police are called in churches in west to deal with internal disputes?  Almost never heard of, because pastors get honored, get paid and do their job full time.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, N30S1NGH said:

Good, it shouldn't have been dealt in courts to begin with. Singhs who are taking Panj pyares role should've been involved in this whole fiasco, this is where leadership is failing squarely.

In fact no youths should've been involved in the protest during interfaith marriage as its broader panthic issue where leaders need to be get involved work out solution case by case basis. There are so many scenarios where youths are protesting and blocking failing to provide any kind of adequate solution or accommodation and try to enforce it with intimidation- leaving family with no choice to call authorities.

Singhs taking role of panj pyares should take leadership role little more seriously. I am sorry panj pyares role is not part time job, they are supposed to deal with issues in the community. They should be further honored, listen to, paid to do full time duties so they can concentrate on their role full time leave their jobs aside.

When is the last time you heard police are called in churches in west to deal with internal disputes?  Almost never heard of, because pastors get honored, get paid and do their job full time.

The Panj Pyare should've been there but the fact is that those youth prevented disrespect of Guru ji. No-one else intervened.

'Intimidation' is just an excuse these committees use when their greed isn't or hasn't been fulfilled from protests like this - quite sure they would've faced much worse growing up. The same excuse goes for families who see big youth standing in front of them and assume they're thugs. They phone the police in frustration/anger to get rid of the youth but this undermines our community name and gives western media a day of fun. Unfortunately for the elders, this made headlines and expedited reform in some places. Youth like this are taking a risk (careers etc.) but it makes a difference.

Agree with you on full-time Panj Pyare - the problem is how many of us love Guru ji enough to leave well-paid careers/lifestyles to help our own people?

Regarding churches in the west, many don't even exist in the UK so no need to phone the police as hardly anyone is there.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GuestSingh said:

The Panj Pyare should've been there but the fact is that those youth prevented disrespect of Guru ji. No-one else intervened.

'Intimidation' is just an excuse these committees use when their greed isn't or hasn't been fulfilled from protests like this - quite sure they would've faced much worse growing up. The same excuse goes for families who see big youth standing in front of them and assume they're thugs. They phone the police in frustration/anger to get rid of the youth but this undermines our community name and gives western media a day of fun. Unfortunately for the elders, this made headlines and expedited reform in some places. Youth like this are taking a risk (careers etc.) but it makes a difference.

Agree with you on full-time Panj Pyare - the problem is how many of us love Guru ji enough to leave well-paid careers/lifestyles to help our own people?

Regarding churches in the west, many don't even exist in the UK so no need to phone the police as hardly anyone is there.

Apparently by their own submission they weren't there to prevent the wedding.. 

I think shutting the gurdwara down and preventing access was a far greater beadbi 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:
22 hours ago, BhForce said:

Are you the same person who said in the thread about Jagmeet SIngh's fiancee:

It's OK for you to call them shameful, but @jkvlondon can't call her patit?

So it's OK for you to condemn someone, but not OK for someone else to do so?

Calling someone shameful and someone a apostate are totally different things.. I love how your relativism helps you justify their actions.. I guess you think its OK to just lie 

Yes, they are different things, but they are both in the same category of condemning someone. You are unable to see this, because in your mind, it's bad to be strict in Sikhi, so therefore it's OK for you condemn the Singhs who are strict in Sikhi. On the other hand, @jkvlondon and others don't have the right to condemn someone for being lax in Sikhi because in your mind, it only works one way: lax can condemn the strict, but not vice versa.

I did not get into the specific matter of whether they lied or what they did at the Gurdwara was good or not. I am merely commented on the fact that you condemned them while at the same time crying out when someone condemned Jagmeet Singh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BhForce said:

Yes, they are different things, but they are both in the same category of condemning someone. You are unable to see this, because in your mind, it's bad to be strict in Sikhi, so therefore it's OK for you condemn the Singhs who are strict in Sikhi. On the other hand, @jkvlondon and others don't have the right to condemn someone for being lax in Sikhi because in your mind, it only works one way: lax can condemn the strict, but not vice versa.

I did not get into the specific matter of whether they lied or what they did at the Gurdwara was good or not. I am merely commented on the fact that you condemned them while at the same time crying out when someone condemned Jagmeet Singh.

Do me a favour.. 

I love the way you have just skirted around the whole issue.. I said there behaviour was shameless.. I could very easily have said that there actions made them patit.. But I didn't.. When I called out @jkvlondon my objection was quite clearly as to what gives her the right to in effect excommunicate someone from the panth.

Who am I to measure or anyone on here for that matter to label someone like that.. If @jkvlondon had phrased it "in my opinion" I would have been less likely to have questioned it. 

In my opinion their behaviour was shameless, to beat the case they lied.. What does it say about how deep their beliefs run since they disowned them.. Tomorrow morning they may say we not even sikh to beat the charges 

To get back to the point do you think a sikh who has the conviction to make such a stand and then deny it  should be celebrated? 

Don't you think that acting in the gurus name is a serious step and to deny it is a illustration of how fickle their faith is? 

Please answer the question I'm interested to hear it 

 

Let me just say I would question and challenge anyone who called these two guys patit.. 

I'm was providing examples based on the measures used on this group.. 

I think you are right to pull me up on my terminology.. I was angry and incensed at the actions of these people.. I should have more restraint.. Also maybe I was being a provocateur. I get that you don't agree with my understanding of sikhi just as much as I don't get yours or many people's on here. 

But I believe I apply very strict rationale to my logic and if and when a rational logical argument is presented and not just nindya I listen.. But if as what usually happens on here people just come with lazy slanderous pejoratives then and I just folded and accepted their propositions because it was easier, then what kind of sikh would I be? I study hard, question my assumptions with rigour.. And I won't be bullied.. 

Believe me my motivations to be on this group and staying on it despite being clearly unwelcome are only because I love sikhi.. Not because I need my ego massaged, although I could try harder not to take the bait.. We all learning, each and every moment.. In fact I believe that it is through vigorous criticism that we learn.. Having sycophantic communication is easy.. It's when we are challenged that we learn.. Guru arjun dev ji taught us to welcome nindya 

So I'm here I can take it 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do we know they lied?

They said they were protesting the use of funds, maybe they were...even if they were protesting the use of funds for a marriage. 

The criminal penalty was steep.  You really want them to go to prison for a long long time?

I hear people saying the sangat needs more sacrifice, maybe it does, but are those calling for it willing to do it themselves?

Maybe if they'd been charged with disturbing the peace they could just plead guilty , but they were up on serious charges totally misrepresented by police and media. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

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

    • What a wonderful post, bro. I'm quite happy to see that you think this way. If you don't mind, could you answer: 1) Were you an atheist before? If not, did you used to think the same way your friend, and other people on the board, like @Kira did? 2) Does your friend speak Punjabi? Not limited to saying "enough" when getting langar. But really speak the language? If he did, perhaps he wouldn't be so confused as to what a "par nari" is. Also, can he read Punjabi? Or is he getting his "gian" from the English translations? And what tuks does he proffer to state that Gurbani condemns rape specifically? Understand that I'm not saying that Gurbani promotes or allows rape. I'm just interested in what he presents to say that Bani bans rape, specifically. The discussion on those tuks would also bring up interesting points which I believe would not be in accord with your friend's thought process. Also quite interesting that he managed to find a ban on polygamy, and not on fornication. What does he present to say that polygamy is banned? So he's saying that you can screw as many girls as you like, and discard them, but you can't enter into a socially binding contract (marriage) with them. That's his idea of "dharam". Agree with you. This is yet another case where the English "translations" are going to create major problems for us where some people are going to be come "lakeer de fakeer" based on erroneous translations. "par nari" does not mean "others' wives". It means "a woman not your wife". If not, Gurbani loses it real import: The atrocious English translation above says you become impure by perving on another's wife. Question: Do you not get impure by perving on your neighbor's unmarried daughter? Puratan Singhs understood the term to be "a woman not your wife". Consider rehitnama Bhai Nand Lal: OK, so according to your friend, you're supposed to call another's wife a "mother" or "daughter". But if she's unmarried, then sky's the limit? That renders the tuk basically meaningless. The Sikh dharam envisions an atmosphere of purity in regards to relations with women. Your friend's mode of thinking leads to constant sexual desire and tension towards unmarried women, which is exactly what Harvey Weinstein (and many others) were doing towards unmarried actresses in the whole MeToo thing.
    • I'm not quibbling over the import of the word "disassociate". What I'm saying is that your statement implied that if your husband (or wife) becomes an atheist you can divorce him.  And I said that that is specifically disallowed in Canon Law. On the other hand, if you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife divorces you, you have not violated anything if you remarry. But: If you were non-Christians in the first place, and you become a Christian, and your husband/wife does not divorce you, you cannot divorce him/her in Canon Law.
    • well bro what does disassociate mean to you ...I heard seperation of ways , but also I understood it to be a grey area since canon law still maintains that they are married despite the dharmic arth of the instruction..
    • hobson's choice , if you have a preselected array who have blessing from on high by centre there is NO choice only eyewash ....even Kejriwal showed his true colours when he didn't oppose the transfer of Jaggi to Tihar Jail
    • Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa. Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh! Often times I hear people say "SGGSJ doesnt say (insert topic) so it must be ok", and in the case of pre-marital sexual relations a dear friend of mine has made the same argument. My friend (non khalsa) argues that Bani specifically condemns rape, adultery, and polygamy, however isnt against sex outside of marriage, provided that both are not married to anyone, and have given consent. My friend likes to disregard anything outside SGGSJ.  He brings up tuks from Gurbani that specifically mention "others wives" to support the argument that its specifically about adultery, however I would argue, the English translation is very shallow, and in the context of Bani, "others wives" is also talking about anyone who isnt your wife, and isnt limited to adultery, but also anyone who isnt married.  Example 1:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 274 ਪਰ ਤ੍ਰਿਅ ਰੂਪੁ ਨ ਪੇਖੈ ਨੇਤ੍ਰ ॥ Par Thria Roop N Paekhai Naethr || ਪਰ means other ਤ੍ਰਿਅ means wife
        Example 2:  Siri  Guru Granth Sahib Ji, Ang 1013
      ਇਸਤ੍ਰੀ ਤਜਿ ਕਰਿ ਕਾਮਿ ਵਿਆਪਿਆ ਚਿਤੁ ਲਾਇਆ ਪਰ ਨਾਰੀ ॥
      Abandoning his own wife, he is engrossed in sexual desire; his thoughts are on the wives of others.   Context:  Its not just talking just about adultery, the English translations are limiting, generally the concept is to not covet another wife, in the context of Bani, doesn't mean you can have sexual relations with women who are not married. Our rehat and history make it clear that one cannot have any sexual relations outside of marriage. There is a specific reason the Guru had 10 forms over 200 years, it was to show Sikhs how to live and practically apply Bani, otherwise the SGGSJ would have been all compiled by Guru Nanak and there would be no long history of the Guru in his many forms.    The SGGSJ isnt a rule book, and isnt going to specifically ban everything that we know is immoral. Where in SGGS Ji does it say that Sri Guru Har Rai Sahib Ji was the 7th Guru Sahib after Sri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji? Why would a primary Sikh text not name him?  In terms of Gurbani, when taken into context, and even compared to rehat and our history, its clear that sexual relations outside of marriage are discouraged.    Do you agree with my argument? These are just a few tuks I decided to bring up, if anyone has any more, please feel free to share! 
×