The French turban ban – it’s not just for school children any more. [Thanks to Greg and Al Mujahid]
 |
|
Chirac: You can’t drive in my country. But you should take our toxic waste, and buy our goods. And keep that Mittal guy away from us! We’re civilized and you’re the natives, remember? Manmohan Singh: [Must not slap guest across the face. Must not administer thapad with my left hand …] |
France’s highest administrative body ruled Monday that Sikhs must remove their turbans for driver’s license photos, calling it a question of public security and not a restriction on freedom of religion. [Link]
This, of course, is unequivocally full of steaming hooey. Firstly, it clearly is an abrogation of religious freedom for Sikhs. Secondly, it doesn’t even make sense! Unless they’re planning on banning driving while turbanned, this is going to make it harder for the police to compare drivers license photos with the individuals driving.
This ruling is a reversal of an earlier ruling that sided with the Sikh plaintiff on a technicality, and means that any future appeals will have to be conducted at a pan-European level:
The Council of State’s ruling reversed its own decision in December in favor of Shingara Mann Singh, a French citizen who refused to take off his turban for a license photo in 2004… Singh’s lawyer, Patrice Spinosi, has said they could take the case to other tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights. [Link]
 |
|
None of you can drive in my country either! Off with all of your turbans! |
Then again, this entire trip was about jointly selling French goods and French merde, so I shouldn’t be surprised. France is hoping to supply India with nuclear technology, warplanes and civilian aircraft:
France is … hoping to strike key defence deals with India which is in the market for 126 new warplanes, a purchase worth billions of dollars. A deal for the supply of 43 Airbus commercial aircraft to state-run Indian airlines was also signed during the visit in a deal estimated at $2.5bn. [Link]
At the same time, Chirac defended efforts to prevent Mittal from taking over Belgian based steel maker Arcelor, saying that there was no racism involved:
Mr Chirac said on Monday that in principle France had absolutely “nothing against a non-European taking over a European company”. “The concerns that have been expressed are entirely legitimate. I do not understand what the fuss is about,” he said. [Link]
It’s the old dual standard – free trade for you, but not for us, right? Keep this up, Jacques my boy, and you’ll be eating Freedom Fries with your humble pie the next time you visit India …
Oh the things I want to type …
Ennis,
I agree with you.
Maybe, Prime Minister Singh should tell him all the nuclear contracts will go to General Electric and Toshiba – Chirac will be singing a different tune.
i’m almost scared to post anything on this topic for fear that it will be shut down after appeals for intervention 🙂 but hopefully no one will find fault with the following:
the captions are great. do the French require nuns to remove their habit when taking a driver’s licence photo?
WGiia – well said!
This is related: how do you feel about hijab and burkha bans in driver license photos?
Good question, and I don’t know, however the examples aren’t parallel. Most nuns I know no longer wear habits, it seems to be an optional thing. However, for a Sikh male to go bareheaded is a very different matter.
IMO identification is the whole point of driver license photos; turbans and hijabs don’t really impair that, while full burkhas do. And the whole French psuedosecular thing with banning the hijab and the turban in schools is just silly.
Again, a difference. If somebody has a full face covering, and only their eyes are visible, then they are hard to identify. That’s not true with a turban. Like I said, getting rid of the turban in the photo will only make individuals harder to identify, not easier.
Secondly, even with the hijab/burka ban, there’s a good tech solution to this – fingerprints and portable fingerprint readers. In this day and age, if you want to ID somebody, maybe we shouldn’t be relying to visual matching of faces using photos that are years old. It would make much more sense to use fingerprints.
Sorry, point 6 is in response to the comment about nuns, and point 9 is in response to the comment about other head coverings.
thanx badmash. as far as hijab and burkha go, i personally see no problem with the hijab because it still shows most of a person’s face, as does a habit. the only problem would be covering up a distinguishing hair color like red, but then anyone can color their hair. A full burkha that covers the face is of course a problem. even one that only shows the eyes is a problem for a drivers licence photo in my opinion. the turban ban is plain ridiculous.
I agree with you on turbans and hijabs. Separately, full-face burkhas which reveal only the eyes defeat the main purpose of driver licenses.
True, but there are bad civil liberties implications of creating a large government database of biometrics.
I donÂ’t see the fuss in india about Mittals acquisition of Arcelor. It is upto Arcelors share holders to decide if they should go thru with the acquisition. I donÂ’t see it as an anti India thing, ultimately the buyer and seller both need an amicable deal. Most hostile takeovers donÂ’t work(risk alienating the knowledge worker) and its doubtful that mittal would do that. Besides Mittals seems to have leverage with the brits and dutch so may be they can push for the deal on their diplomatic channels.
The turban issue India can use some diplomatic leverage. I dont think they have any thing substantial on that. It may be a good test to see how much leverage do the indians have with them.
In the short run it is in Indias interest that French start selling them reactors soon b/c it puts pressure on the Americans to do so.
The airbus deal number seems wacky may be that is what just goes into French economy. 43 airbus for 2.5 billion (may be its some other model)
donÂ’t see the fuss in india about Mittals acquisition of Arcelor. It is upto Arcelors share holders to decide if they should go thru with the acquisition. I donÂ’t see it as an anti India thing, ultimately the buyer and seller both need an amicable deal.
interesting. Ratan Tata agrees with you. that’s exactly what he said when interviewed by Charlie Rose. he wondered why the Indian govt. was intervening on Mittal’s behalf.
Requests to any third-parties will be unnecessary because Ennis — who initiated this thread — is a practicing Sikh himself. I am sure he will be able to intervene in this discussion as and when appropriate as per his discretion if matters take a negative course or, as was the case with regards to my original message to him with regards to the other thread, he will be available to clarify any areas of confusion regarding any aspect of the Sikh religion.
WGIIA, mind using the quote or italics button around text you’re quoting? Very confusing otherwise, thanks.
Absurd. It isn’t a “security concern” anywhere else in the world.
Jai, brother, you’re really not helping things any with your clarification 🙂 Why don’t you let things lie for a little while. Like I said, multiple authors here post on Sikhism and multiple authors close threads down. I actually didn’t close down the Fresh Prince thread. So please, let’s move on here and not mention this any more ….
[section deleted]
Anyway, regarding the French turban ban:
It’s illogical for them to think that this will assist identification; it’s not as though keshdhari Sikhs have different hairstyles which they hide under their turbans. Possibly the French authorities concerned are not aware of this ? shrug
Manish, will do.
There is no controversy here. This is a ridiculous restraint placed upon Sikhs and should be condemned.
Golly, Gullu! Give it to the shock-Jacques.
I smell pun-eer.
This is not a single isolated case. I was personally shocked by the visceral reaction of the Canadians to the Canadian Supreme Court decision on the Kirpan issue. The reaction to the Dubai Port deal, Minutemen patrolling the streets of Maryland, legislation to ban all burqas worn anywhere in some European nations are all tied in to a bigger racial unease which is engulfing the West. The hysteria that has been building up in the West towards Muslims (some justifiable, some vitriolically hyperbolic and over the top) and also to the illegal mexican immigration in the US will have unintended consequences for all minorities living in the West. We can either have a tolerant, multicultural society where diversity is considered a strength or we can have a xenophobic inward looking society where ‘funny’ names, looks, accents, and religions are considered a threat. For people who believe that its possible to build up surgical hysteria against Muslims/Arabs or over illegal Mexcian immigration without it eventually encompassing all minorities are in for a rude surprise. This is also relevant to some of our own H-1B/LPR warriors who convolute in uncontrollable mirth when LGF, Right Wing Talk radio and Ann Coulter raise doomsday scenarious about ummah, hoors, virgins, 5th column Muslims in the West and Eurabia. Schadenfreude on the Right Wing hysteria to the ‘Muslim’ problem in the West might give temporary pleasure, but in the long run it will only come back to bite all minorities living in the West. I have worked with some civil rights groups (nowhere near to what I would like to) and most of the shit in the 9-11 induced world actually happens with Non Muslims living in America. I cringe when I hear some right wing observant Jews talk about stuffing pork into the mouths of Guantanamo detainees (the irony is of course lost on them) I hope we are not seeing the beginning to the rolling back of the welcome mat to 3rd world immigrants in the West.
I wouldn’t count on Manmohan Singh doing much for this case. When this issue first started up regarding school children, from what I remember, it took him months to even say a word (and this after mass campaigns urging him to do so). So, I don’t see him being interested enough this time around either.
We can either have a tolerant, multicultural society where diversity is considered a strength or we can have a xenophobic inward looking society where ‘funny’ names, looks, accents, and religions are considered a threat.
yeah, thanks for setting up the either/or scenario, you’re either with the muslims or in favor of xenophobia? as for those evil right-wingers, yeah, look at schumer and clinton, those reactionaries making a big fuss over some arabs running out prots….
yeah, thanks for setting up the either/or scenario, you’re either with the muslims or in favor of xenophobia? as for those evil right-wingers,
Yes, thats exactly what I meant. The choice is between supporting terrorists and being xenophobic 😉
I have already stipulated that some of the hysteria over Muslim extremism in justifiable. (The hysteria that has been building up in the West towards Muslims (some justifiable, some vitriolically hyperbolic and over the top) However talks of Eurabia with a Muslim majority in Europe in 50 years and the kind of hate mongering which you see on sites like LGF are not meant to address the problem of Muslim extremism but used to spread fear and hate.
as for those evil right-wingers, yeah, look at schumer and clinton, those reactionaries making a big fuss over some arabs running out prots….
I dont support the opportunistic nativism displayed by some feckless democrats on the port deal. The Left Wing is creating anti-globalization hysteria and economic nativism, but that was not the point of this post. The Right Wing blogosphere, right wing talk radio are singularly responsible for creating mass hysteria over the Muslim extremism problem and Mexican illegal immigration.
The Right Wing blogosphere, right wing talk radio are singularly responsible for creating mass hysteria over the Muslim extremism problem and Mexican illegal immigration.
i think it is responsible, but singularly? no, i think that there is a lot of blame to go around. for example in the netherlands the “pillar” mentality helped result in a subculture of muslims who are totally insulated from the rest of dutch society. this was not the doing of right-wing xenophobes, it was the complacent mainstream of the dutch political class which simply thought the new minorities could be treated like the roman catholics and right-wing calvinists (as opposed to the plural majority mainstream calvinists), forgetting that these two groups had centuries of existence within dutch society.
to some extent right-wing nativist/racialist xenophobia is inevitable. to some extent though it is given support by the neglect that the cosmopolitan elites have directed toward rising immigrant subcultures which pose real challenges to consensus values in many societies. and i don’t personally think platitudes like “diversity is strength” really contribute to the discourse, it is great to say diversity is strength, but it isn’t like affluent liberals or conservatives live amongst the diverse lives they praise as adding to the strength of their nations (they might eat out at restaurants where the diversity is on display in various cuisines and cheap labor in the back). there is some diversity i’m really not too fond of. let’s change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength. if you are a large company that needs to market to different ethnic and cultural segments some workforce diversity in sales is a strength, but if you a small business with a very tight and narrow niche a cultural homogeneity might be a strength. if you want an example, i have a friend who preferably hires non-relgious people for her small business because conservative christians just can’t get along in the atmosphere where NPR-politics is normative.
erm… visceral: as in “organs in the abdomen” … umm… my evening walk turned up a couple of dog turds on the pavement – but not large heaving steaming piles as suggest. What gives, old man?
dissent is good.
ok…cut and dry – eddie put it well –
There is no controversy here. This is a ridiculous restraint placed upon Sikhs and should be condemned.
i second the motion.
i think it is responsible, but singularly? no, i think that there is a lot of blame to go around. for example in the netherlands the “pillar” mentality helped result in a subculture of muslims who are totally insulated from the rest of dutch society. this was not the doing of right-wing xenophobes, it was the complacent mainstream of the dutch political class which simply thought the new minorities could be treated like the roman catholics and right-wing calvinists (as opposed to the plural majority mainstream calvinists), forgetting that these two groups had centuries of existence within dutch society.
The Muslims themselves are the cause of Muslim extremism and the Dutch who immigrated them without any restrictions also share some blaim for being naive enough to believe that all types of immigrants could assimilate in the Dutch society. Even though there is a problem of Muslim extremism in Europe, the over the top reaction is the result of nativist hyteria. If the reaction was more muted and in proportion to the threat, it would be a different matter. But when the reaction is overly hysterical as compared to the real or perceived threat, surely the hysteria mongers are to be blamed for the disproportionate reaction.
i don’t personally think platitudes like “diversity is strength” really contribute to the discourse, it is great to say diversity is strength, but it isn’t like affluent liberals or conservatives live amongst the diverse lives they praise as adding to the strength of their nations (they might eat out at restaurants where the diversity is on display in various cuisines and cheap labor in the back). there is some diversity i’m really not too fond of. let’s change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength.
I dont believe its a platitude. It would be a platitude if you say that ‘all diversity by itself strengthens a society’ or ‘all diversity is always necessarily a good thing’. Of course not all diversity strengthens a society and no one in his right mind would suggest so. I take issue with people who believe that diversity can never contribute anything positive and will necessarily lead to Balkanization and ruin without creating any exceptions and who treat all diversity as a social ill. The diversity haters make no distinctions between Arab cab drivers and Phd students from India/China. It is this form of nativism where diversity is always negative that I object to.
Why does this not surprise me in the least? Mmm… France. One part wine, one part baguette and pate, two parts charming Ameliesque scenes, un peu du sex thrown in for good measure and a whole seedy underbelly of xenophobic nationalism. Just from recent memory – hijab ban and banlieue riots, anyone? Yet again, democracy and fascism join hands and sing for freedom!
I take issue with people who believe that diversity can never contribute anything positive and will necessarily lead to Balkanization and ruin without creating any exceptions and who treat all diversity as a social ill
yeah, so do i. but those people are a minority. and you have another minority who use “diversity” as a weapon to silence dissent. there are other positions in the middle that do exist. we should start speaking (sometimes) as if they do exist, instead of ceding ground to the extremists on both sides.
Unless France is planning to pass laws that allow police to require Sikhs to remove their turbans in public for questioning etc…
So, France is xenophobic and turbans, burkhas and hijabs scare them; I wonder how scared they’ll be years from now, when everyone looks the same and they can’t tell who’s who.
Wow – that sounds like the arguments used by proponents of the ‘White Australia Policy’…
Dogday – Haha. Good one.
i said: there is some diversity i’m really not too fond of. let’s change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength.
you said: Wow – that sounds like the arguments used by proponents of the ‘White Australia Policy’…
well, if white australia is a liberal australia, and a racial mixed australia is an illiberal australia, go white australia! the point is simple: the value i privilege above all others is the liberal enlightenment civilization. if non-white immigration threatens that, and certainly the whole denmark affair and the sikh theater riots suggest that is not totally impossible, well, i oppose non-white immigration. i have minimal interests in a particular racial, ethnic or religious order, aside from a wish that religion be driven into the private domain since i think most of it is nonsense and dislike it when people have to treat nonsense like it is sense. white australia was overturned in part because of liberal values, but liberal values do not arise from thin air, and the majority of the world is illiberal.
If that was true, you would be equally distressed about the illiberal behaviour of people like anti-WTO rioters, pro-hunting rioters, football hooligans, riot inciting media characters and anti-abortionists.
But of course these groups of illiberals are OK because they are white. It’s only the darkies who want respect for their religion who arethe ones trying to destory “Western enlightenment”.
forgot to mention
razib – is the top story one of the progressive enlightenments you are referring to? There is something very stifling and illiberal about the word ‘ban’.
But of course these groups of illiberals are OK because they are white. It’s only the darkies who want respect for their religion who arethe ones trying to destory “Western enlightenment”.
savagery is found amongst all peoples. but the proportions are not equitable.
razib – is the top story one of the progressive enlightenments you are referring to? There is something very stifling and illiberal about the word ‘ban’.
some things need to be banned. some things need to be stifled. though perhaps not turbans in france.
the west is the best by my lights. i am fine with people thinking dubai, india, singapore, etc. are better. they all have their own systems and values. let those values rule there…i like common law and constitionalism just fine. a gov. of laws, not men. and yes, shitting religion is a mighty fine liberty.
Razib
I’ve read you post “the West is the Best” a few times now and until this thread, somehow I’ve always thought you were being facetious or at least tongue-in-cheek. While of course I understand you would like a society where violence is not privilaged and there is harmony amongst its members I really fail to see your logic on this. Your means just do not justify thier ends.
Whites, or the west, have been anything but friendly, docile, harmonious or non-violent. Western European and American (North and South) have a long and filthy history of colonial invasion, forcible take over of land, the obliteration of indigenous history, wars, oppressive state techniques, slaughter, concentration camps, riots, and um, serial killers. Amongst these lurk usual suspects of Nazis, neo-Nazis, mafia, fascists etc. This of course is not restricted to the West – and this kind of brutality can be found in perhaps more culturally mediate forms everywhere from China to India to many parts of Africa, the Middle East – you name it.
But you know this – you’re handwringing the hooliganism often found within visible minority communities in “western” countries. What I think your logic is perhaps overlooking is the fact that there is a reason there isn’t more rioting and shouting and protesting and public gathering of white people in western countries – they are the dominant majority. They have economic power and a political voice by the virtue of the colour of thier skin and the cadences of thier names. People gather collectively to protest (both peacfully and violently) when they have grievances. When they need the power of numbers because what they want is not being heard by the state and they must make a show of solidarity and outrage. It seems highly unlikely in, say, Australia where the whites have already conquored the land, set themselves up as its leaders and decided all the rules of the game to thier advantage, that you’d find much need for flag waving and slogan shouting – unless of course it’s to keep thier um, brown black and yellow Australian sisters and brothers from “stealing thier jobs” or “talking over the neighbourhoods/beaches” or whatever.
As my father always says, two wrongs don’t make a right. So while I am in no way supporting violence amongst minority groups who have some kind of greivance, I do sympathise usually with thier plight. HOWEVER, it is almost puzzling simplistic for you to propose that “western” societies display some kind of inherent thrust to liberal enlightenment when its history has had and still has such evidence of oppression and brutality. Shadowy state prisons? Supporting dictatorial regimes? Anti-abortion killings? Homophobic, racial beatings/killings? Arbritrary arrest of WTO-protesters because they mess with the system too much? The suppression of labour unions, outsourced child labour; of course they don’t have to riot – they can use the system. I would encourage you, if you haven’t already, to watch The Battle of Algiers. It makes no bones about the brutality of the violence on the part of the Algerians, who kill many (shock and horror) white people. However, it also gives you a very good idea of where that rage comes from, what the violence facing them, in turn, looks like and just the sheer brutality of the French regime. It gives you an idea of what that anger of being treated like less than a second-class citizen in a land that is your home feels like.
Because that’s what this is really about. The French government is not afraid that it can’t recognise its Sikh citizens underneath thier towering and ominous turbans. This is a very clear message – it is a humiliating act meant to remind Sikhs – and Muslims and I’m sure Hindus and all those other “immigrants” that France is for the French. White, and with ties either to the revolution or a chateau. So much for liberal enlightenment.
Since Razib, who I normally regard as being a very good guy indeed, has now raised the issue of that Sikh play as an example several times on a number of unrelated topic threads, I think I should respond to this and end this matter, once and for all.
There were no “riots”. A large crowd — both men and women — were protesting peacefully outside the theatre, and a very small number of people at the very front got pushed forward in the crush and decided to make some trouble. To describe what happened as a “riot” is a truly massive exaggeration. The theatre was not burned down, no cars on the street were trashed, no houses or buildings wrecked, there was no fighting on the streets or running battles with the police.
The vast majority of Sikhs, both conservative and “liberals”, in real-life and indeed on normally-quite-conservative Sikh internet discussion forums, condemned the actions of the tiny minority who had caused some minor damage to the theatre. No excuses were made. It was generally agreed that the contents of the play were grossly offensive, deliberately inflammatory, and a calculated tactic to gain publicity by deliberately misrepresenting certain Sikh religious practices and the normal state of affairs within gurdwaras, and that therefore legitimate legal means should have been used to shut the play down, or alternatively it should have been left to run its course with Sikhs simultaneously continuing to protest peacefully whilst disseminating relevant information in the media to explain exactly what was inaccurate about the play itself. The writer herself admitted that it was not remotely based on reality, despite the original publicity behind the play.
The above example is therefore not relevant in any discussions about the supposed incompatibility of non-white immigrant groups in the West and hence this should be the end of the matter.
The above example is therefore not relevant in any discussions about the supposed incompatibility of non-white immigrant groups in the West and hence this should be the end of the matter.
I dont know enough about the Behzti controversy to comment, but a section of the Sikh community has had problems assimilating in Canada. I think the US Sikh community is pretty well assimilated but I get a different impression from the Canadians that I have talked to. In fact I was in Canada last month and I did notice a lot of racial unease between the Sikhs and the white population in some provinces. The reaction to the Kirpan ruling by some sections of the Canadian society is a good example of the racial tensions in Canada. Some of the Canadian Sikhs are still clinging on to the lifestyle they had in rural Punjab a few decades back kinda like some Pakistani Mirpuris in UK who still believe that they are living in Mirpur. Maybe its more of a Punjab thing than a Sikh thing.
I am slightly puzzled by one thing in this thread, and in most discussions re. French laïcité and its demands : why is everyone bothered by the so-called intolerance of Republican laws and no-one even questioning the even greater intolerance of religious laws according to which one cannot be a proper (choose:) Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Hindu… if one does not (choose again 🙂 wear a turban and keep one’s hair long, cover one’s hair in a scarf, abhor abortion etc etc etc. French secularism was meant to make whoever lived in France free of those stringencies that should be kept in the private sphere. If it sometimes verges on the absurd, I don’t think it is any worse than the absurdities of political systems where the common law must bend to the irrational demands of religions (based on personal conviction mind you, and not on any established rationality) -some of which are just antagonistic to basic human rights. Where does one stop and when must one really start being shocked? As for being scared of not being able to tell who is who, I think I’d prefer it to the current hysteria over respect of ‘roots’, ‘identities’ and ‘differences’ -translating mostly into respect of sexism, orthodoxy and close-mindedness. So glad Crash got the Oscar…
Many — not all — of the issues that have occurred in a number of Western nations in recent times are dominated by the 2nd generation, ie. those actually born in the West. This is especially true with regards to the situation in the UK. Taking steps to restrict non-white immigration is therefore not going to address the present problem in these situations.
It’s quite a generalisation to state that non-white immigration itself is the basic problem. It depends on exactly where the immigrant is coming from, their reasons for a) wishing to leave their home country and b) wishing to migrate to the specific target country. It’s also going to vary wildly according the person’s own personality, background, family, and regional/religious background with regards to their country of origin. These matters have to be taken on an individual, case-by-case basis.
If an individual is going to migrate to a country whose core values are in some way highly incompatible with the individual’s own beliefs and value-system, then they should consider alternative countries which are more in line with their own values, if they genuinely believe that integrating successfully into the target nation is going to be too difficult for them and living in that culture will be an intolerable idea. Again, this also depends on exactly why they wish to move there, eg. political refugees, purely/predominantly for financial reasons, or because they actually find some aspect of the target culture more attractive and amenable to the kind of lifestyle they desire for themselves.
Whether the target/host nation is under any moral obligation to accomodate “foreign” values (either cultural and/or religious in nature) depends on whether the practice/belief system is grossly in violation of accepted human rights and in some way hurts any innocent third-parties. This is the core issue.
donÂ’t see the fuss in india about Mittals acquisition of Arcelor. It is upto Arcelors share holders to decide if they should go thru with the acquisition. I donÂ’t see it as an anti India thing, ultimately the buyer and seller both need an amicable deal.
interesting. Ratan Tata agrees with you. that’s exactly what he said when interviewed by Charlie Rose. he wondered why the Indian govt. was intervening on Mittal’s behalf.
When Mittal tried to buy India’s white elephant SAIL(Steel Authority of India),the government of India shooed him away. It’s amazing to see Kamal Nath crying foul when the French do similar things.
Not taking anything away from Mittal, his empire is still far away to get the same respect that Pohang Steel, Nippon Steel or Tata Steel gets. It’s made up of plants acquired from former Soviet republics, former East European communist nations,Latin Americans and small European nations. It is still not known for technologigal or managerial innovation. Neither it is known for setting up large greenfield plants. It’s more like the empire of Chengis Khan — disappears as quickly as it forms.
So far Tata Steel is the only world class steel company from India. It consitently beats international rivals and technologically it is on par with it’s Japanese and Korean rivals. Now it has learnt from Mittal and started taking over steel plants abroad.
Kush writes:
PM Singh should do deals keeping the interests of a billion Indians in mind – not a few hundred(?) Sikhs in France. His job is to serve the people of India – and India only. His was not hired to represent the interests of Sikhs in France or Hindus in Trinidad or Jains in Britain. And it is undiplomatic to tell other countries how to take care of their security.
Ennis:
Religious leaders of all Sikh panths need to come together and chalk out a strategy that is religiously compliant for modern times. Why should practices be frozen at a time when there were no drivers’ licences?
Brahmins are generally not allowed to eat meat or kill animals. However, there have been cases where Brahmin kings or soldiers were doing a Kshatriyas’ job. In those case, exceptions have been made with the approval of religious leaders. Brahmins are not supposed to cross the ocean. There too, exceptions have been made and rules have changed over the millennia.
No culture survives by freezing its practices. Change is permanent, to use a cliche’, and if you fight change, your culture will not be permanent.
M. Nam
Moornam,
Authority in religious matters actually lies predominantly with the global Sikh community itself, although there are of course various Sikh figures/groups (eg. the SGPC, the Akal Takht) who have a role in these matters too.
Your point and indeed the analogy you’ve given are both correct. However, for keshdhari Sikhs, the turban represents a crown in the royal sense of the term. Historically, the actual physical gesture of taking off the turban in many situations has been regarded as representing an act of submission or supplication to the other party; of course, this gesture has also included a number of other turban-wearing groups in India (sometimes accompanied by laying the turban at the feet of the other party). Being photographed bare-headed therefore has an added emotional & psychological resonance for male Sikhs; plus in their view, you’re basically asking them to pose semi-naked.
In any case, as I mentioned previously, this still doesn’t necessarily assist identification, because such Sikhs do not have different hairstyles under their turbans — just long hair tied into a top-knot.
Why stop there? In fact, all religious and cultural practices predate the modern era. Why not have the French government draw up a list of requirements for anybody who wishes to set foot in France. They can demand that we adopt French names, religions, speak only French, eat only French food, and consume only French cultural products. That, and all skins must be bleached so that ones skin color falls within the appropriate range.
Your argument could extend that far too, if you let it.
Ennis, I think, the point was that cultural change should come from within the Sikh community. What you said was imposition from outside.
Razib wrote: if white australia is a liberal australia and a racial mixed australia is an illiberal australia, go white australia!
About as sensible as: if a child-molesting Australia is a liberal Australian..etc. A white Australia can never be a liberal australia. It’s an Australia where illiberality is camoflauged due to racial conformity.
Quebec’s difficulties with the Kirpan (and read the letters and columns in Le Devoir to get a taste of the visceral reaction) and France’s hostility to headgear (apparently hair is a  Republicain virtue) arise from illiberal impulses. In a Christian, white Quebec, or White Australia, these illiberal attitudes would manifest themselves, but they would still exist. I would rather Australian and Quebec illiberality be resolved rather than camoflauged.
(Note: Yesterday’s french press carried an aricle about Sikh truckdrivers in Montreal that will try to get a religious exemption from wearing helmets on the docks. Similar to Canada’s current Sikh exemption to the motorcycle helmet rules. Thoughts?)