France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

[Township75]

PARIS - 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.

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.

The case gained attention amid tensions between France's religious minorities and the government over a law banning conspicuous religious signs in public schools, aimed at Islamic headscarves.

For Sikhs, the turban is an article of faith.

Singh took his case to the Council of State, which ruled in December that he could wear his turban because a ban on covering the head in official photos came from the Interior Ministry, not the Transport Ministry. The council said a Transport Ministry order concerning identity photos was not precise enough to apply to Singh's license.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060306/ap_on_re_eu/france_sikhs;_ylt=A86.I1AHkA1EuAEAHw5vaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. I'm not convinced by their reasoning

The council said the requirement did not trample on religious freedoms but was necessary for "the interests of public security and protection of order."

Since the turban covers the hair, which can be cut, styled and coloured, it doesn't really affect the identification of someone in a photo (in fact, wearing a turban is more of a distinguishing feature in France than knowing what someone's hair looked like when a photo was taken). I wonder if the ban on covering the head extends to toupees and wigs? If it doesn't, then there's the temporary solution for Sikhs - turn up in a full wig, however obvious. When it comes down to it, this is another version of the 'religious sign in public life' argument.

[Bridget Burke]

2. Turbans don't hide the face in any way.

And hairstyles are quite easy to fake.

Do the French even know that Sikhs are not Muslims? They tend to be prosperous & educated--unlike many of the immigrants from countries that were impoverished when they were French colonies.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

6. They know.

I just think they don't care.

[DallasBoy]

67. Why does it matter?

Why would it make a difference if they were Muslim?

[snooper2]

3. I agree with this...same rules for everybody...

no hats, turbins, veils, glasses, etc.,

[Teaser]

4. No hair either.

Hair obscures the face more often than any other embellishment.

Everyone needs to have a shaved head.

[snooper2]

7. Only if your It from the Addam's family

do you think the veil should be allowed only showing the eyes?

Wouldn't that be discrimination to let me wear turbins but women not wear veils?

I don't see the big deal with just showing your face/head for a photo.

[Marie26]

9. Not the same thing

The guiding principle of an ID card is to verify identity. If someone is wearing a full burka, it is difficult to establish their identity. Wearing a turban does not hide a person's identity in any way (and if they're required to wear it, showing the turban actually allows better identification). So I don't really buy this excuse. I think this is more about a "those immigrants better learn to adapt" sentiment, rather than any real security concerns.

[snooper2]

13. I remember last time (years ago) I had my pic taken

I was wearing a baseball cap and wanted it in the picture, and was told I had to remove it....

With all the shit going on in the World I just don't know if this is something people (not here, in France) should get worked up about. It doesn't look like a case of picking away at religous freedoms to me.

[Marie26]

14. But this is a religious expression

It does to me. If you're not a Sikh, you probably can't understand why it's something to get worked up about. But what if the DMV (or whoever) required all Christians to remove the cross before they could have a picture taken? Couldn't you see Christians being upset about that? There's a diff. between a baseball cap & an essential part of someone's religion. IMO, this is about eroding in some ways Sikhs' religious freedom. I think a law like this probably wouldn't stand in the US, where the Consitution protects religious expression.

Quick Google on the turban's significance to Sikhs:

"The dastaar, as the Sikh turban is known, is an article of faith that has been made mandatory by the founders of Sikhism. It is not to be regarded as mere cultural paraphernalia... The turban has been an integral part of the Sikh Tradition since the time of Guru Nanak Dev. Historical accounts relay to us that all Sikh Gurus wore turbans and their followers --Sikhs-- have been wearing them since the formation of the faith. The turban serves as a mark of commitment to the Sikh Gurus. It distinguishes a Sikh as an instrument of the Guru and decrees accountability for certain spiritual and temporal duties. It is a mark of the Guru and declares that the Sikh wearing a turban is a servant of the Divine Presence.

Due to its distinguishable nature, the turban has often been a target during times of persecution. There have been times in the relatively short history of the Sikh nation that if one wore a turban, it was reason enough for his or head to be cut off by the tyrannical regimes of the time. The collective response of the Sikh Nation was "You may take off my head but not my turban."... The next time you see a Sikh, greet him or her and know that the turban you see is the same turban and stood up against oppression against those identified as lower castes in India, tyranny in WWI, the Nazi empire in WWII. As Sikhs tie their turbans each day, they should be heedful that it represents a very real commitment to the founders of the Sikh faith. The turban is deeply intertwined with the Sikh identity and is a manifestation of the mission given to all Sikhs - to act as a divine prince or princess by standing firm against tyranny and protecting the downtrodden."

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/Sikhism11.asp

[snooper2]

19. I see your points...but I guess I don't have the perspective of religion

Being Agnostic...

I would be fine if everyone had to strip naked and had a head-to-toe picture :evilgrin:

I'm just burnt out on religious this religious that.......I guess we need a country somewhere in the World where it is against the law to practice any religion, except the religion of :smoke:

[Marie26]

21. Sounds good

Maybe you could start a new religion for it! I know we're all burned out by all the religious tensions lately (France as well), but I don't think that's a reason to take it out on the Sikhs. I guess it's just about respecting people's traditions, & hoping they'll respect your own.

[pschoeb]

49. So what, are you saying Religious expression is more important

than any other kind of expression, even political expression?

The constitution protects religious expression, but it also protects all expression, what your saying is the Sikhs turban should be accomadated, but someone's personal expression of wearing a baseball cap, should not be, even if they have very strong personal beliefs/reasons for always wearing it? why?

To value religious expression as the most important, is to denigrate persons who have strongly held expressions which are not religious. Certainly I don't think religious expression should be better protected than ideological expression or political expression.

[termo]

74. they should also wear a knife...

do we follow all religions rules and bans?
or we ask all people to respect the same law.

[MadisonProgressive]

70. Every drivers license should have a full-length nude picture

of the driver with all facial and body hair shaved off. Also there must be included a closeup photo of the persons genitalia, both normal and aroused. Full toothy smile is required. Also a close-up of the fingers and toes.

[WinkyDink]

37. No glasses? I think you mean "sunglasses"! I'd look nothing

like myself without my specs!

[kineneb]

56. CA requires removal of glasses for driver's licence.

I had to take mine off the last time I had my photo taken. Ditto passport photos.

[pschoeb]

80. It's true California does now require this

The main reason is that glare obscuring the eyes can result from the heavy duty flash the DMV uses.

[Marie26]

5. See stuff like this

makes me understand why some immigrants are angry in Europe. There's no reason to make someone take off a turban, unless you're just trying to force your values upon them.

[alarcojon]

31. Agreed

the stated purpose ("the interests of public security and protection of order") just doesn't fly with me. I don't see how a turban makes it any harder to identify someone - the face is fully exposed. And the "protection of order" line just sounds like a law and order mentality of making everyone "fit in."

[DallasBoy]

68. How does it do that?

How are they forcing their values on the man by making him take off the turban for 10 seconds?

[Marie26]

71. Yep.

I think so. Especially if there isn't a valid reason for doing so. The turban seems to be an essential part of the Sikh religion, of a Sikh's identity. Forcing him to remove the turban would be a small humiliation. It seems to me to be an effort to enforce conformity rather than a valid security practice. There's a lot of anti-immigrant anger in Europe right now, especially after the riots & the Muhammad cartoons. It seems to have started a backlash of sentiment that "these immigrants just need to learn how to conform w/Western society." I don't think it's a coincidence that these restrictions on Sikh/Muslim garb are happening now.

[DallasBoy]

85. I guess I'm just dense

He isn't being told not to wear the turban, or being forced not to wear the turban, other than for his ID photo, right? So, it seems the only conformity that is being enforced is in ID photos. They don't wear these things 24/7, so I don't see how taking it off qualifies as humiliating or violating his faith. I see this as similar to asking a Hassidic Jew to remove his hat. No big deal. It isn't like they are making him shave his beard.

[Marie26]

89. No, not at all

You're not dense, we just have a different view on this. As I understand, they do wear them everywhere they go publicly. It's not as much of a violation as making someone shave off a beard, because you're right that it's just a temporary change. But I guess my point is that unless we're a Sikh, we probably don't really get how humilitating it is to them. And it seems that Sikhs have fought these requirements where they've been imposed - it's a problem to them. And in a larger sense, it just doesn't seem worth it. Is there really a big security problem w/turbans? Why enforce even temp. conformity if you don't need to? That's what makes me think this is about more than simple security.

[Richard Steele]

78. You question answers itself. Welcome to DU! nm

[slackmaster]

8. France should make everybody remove all clothing

Just to make it fair.

[termo]

75. good idea, but it is cooooold these days

:toast:

[genie_weenie]

10. There is a more important Sikh religious rule to ban

That is to always be armed with a saber or tulwar! It's one of the 5 K's to be considered a true Sikh!

Now if everyone in the world would just shut up and swallow the rules of the "ONE TRUE FAITH" all of this could be resolved!

And... what's that? Excuse me I have a phone call...

<some time later, Girl from Ipanema plays in background>

Now, then where was I? Oh, that's right extolling the one true faith. Wait... Which one is it? I've lost my train of thought?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Here I was about to solve the world's problems and I get derailed by a Telemarketer!!!

[Village Idiot]

20. France's ruling seems almost reasonable...

when you compare it to Canada's SC ruling last week to allow a Sikh student to wear a khirpan (small dagger) to school...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/03/canadas_high_court_oks_sikh_daggers/

[LostinVA]

30. I see nothing wrong with Canada's ruling

A khirpan can be very small and symbolic -- not as dangerous as a pen or a paper clip.

[pschoeb]

35. Not really

Canada only allows a non-metallic replica kirpan less than 8.75" and it can not be publicly displayed but worn underneath clothes.

With that said, I think it unfair not to allow all kids to wear these if they want. It seems to me that these kind of rules create the idea that religious expression is more important than expression in general, and strangely more important even than political expression. It means that if a non-religious person has a strongly held belief, it cannot be accommodated if it goes against the rules, but as soon as one makes it a "religious" belief, a very nebulous concept to begin with, then ok.

For example, I know someone who wears a White Sox baseball cap at all times, Their uncomfortable without it and even wear it to bed, It's their committed belief that by wearing it, it helps the Sox do well, and conversely, not wearing it gives the Sox bad luck, and the Sox are an important part of their life. I'm fairly certain that if they tried to protest in court about not wanting to remove their cap for a driver's id they would lose.

Also many persons feel very strongly about being made to wear uniforms, sometime this belief is based on strongly held political views, and in fact is an act of political expression, but I'm guessing such a view would never be accommodated by public schools that require uniforms. But my guess is that if there was some religion, for example, that required an individual to always dress in red, and never where white, such a choice might very well be accommodated. Why?

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

11. these posts make me proud of D.U.! -----Excellent points-- all of you!!

Such compassionate and understanding points of view-
very genuine--
DU rocks!
:yourock:

[TX-RAT]

12. I have no problem with this.

[xultar]

15. Since they always have them on does this not seem backwards?

Don't you want their ID to look like they always look?

:shrug:

[NuttyFluffers]

86. shh! that's logical! this is about indulging in institutionalized bigotry.

:evilgrin:

see, someone must see my hair, even if i regularly cover it up, dye it, or shave it all off, it is critical that i obey the state's dictates -- otherwise how else could they intimidate and ostracize me from the rest of society? :D

somewhere Voltaire is looking down and shaking his head at the irony. apparently there's no society that has a strong enough streak of logic to avoid such stupidity.

[superconnected]

16. I keep thinking of a rant some feminist friend of mine had about sikhs

and how they treat women. If what she said was true, fuck him.

[Marie26]

17. link? nt

[Marie26]

27. Here's a link:

Equality

"Guru Nanak (founder of Sikhism in the form of ten gurus 1469-1708), received a revelation from the creator. Embracing the gender-free, one universal creator (monotheism), he rejected the caste system, and the inferior status of women and declared untrue the beliefs of the day. He said that anything he declared was declared under the authority of the creator, God.

"Sikhism is unique in recognizing unequivocal equality for all human beings and specifically for both men and women. Among equality of all human beings, fundamental aspects of Sikh theology include implicit gender equality and independence for women. The spiritual beliefs of Sikhism (revealed to Guru Nanak in 1469) propose social reform of women's roles in society. Sikhism advocates active and equal participation in congregation, academics, healthcare, military among other aspects of society. Female subordination, the practice of taking father's or husband's last name, practicing rituals that imply dependence or subordination are all alien to the Sikh principles... Sikhism equal rights extend to all beings.

http://www.sikhwomen.com/equality/index.htm

[superconnected]

34. Guess some people only see what they want

If you look further -

"However, the Guru’s teachings of equality have never been fully realized, which is clearly evident in the treatment of women even in the Sikh society today. Either because of the influence of the majority community on the Sikh minority or the Sikh male’s unwillingness to give up his dominant role, women continue to suffer prejudices. A woman has never been elected as the president of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (the Central Management Committee to manage the affairs of the Gurdwaras in the Punjab), or as the head of any of the five Takhts (the thrones of authority).11 Indian society discriminates against women in workplaces, and denies them the right to fight on the battlefield. People measure a woman’s value as a bride by the size of her dowry, not necessarily by her character and integrity. Alice Basarke, a free-lance writer, sadly realizes, "After 500 years head start, Sikh women are no better off than their counterparts in any other religion or nation."12

As a Sikh girl, born and raised in the United States, I have felt confusion and frustration upon recognizing the hypocrisy in the Sikh community in the subjugation of their women. America, origin of Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s 1848 Women’s Liberation Movement, crawls ahead of other nations in the race to achieve practised equality for all. Because of its diverse and opportune atmosphere, I have experienced little discrimination based on my gender. I must struggle to empathize with the feelings of women in India whose tragic experiences I have not actively shared.

http://www.singhsabha.com/equality_of_women.htm

------------------

[Marie26]

41. Guess so

And what major religion totally lives up to it's ideals? I think it's a pretty huge step that Sikhism advocated equal rights at all in a country where women & lower castes were treated like dirt. Sikhs were light-years ahead of their times. I also like the emphasis on compassion & service. And truly, I'm not sure you had a whole lot of knowledge about Sikhism before posting that. It seemed to be based on a friend's comments, leading to the position that we shouldn't care at all what happens to Sikhs. I don't get how concern for women's rights leads to saying "fuck him" if Sikhs are being targeted. So I feel like it was more about belittling Sikhs.

And even your own post shows that the tenets of Sikhism emphasize equality & respect for women. In fact, the article emphasizes that Sikhism was one of the first religions to endorse equal rights, in contrast to the inferior place women have in other religions:

"In the 15th century, Guru Nanak established Sikhism, the first religion to advocate emphatically the equality of all people, especially women. In a continent characterised by severe degradation of women, this bold declaration, along with others, determined to erase the impurities of the Indian society. Guru Nanak condemned this man-made notion of the inferiority of women, and protested against their long subjugation."

"This means that every person is a sohagan — a woman who is the beloved of the Lord — whether they have the body of a man or woman. Because the human body is transitory, the difference between man and woman is only transitory, and as such superficial. Thus, according to Sikh ideology, all men and women possess equal status. All human beings, regardless of gender, caste, race, or birth, are judged only by their deeds."

The article talks about the prejudice that women face in Indian society at large (in which Sikhs are a small minority). It's difficult for a religion to completely remove itself from the wider, often sexist, culture. And many of the complaints (lack of female leaders, workplace discrim., no women in the military) could apply just as well to the United States. It seems like if you're going to start condemning religions based on their treatment of women, Sikhism is not the place to start. If you want to condemn people for wearing funny turbans, though, it probably is.

[superconnected]

55. How patriarchial to post the dogma that says all women are equal

but ignore the reality that sikh women are complaning on the web that they are not treated equally.

Guess all Christians are good loving people, by your logic.

You can simply bury that some Christians kill in the name of Christ.

But again, how patriarchial. Bury the fact that women ARE NOT equal in practice.

[Marie26]

62. That's not what I'm saying

And I think you know it. Women ARE NOT equal in practice anywhere, including here. I was disputing that Sikhism is somehow uniquely intolerant, or that this means we should think "fuck him" if the religion is targeted. IMO, this is not about women's rights, but the rights of religious minorities. Would you have posted the same thing if this involved a Christian, or a Frenchman, or an American? All of these cultures have discriminated against women. Would you have had the same reaction? I don't think you're consciously trying to be bigoted or anything, but it's the instinctive reaction that was kind of disturbing to me. Sorry, I just felt like setting the record straight on that point. It's really easy for Sikhs to be confused w/Hindi or Muslim practices, so just wanted to make sure that we're talking about the actual Sikh principles, which are actually quite favorable to women (though the reality can be very different). I guess I feel like we should just try to respect other religions or cultures, especially where doing so involves absolutely no infringement on our own rights.

[LivingInTheBubble]

77. You are missing something here.

What you are complaining about is a matter of Culture and not Religion, furthermore this kind of inequality occurs all over the world in different forms. There has never been a woman president of the USA either.

I don't think it is a good excuse for your insinuation that all Sikh men are evil.

[alarcojon]

24. Consider this: views of the Gurus on women

Views of the Gurus

Guru Nanak Dev
Guru Nanak broke the shackles of women by admitting them into the sangat (congregation) without any restrictions or reservations. Guru Nanak felt that his message was meant as much for women as for men.

Guru Angad Dev
Guru Angad encouraged the education of all Sikhs, men and women.

Guru Amar Das
Guru Amar Das condemned the cruel custom of sati, female infanticide and advocated widow remarriage. Guru Amar Das also believed that women wearing veils (purdah) was demeaning. The Guru refused to meet the queen of Haripur or to allow any women into the congregation wearing a veil.

Guru Hargobind
Guru Hargobind respected women and declared, "women is the conscience of man".

Guru Gobind Singh
Guru Gobind Singh made the Khalsa initiation ceremony open to men and women alike, a woman being just as worthy. At the time of Amrit a man is given the name Singh meaning lion, the woman is given the name Kaur, meaning Princess. A Sikh women is an individual in her own right, she does not have to take her husband's name and is Kaur till her death. Guru Gobind Singh did not see any distinction between the Khalsa, men or women could keep the 5 K's. Guru Gobind Singh issued orders forbidding the Khalsa having any association with those that practiced female infanticide. Guru Gobind Singh also forbade Sikhs to exercise any proprietary rights over women captured in battle, they could not be kept as slaves or wives but were to be treated with the utmost respect.

http://www.sikhs.org/women.htm

[superconnected]

38. Or consider a sikh womans view -

"At one time, Sikhs risked their very lives to fight for equality by opposing the caste system. Yet, today, many Sikhs judge each other by the caste they are from and the amount of income they earn. As Ms Basarke poignantly puts it, "How can women expect equality, when the Sikh community seems unable to distinguish between religious tenets and the culture imposed by the majority community which engulfs them ?"13"

http://www.singhsabha.com/equality_of_women.htm

[alarcojon]

72. Let's get back to the original topic, shall we?

I accept your point that many Sikh men do not live up to their religious ideals. I denounce all such men in no uncertain terms. But given the fact that many men of all faiths (or absence of faith) treat women like shit, why single out the Sikhs here? I can find tons of links of Christian women denouncing patriarchal treatment within their religion. The same for any faith, walk of life, socio-economic status, etc. you could choose.

But you seem to go further and suggest that because of this, "fuck 'em" - in the context of this thread, I can only take that to mean "make them take off their turbans for their driver's license photos, because they all treat their women like shit." A pretty weak argument.

[manic expression]

25. I keep thinking of a thing I heard about ignorance

about people who can't comprehend the possibility that some people have different traditions, and rather than understanding the culture or having a shred of perspective, they say "fuck him".

Now, I'm quite sure THAT was true.

[superconnected]

36. Maybe if you guys looked a little further.

You'd find there isn't equailty among men and women with the sikhs after all.

[CJCRANE]

42. Oh right

So there's total sexual equality and no class divisions in Western society?

[superconnected]

51. Did any one say there was?

Or did one woman say that the post with sikhs treating men and women equally was not true.

Gee, I think the later is accurate. And I think saying they do not treat men and women equally does not mean all other religions do.

Guess it's my college education...

[CJCRANE]

65. If there's not total equality

in Western society or other religions, then fuck 'em all too.

[manic expression]

43. If you looked around

you'd find that there isn't equality among men and women with the whites either. This isn't about Sikhism being perfectly balanced or very equitable, because just about every culture is not. What this is about is understanding another culture and religion, especially one that not deserving of disdain at all. If you say "fuck him" because you heard some ramblings about an entire religion somewhere, that is unreasonable and certainly inaccurate. If you recognized the traditions, nature and character of Sikhism while also knowing the problems that are quite common to all cultures, THAT would be reasonable outlook.

Also, you have not shown us any information to support your claim.

[superconnected]

40. Maybe to get rid of your own ignorance you should google it.

Wonder if you'll ignore the womens speaking about the attrocities of the sikhs against the women, as the people above did...

My point is, I at least bothered to google it, after mentioning my personal experience dealing with someone who had dealt with one.

[Marie26]

44. As opposed to who?

And the Sikhs are so much worse in this area than: Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity? Every single major religion has a long history of subjugation of women. Why are you singling out the Sikhs, a religion that at least advocates equal rights? This seems to be a completely different debate than whether people should be allowed to wear turbans or not.

[superconnected]

47. I'm not singling them out.

You singled them out as being equal.

I mentioned that a friend of mine had dealt with a sikh that was a problem and "IF" that was true, fuck him("them").

You then went, Link? And I ignored that you didn't comprehend that what I said was a statement, and, with an "if".

Now you're on some tanget accusing me of singling out sikhs over all other religions. That isn't called for either.

[Marie26]

52. It's OK

Are they not equal? I think before you start condeming a whole religion, it's good to have some articles/research backing that up. I don't understand how you extrapolate out from one Sikh someone had a problem w/to the whole religion. You seemed to be "singling out" Sikhs & implying that Sikhs have a unique intolerance for women, but that isn't true. I'm saying all religions have their own issues w/women's rights, & Sikhism perhaps less than many others. I understand that you were just reporting second-hand what someone else said, but it's kind of troubling that you just instantly took that to mean we shouldn't care if Sikhs are being somehow oppressed. And IMO, you've just googled now to find something to back that up. I don't think you're intolerant or bigoted against Sikhs, but I do think that maybe you didn't know a lot about it & took someone else's word. So I asked for a link to get some indep. verification on this. But it's all good, I think we've all learned a lot about the religion in this thread!

[superconnected]

58. since you can't keep facts straight

who knows what you'll extrapolate.

You're on your own.

[Marie26]

63. Whatever

I hope you learned something in this thread.

[manic expression]

45. If you'd be so kind

as to share with us the results of your googling, that would help us a measurable amount.

Spare us your rhetoric. Sikhism is no more guilty of "atrocities against the women" than any other religion or culture or tradition. EVERY religion has the same exact problems, so it is quite unfair to single out one of them, and it is myopic to insult it. This isn't about Sikhism being perfect, it is about it being a culture, and a culture that deserves respect and understanding. All cultures have some shortcomings, and they do not make a tradition terrible or atrocious, they are problems that can be improved.

[superconnected]

50. Did anyone say they were more guilty.

I saw where I made a true statement about my friend.

Someone started posting that they are equal with women and I disagreed.

How about googling yourself. I have a job so don't have time to cater to laziness.

[manic expression]

54. The phrase

"fuck him" is quite telling. I assume you'd say "fuck him" to, well, just about every human being on the planet, then.

But of course, you said "fuck him" because you are criticizing Sikhism and Sikhism only. If you took into account the fact that Sikhism is not an exception in this regard, you would never have made such a statement. If you looked at its traditions as a whole, you would never have made such a statement. If you displayed any understanding at all, you would never have made such a statement.

Try looking at post #24 and digesting the information.

(on edit) You also first replied to the OP, which is what I am replying to, so I don't think you were countering claims of equality.

[superconnected]

57. Please read my whole statement.

I said "If it's true, fuck him".

There's quite a difference.

[manic expression]

60. And

you subsequently tried to support that very assumption. I do think you did argue for that claim, did you not?

If you are saying it is "not true" (or that such problems are in every culture), then that is perfectly agreeable and reasonable, and I hope you will excuse my posts. If not, my posts stand.

[superconnected]

61. Excuse me?

You still aren't capable of understanding one sentence.

"If it's true, fuck him?"

Instead you ignore what I said and misquote me and go off on this tangent.

How unstable.

[manic expression]

66. Are you going to

answer my points or not? Did you try to back that assertion?

[Bridget Burke]

29. Find out if what she said was true, first.

I've worked with at least one Sikh lady. She was educated & outspoken.

[shanti]

18. some rastas

wear turbans, and i know of one who had to remove it for his driver's license photo here in northern cali. it's not called ID for nothing!

we also have a large sikh community here and i'm sure they make the american sikhs remove the turbans too.

[Bridget Burke]

28. Minnesota allows Sikhs to wear their tubans. Alabama doesn't.

Are you sure that California is in the same camp as Alabama?

[crikkett]

22. sounds like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake...

... standing up for the 'official' behind the camera.
France is getting pretty nazi on us, do you think?

[alarcojon]

23. I am totally opposed to this

I fail to see how this makes it harder to identify you. In fact, Xultar makes the excellent point that I would have a harder time recognizing this gentleman without his turban, since he always wears it in public.

[manic expression]

26. This is completely wrong

the turban is a very important part of their religion, culture and identity. To force them to remove it, for any reason, is the height of insensitivity and ignorance. Even on a practical level, the turban does not hurt identification at all (as another poster pointed out). There is really NO reason to do this, and I am shocked that anyone would support such a policy.

[DarienComp]

32. You know, I never thought I'd say this, but...

fuck the French.

[jakpalmer]

90. Well ok then

I heard that bush is a dick. So, fuck the USA !
Do you see what I mean ?

[Turbineguy]

33. Don't mess with the Sikhs.

[MrPrax]

39. Headgear!!!

Canada played this little game a few years ago...
the score: Sikhs 1 Rednecks 0

But the French are way more sophisticated than any of us...

Sikh and Destroy...LOL

[mondo joe]

46. I think France has a right to promote French culture, though

of course it must treat citizens equally with regard to the law.

I do have something of a different take on America.

[hedgehog]

48. Most religious sisters I know wear civilian garb these days, but

would license bureaus require Christian sisters in traditional habits to remove their headgear?

[pschoeb]

59. I think religious headgear exception vary by State

Also some states allow for no photo ID, as some Amish and Mennonites don't believe they should be photographed. Some states require an affidavit of religious beleifs, sometimes with witness's to get the exemptions.

[theHandpuppet]

53. Do they also require men to remove their toupees?

What a ridiculous law. Wearing a turban in no way hides a person's face if identity is what they're worried about. No more than wearing a toupee!

[pschoeb]

64. It might depend on their rules

For example in most American States, the requirement is that the picture must be a full face photo, where face is defined as the head of the applicant shall be shown from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin and from hairline side-to-side. Many states make religious and medical exceptions to this rule.

If France's stipulation is similar, a Sihk turban would be disqualified, because it covers part of the forhead and also the ears and side hairline. Toupees generally don't do this. Sikhs could wear a Patka, which does not cover quite as much as a turban, and they probably would comply with most American state rules.

I know that France did allow French students to wear Patka's, though full turbans are banned. I'm guessing something similar will happen with the Driver liscence.

[theHandpuppet]

73. Sorry, that doesn't fly with me

There are plenty of men (and women) whose hairstyles, false or otherwise, cover part of the forehead, ears and side hairline. Not to mention men who sport beards and moustaches.

This law is bullshit.

[pschoeb]

79. It's not a law, and most states have exceptions for religious headgear

As I stated, I'm not actually certain what France's normal requirements are, as my post stated.

As far as various US states
beards and hair are part of your body, they are not artificial coverings, so they are part of your chin or forehead, just like a mole or scab or scar or zit are. If your hair style is completely obscuring your eyes or nose or cheeks, you will be asked to pull it back. A Toupee gets into a grey area, because in the US, sometimes these are covered by medical exceptions, and sometimes they are not noticed to be toupees or whigs. But yes in many states toupees and whigs can't be worn.

So are you saying people should be allowed to wear hats, if that's what they do all the time? Because currently in the US, most states would not allow this. I don't see why one persons right to free expression is more important than anothers. If you think Sikhs sould be able to wear their turbans for id, then anyone should be able to wear their hat, especially if they never take it off in public, like say Ron Howard.

[Marie26]

82. Do you know what the US policy

is on Sikh turbans? (as opposed to hats) I'm sure this issue must have come up before.

[pschoeb]

83. There is no US policy with regards to driver license

As this is handled State by State, and the policies are different, most states allow exceptions for religious headgear and medical allowed headcovering, but most do not allow hats to be worn for any other reason.

The State Departments policies for Passports is:

"Unless worn daily for religious reasons, all hats or headgear should be removed for the photo. In all cases, no item or attire should cover or otherwise obscure any part of the face."

So a Sihk turban would be allowed for a US Passport, but in this case certain Amish and Mennonites who believe it is wrong to be photographed, would be out of luck, though they are accomadated by some States for drivers license and State id. Also a burga or even a veil would be out as well.

[Marie26]

84. Thanks

I was wondering because the US has set policies on religious expression. It looks like the turban is mostly considered a valid form of religious expression, and allowed special protections. To me, this confirms that there's no real security reason to prevent it, & that the courts have already upheld the religious significance of the turban. That helps to kind of support that France's policy might not be very reasonable.

[pschoeb]

87. no it doesn't

Obviously since they don't allow everyone to wear headgear, it is because there is a security concern, otherwise they would make everyones life easier, by not having the stipulation. It seems they are also saying that religious expression is better than other expression including political expression. As I'm sure, if I were to inform them that I wear a Che Gueveras style beret, witha Che's picture pin on it, at all times as a public symbol of my following Che Guevera and the presence of his revolutionary ideas, that I would not be afforded any special excemptions by the State Department. By the way, I formulated that political expression, based on the religious expression that Sihks use for the turban.

Any religious headgear is allowed, so there is no "validity" test here about Sihks turbans. It's clear that if one wears headgear everyday for religious reasons, it's ok, but if one wears headgear everyday for political or deeply held personal expression, than it's not ok. So Ron Howard couldn't get his Passport photo with his baseball cap on, even though it's been decades since anyone has seen him without it. Under this US requirement it seems Religious expression trumps all other forms of expression, including political or ideological or even philisophical. Do you think religious expression should be better protected than political expression?

[Marie26]

88. Right

"It's clear that if one wears headgear everyday for religious reasons, it's ok, but if one wears headgear everyday for political or deeply held personal expression, than it's not ok."

That seems to be the policy in the US. You might not like it, but that is what the courts have upheld. That does, to me, establish that the Sikh turbans are considered a valid form of religious expression, entitled to protection. I don't understand why people care if Sikhs can keep on their turbans. How does this affect you in any way? What right is taken away? The fact is that under our Consitution, religious expression is granted special protection. Under the 1st Am. Establ. clause, Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of one's religion. This is why, for example, Amish can stop sending their children to school at 13, or someone can refuse to work on the Sabbath. Or Sikhs can wear a turban. This might bother people who want to skip school, or have off on Sat. to relax, but it's not the same thing. One is a valid expression of someone's religion, and so entitled to protections - as is your own religion. Compared to many of the exceptions made, I'd say allowing a person to keep a turban is pretty mild. I don't understand why France can't do the same thing.

[Marie26]

69. Cross-post: New European trend?

Just wanted to cross-post this w/another DU thread on Dutch banning of burqas for "security reasons." This does seem to be part of a new trend in Europe.


"AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - If the Netherlands becomes the first European country to ban the burqa and other Muslim face veils this month, Hope says she'll resort to wearing a surgical mask to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs.

"I'll wear one of those things they wore during the SARS epidemic if I have to," said the Dutch-born Muslim, one of about 50 women in the Netherlands who wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.

"I'm very practical," the 22-year-old added.


Last December, parliament voted to forbid women from wearing the burqa or any Muslim face coverings in public, justifying the move in part as a security measure.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2150004&mesg_id=2150004

[aquart]

76. But the turban is always on

so a turbanless photo would make for a false identification.

[pschoeb]

81. So can Ron Howard get his id with his hat on

Since he wears it all the time?

[canetoad]

91. Six turbanned sikhs pulled in for a line up.

Caucasian guy asked to choose. "How can I," he says, "they all look the same to me."

There is a danger that an eyecatching accessory such as a turban is capable of distracting the viewer in an identification process.

Recognition/identification of a face takes into account many things: length, height of forehead, width, proportions of head. A turban obscures many essential points of identification. No hats means no hats. Period. The religious thing is a self-indulgent beat up.