A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sikhs oppose new turban rules



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 24th, 2007, 06:51 AM posted to rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

Nobody wrote:

the_niner_nation wrote:


How ironic it is that the Sikhs, a peaceful people who do wear
ceremonial daggers and whose way of life is sooooooo incompaitble with
North america are the ones to be singled out, whilst it's perfectly
acceptable for other Americans to walk around wearing equally
unacceptable headgear and carrying handguns with the intention to use
and kill as opposed to symbolise a faith....




In Canada at least, walking in public places with a weapon is prohibited
by law. Sihks went to supreme court to get an exception to this.

In Canada, the long standard and well known standard uniform for the
mounted police (one of our national emblems) had to be changed because
one sihk immigrant insisted he be allowed to apply for such job, and
went to the supreme court to have the uniform ruled unconstitutional
because it discriminated against a religion that mandates only a certain
type of hat can be worn and never removed.

When an immigrant forces your country to change its long standing
traditions and emblems, you don't have much respect for that type of
religion that shows it it unwilling to adapt to a place the person is
moving to and forcing a whole country to adapt to their own little needs.



If the Supreme Court states they should be permitted to wear their
standard headwear, the obviously this is according to the laws of
Canada. Are you complaining that they are anti-Canadian because they
went to the Supreme Court?
  #12  
Old September 24th, 2007, 07:37 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Nobody
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

mrtravel wrote:
If the Supreme Court states they should be permitted to wear their
standard headwear, the obviously this is according to the laws of
Canada. Are you complaining that they are anti-Canadian because they
went to the Supreme Court?


Charter of rights prohibits discrimination based on religion, sex, race etc.

The mountie uniform has existed for a long time and is part of canada's
image. Some immigrant comes to canada and *demands* a job as a mountie,
knowing full well that the standard uniform is incompatible with his
social lifestyle. He goes to supreme court, claims religious
discrimination and forces the country to change its national emblem.

The equivalent would be for me to immigrate to India go to their supreme
court and demand that no indian be allowed to prohibit the slaughter of
cows.

If I immigrate to India, I would do so accepting that in some
cases/areas, I would not have access to steaks.

If someone immigrates to Canada or any other country, they should accept
that in some cases, their original lifestyle would prevent them from
doing certain things. This is not discrimination against them, it is
just rules/traditions that have been established long before they
arrived here and thus, they knew full well what to expect when they made
the decision to immigrate to some country.

Say some Sihk went to apply to NASA to be an astronaut and had all the
necessary skills. Would you like it if he went to the supreme court of
the USA when NASA would tell him to remove his turban for flight into
space since there was no room for his turban in the space helmet ?

BTW, in the mountie case, the guy had been given the job but told to
wear the standard uniform which he refused. So the RCMP had not
discriminated against him in their decision to hire or not that person.
But the job required wearing a specific uniform which the person refused
to do and then went to supreme court to force the RCMP to change the
uniform.

  #13  
Old September 25th, 2007, 05:55 AM posted to rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

Nobody wrote:

Say some Sihk went to apply to NASA to be an astronaut and had all the
necessary skills. Would you like it if he went to the supreme court of
the USA when NASA would tell him to remove his turban for flight into
space since there was no room for his turban in the space helmet ?


I think the fact that you are calling it a "turban" pretty much explains
it all.
  #14  
Old September 25th, 2007, 09:36 AM posted to rec.travel.air
DevilsPGD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 904
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

In message Craig Welch
wrote:

Scott in SoCal wrote:

A turban is just like any other hat, or a jacket, or a belt, or
anything else you have to take off when you go through airport
screening.


No it's not. You can't take off a turban and put it back on in 10
seconds, let alone 10 minutes.


It takes my brother a good 10 minutes to manage to re-tie his shoes (for
reasons as yet undetermined) -- Does that mean he can leave them on when
passing through airport security?

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
  #15  
Old September 25th, 2007, 05:09 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules


"Craig Welch" wrote in message
...
the_niner_nation wrote:

To satisfy your ignorant paranoia, Sikhs don't have any ill-will or
wishes against America or the West..that is the the domain of the
muslims.


You are a little confused.

When you say 'Muslims', are you suggesting that all Muslims harbour
ill-will towards the US or the West?

Or are you saying, a little more reasonably, that *some* Muslims,
extremists, harbour such feelings?

Because if you limit your argument to the extremists, you don't have an
argument any more. Because, my good fellow, there are Muslim extremists,
Sikh extremists, Christian extremists, Jewish extremists.


Yep, those other groups sure have hijacked a lot of planes and attacked a
lot of civilians.

Muslim terrorism is getting more air-time, of course, because of the
events of 11/9, and the mis-guided US response. If I were a Muslim living
in Iraq, and saw my family killed by US soldiers (or others of the
'Coalition of the Gullible'), I would likely become somewhat extreme also.
And dedicate the rest of my life to getting revenge.


But none of that "revenge" for the U.S., right?

But that aside, it's ridiculous to cast people of one particular religion
or another as peace loving or war loving, when people of all religions
start and prosecute wars, and when other people of those same religions
preach peace. As do most Muslims.


Except that not too many other holy treatises advocate anything on the order
of jihad and extermination.




  #16  
Old September 25th, 2007, 11:46 PM posted to rec.travel.air
Sancho Panza
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

On Sep 25, 5:47 pm, Craig Welch wrote:
Sancho Panza wrote:
"Craig Welch" wrote in message
...
the_niner_nation wrote:


To satisfy your ignorant paranoia, Sikhs don't have any ill-will or
wishes against America or the West..that is the the domain of the
muslims.
You are a little confused.


When you say 'Muslims', are you suggesting that all Muslims harbour
ill-will towards the US or the West?


Or are you saying, a little more reasonably, that *some* Muslims,
extremists, harbour such feelings?


Because if you limit your argument to the extremists, you don't have an
argument any more. Because, my good fellow, there are Muslim extremists,
Sikh extremists, Christian extremists, Jewish extremists.


Yep, those other groups sure have hijacked a lot of planes and attacked a
lot of civilians.


You seem to think that's not the case.

Have you not heard of Babbar Khalsa (Sikh)? Blew up an aeroplane. Many a
civilian has been killed by Sikhs in the name of an independent Sikh state.

Christian terrorists? The list is too long to even begin here, but think
of Northern Ireland, the Ku Klux Klan, and so on.

There wouldn't be an Jewish terrorists, would there? Heh. Just think
'Mossad', and observe the daily civilian killings by Israelis in the
Middle East.

Muslim terrorism is getting more air-time, of course, because of the
events of 11/9, and the mis-guided US response. If I were a Muslim living
in Iraq, and saw my family killed by US soldiers (or others of the
'Coalition of the Gullible'), I would likely become somewhat extreme also.
And dedicate the rest of my life to getting revenge.

But none of that "revenge" for the U.S., right?


Huh? Of course it would be against the US and its partners.

But that aside, it's ridiculous to cast people of one particular religion
or another as peace loving or war loving, when people of all religions
start and prosecute wars, and when other people of those same religions
preach peace. As do most Muslims.


Except that not too many other holy treatises advocate anything on the order
of jihad and extermination.


You seem not to have read the Koran. Come back when you've done so.


Any time you are able to show the Koran prohibiting jihad and
conquests of infidels, please feel free to do so.

  #17  
Old September 26th, 2007, 02:43 AM posted to rec.travel.air
DevilsPGD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 904
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

In message Craig Welch
wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:

A turban is just like any other hat, or a jacket, or a belt, or
anything else you have to take off when you go through airport
screening.


No it's not. You can't take off a turban and put it back on in 10
seconds, let alone 10 minutes.


It takes my brother a good 10 minutes to manage to re-tie his shoes (for
reasons as yet undetermined) -- Does that mean he can leave them on when
passing through airport security?


Not at all.

But it's clear that he should not be travelling without a companion.


Naaa, he just clears the area and ties his shoes up later (and I have
been informed that 10 minutes is only when he is intentionally delaying,
otherwise it's 6 minutes -- His boots need to be partially re-laced each
time they're tied)

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
  #18  
Old September 26th, 2007, 04:41 AM posted to rec.travel.air
DevilsPGD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 904
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

In message Craig Welch
wrote:

DevilsPGD wrote:

It takes my brother a good 10 minutes to manage to re-tie his shoes (for
reasons as yet undetermined) -- Does that mean he can leave them on when
passing through airport security?


Not at all.

But it's clear that he should not be travelling without a companion.


Naaa, he just clears the area and ties his shoes up later (and I have
been informed that 10 minutes is only when he is intentionally delaying,
otherwise it's 6 minutes -- His boots need to be partially re-laced each
time they're tied)


Be a good brother and buy him a pair of loafers.


He prefers steal toes shoes... Who am I to argue?

--
You can get more with a kind word and a 2x4 than just a kind word.
  #19  
Old September 26th, 2007, 06:11 AM posted to rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

Sancho Panza wrote:


Any time you are able to show the Koran prohibiting jihad and
conquests of infidels, please feel free to do so.


Care to point out where the bible prohibits Jihad???

  #20  
Old September 26th, 2007, 06:13 AM posted to rec.travel.air
mrtravel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 837
Default Sikhs oppose new turban rules

DevilsPGD wrote:

In message Craig Welch
wrote:


DevilsPGD wrote:


A turban is just like any other hat, or a jacket, or a belt, or
anything else you have to take off when you go through airport
screening.


No it's not. You can't take off a turban and put it back on in 10
seconds, let alone 10 minutes.

It takes my brother a good 10 minutes to manage to re-tie his shoes (for
reasons as yet undetermined) -- Does that mean he can leave them on when
passing through airport security?


Not at all.

But it's clear that he should not be travelling without a companion.



Naaa, he just clears the area and ties his shoes up later (and I have
been informed that 10 minutes is only when he is intentionally delaying,
otherwise it's 6 minutes -- His boots need to be partially re-laced each
time they're tied)


That kind of reminds me of the day before my sailing test when, for some
reason, I kept screwing up the cleat hitch knot. It was no problem
during the test the next day.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exploding Turban ? [email protected] Air travel 0 August 11th, 2006 05:07 PM
Most Iran exiles in US oppose an attack [email protected] Europe 0 May 9th, 2006 09:29 PM
Why do Europeans Oppose Window Screens? Kevin Europe 241 June 3rd, 2005 09:58 AM
59 Ex-US Diplomats Oppose Bolton Gaston Europe 22 April 4th, 2005 06:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.