How many Sikhs with kirpaans have you seen carrying out terrorist attacks ?
You are going to be a doctor, right ? Ever heard of "prevention is better than cure " ??
For the record I am an Engineer/Doctor of Medicine to be ----- but that is not the point here ----- your analogy between Kirpaan and Niqab does not make any sense to me at all ----- ever heard of Argumentation ----- reasoned and logical way of asserting a position or belief and critical thinking?????.
Or let me put it in layman's terms for you ----- have you ever thought of comparing apples with apples ----- Of course it would have been totally different if you were to compare Sikh Turban with Muslim Niqab -----
freedom of certain choices, freedom of speech etc are all a thing of past in their most liberal sense ever since this cancer of wide spread radical islamic extremism turned to violent terrorism.
When idiots are motivated to blow themselves in crowds mosques and cafes, when idiots can be motivated to implant explosives into their breasts, the rest of the world has a right to take whatever measures in self defence.
If you're worried about banning hijab and burka, wait till you find out what the west has to do to detect implanted explosives.
If thieves escalate their game, the police has to escalate theirs too. Simple.
Surprisingly Dr.Nuff Said and a few others don't get it?
Take it easy I p.o.'d ----- you are coming on too strong for a new member here ----- you can cast your opinion all you want but ----- you don't have to diss others -----
Or let me put it in layman's terms for you ----- have you ever thought of comparing apples with apples ----- Of course it would have been totally different if you were to compare Sikh Turban with Muslim Niqab -----
Nuff said!
Sikh Turban & Muslim Niqab is not apples to apples. Sikh turban does not cover the face, and hence does not pose a security risk. However kirpaan and burqa both pose a security risk hence the comparison. And for the record a kirpaan does not have to be a 3 ft long sword. Even a 3 inch symbol is banned.
Shall I take from your subterfuge that you have no response to my question ?
You are absolutely bewildered here ----- you do not even seem to know the difference between Burqa, Niqab and Hijab ----- do some research first then we will discuss -----
Read the following story carefully and then answer my question ----- why these Sikhs were not prosecuted???.
New York, New York, USA – Prosecutors have dropped criminal charges against Sikhs for carrying the Kirpaan four separate times over the past weeks. Two cases were initiated in Washington state. And two more in California and Michigan.
The Sikh Coalition reports that it has successfully defended sixteen Sikhs from criminal prosecution for carrying the Kirpaan. In the recent four cases, the Coalition worked with their client’s attorneys to persuade local prosecutors to drop the weapons possession charges. In all the cases, the Coalition also sent letters explaining the significance of the Kirpaan and citing past incidents where criminal charges against Sikhs for carrying the Kirpaan were not pursued by prosecutors. In some cases, other Sikh organizations were also involved.
City of Bellevue v. Gagandeep Singh
On September 17, 2004, prosecutors in Bellevue, Washington, dropped criminal charges against Gagandeep Singh for carrying a Kirpaan. Gagandeep Singh, a taxi cab driver, was arrested and charged with assault while defending a friend who was in an altercation. Police charged him with possession of a concealed weapon when they found his Kirpaan during the arrest.
Throughout the week before the scheduled trial date, the prosecutor’s office refused to drop the Kirpaan charge, requesting instead that Gagandeep Singh plead guilty to a lesser misdemeanor charge. The day before trial, the Sikh Coalition sent a twenty page letter to the prosecutor’s office citing case law supporting Gagandeep Singh’s right to carry his Kirpaan. The next morning, the day of the scheduled trial, the prosecutor’s office decided to drop the weapons possession charge against Gagandeep Singh.
State of Washington, County of Kittitas v. Gajjan Singh
Gajjan Singh, a truck driver, arrived at a weighing station in Washington state on Friday, April 23, 2004. A police officer reviewed his log book and determined that Gajjan Singh had not had the requisite amount of sleep mandated for truck drivers. The officer instructed Gajjan Singh to go to a nearby rest stop to sleep.
When Gajjan Singh arrived at the rest stop, he asked a police officer the location of the restroom. According to Gajjan Singh, the police officer who told him the location of the restroom also entered the restroom. Gajjan Singh believes that while he was in the restroom, the police officer saw his Kirpaan. Five minutes later, after he had left the restroom, a group of police officers surrounded him and arrested him for carrying a Kirpaan.
Gajjan Singh tried his best to explain that his Kirpaan was an article of the Sikh faith. The officers, however, took him to jail on Friday night, April 23, 2004. Because a judge was not available for an arraignment, he spent the weekend in jail. When he appeared in court on Monday, April 26, 2004, the court determined that he would need a translator in order to understand the proceedings. His arraignment was therefore delayed until Tuesday April 27, 2004. As a result, Gajjan Singh spent four nights in jail.
State of California v. Kamaldeep Singh
On July 28, 2004, Kamaldeep Singh, a student at Diablo Valley College, in Pleasant Hill, California, was detained, handcuffed, fingerprinted, and photographed after a campus police officer saw his Kirpaan while he was studying in a campus cafeteria.
The detective who arrested Kamaldeep Singh demanded proof from him that Sikhs should not be criminally charged for carry a Kirpaan. After speaking by telephone with the Sikh Coalition’s Legal Director, the detective shared its letter with a county prosecutor. The next week, a county prosecutor informed Kamaldeep Singh that criminal charges against him for carrying the Kirpaan would be dropped.
State of Michigan v. Bhagwant Singh
On August 15, 2004, Bhagwant Singh arrived at Detroit Metro Airport in Detroit, Michigan to pick up his father. A police officer asked him to pull over to the side because his car was parked in front of the airport arrival area.
The officer noticed that Bhagwant Singh was wearing a Kirpaan. The officer immediately told Bhagwant Singh to step out of car. He took the Kirpaan, searched him and told him he was under arrest. Bhagwant Singh was then placed in a patrol car and taken to the Airport Police Department.
Family members of Bhagwant Singh contacted the Sikh Coalition the night he was arrested. In addition, family members contacted, United Sikhs, World Sikh Council, Windsor and Detroit-Madison Heights Gurdwara committee members to request their assistance.
The Sikh Coalition prepared a twenty page letter that night explaining the significance of the Kirpaan and citing past cases where similar charges had been dismissed. The Coalition sent the letter to local community members and to Harpreet Singh of United Sikhs, who lives in Michigan. The next morning, after receiving the Sikh Coalition’s letter and meeting with Harpreet Singh and Kuldip Singh, Chairman of the World Sikh Council, the Wayne County Prosecutor’s office decided to drop the criminal charges against Bhagwant Singh.
you know what I think is the problem? many in the west have identified turbans with terrorism because of the jerk bin laden. that combined with the fact many Sikhs in the west don't speak sufficient English makes them especially vulnerable. Poor guys.
you know what I think is the problem? many in the west have identified turbans with terrorism because of the jerk bin laden. that combined with the fact many Sikhs in the west don't speak sufficient English makes them especially vulnerable. Poor guys.
Once again you have posted your comments without reading the whole thing ----- what would I do without you my p.o.'d -----
you know what I think is the problem? many in the west have identified turbans with terrorism because of the jerk bin laden. that combined with the fact many Sikhs in the west don't speak sufficient English makes them especially vulnerable. Poor guys.
Then you dont know what is happening in the west mate :)
Where do you live? You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Sikhs speak English much better then other communities.
Its stupid Westeners who generalise and do not think before they do anything and thats why poor Sikhs are killed thinking they are Muslims.
What is happening in the West is not much different what has happend with the Jews before 1943. But the West has no idea who they are messing with lolz Muslims not jews they will come to realise very very soon.
I personally know that in Holland there are 11 thousand DUTCH (GORA) Muslims who will fight for Islam and Islamic values and who will do Dawa in the name of Islam and Allah.
Even if the West kicks out all the foreign Muslims they will never be able to kick out Islam.
For me most important thing is Islam not the Muslims. But all the troubles in West only makes Muslims stronger not weaker.
If the West wants to ban headscarf or burqa then its their problem they should do that but then they should SHUT UP spreading lies that they are a demoCRAZY.
^ take a breadth happyhart! ofcourse there are Sikh that speak v.good english, just like there are in every religion. But there are a lot of Sikh (and others) who do not speak even necessary levels of english - that inability to communicate plus the turban is what gets some of them into trouble.
^ take a breadth happyhart! ofcourse there are Sikh that speak v.good english, just like there are in every religion. But there are a lot of Sikh (and others) who do not speak even necessary levels of english - that inability to communicate plus the turban is what gets some of them into trouble.
That is totally irrelevant because in this case Sikh was carrying a Kirpaan and was seen by the police officer ----- and besides the point here was to prove that they (Sikhs) were pardoned on the basis of religious beliefs!
^ what is the point you're trying to make? The French are NOT against religious symbols. They believe, and rightly so I think, that refusal to show one's face while entering public spaces is a security risk. Don't you think so?
I’m not going to speak for Hindus and Sikhs, but I will say this: These communities are more integrationist meaning that they tend to not mind giving up their religious practices and culture to “get ahead and be accepted” in the host society. Muslims and Orthodox Jews stick out in France because they tend to hold their religion and cultural practices more closely. As a community, you will note that French Jews were the ones who pushed for the availability of kosher meat, which was the same argument used by Muslims when it came to halal meat.
Interesting point! Why is that so? You can notice the difference in the UK between Hindus/Sikhs and Muslims.
i was disappointed after reading through the whole thing, no one has written about discrimination of a women,
some one has written about Americans not kicking out immigrant Mexican, so that they can cut the grass, well that is subtle discrimination
no body should think France is fully Liberal country,... but overall they are liberal...
India has banned by law child marriage, sati (widow burning), cast discrimination, multiple marriage but still all these things still exist in some corner of our country,
I agree it should be left to a women what she should be wearing, but who is going to check whether her folks and peers are not forcing it upon her, but i do not agree with women covering there face,
some one wrote, what if a women wants to wear it, so what if a women don't want to wear it.
Every party needs to calm down especially us the Muslims.
Burqa, Niqab, Hijab, yarmulke, kirpan, case, bindi etc. are all symbols you put on as part of some relgious or cultural obligation.
No one can say that one symbol is better or "safer", as they all are just symbols. Because as soon as you try to pick the symbols apart, you are on a slippery slope that can lead to discrimnation against a particular group.
However before we start talking about discrimination, we must look at the whole burqa situation. And it has turned into a comical or tragic drama that each side is using to exploit emotions.
Unfortunately the Muslims have by using emotional outbursts of anger, maar peet, burning etc. lowered their stature in the world.
In this small global village, the more "sophisticated" and "tolerant" you are, the more respect you gain.
The more tribal, uncouth, intollerant (towards others) you are, the less respect you gain.
The issue at the core of burqa is simply the respect of Muslim symbol.
And the respect will not come to Muslims, until they calm down, and show their "good side" even in the face of harsh realities.
If the Muslims can show their good side for the next 10-20 years, the world won't care if some is covering full face, half face, or quarter face.
In the end, what matters is respect, and the respect is never "given", it is always "earned".
Well the "free" and "unbiased" media is busy showing Muslims in a very positive light.
Yeah. I wonder about that sometimes. Why on earth NYT, Washpost etc. would put a picture of mob burning down parts of Karachi. or the pictures of suicide bombed Dutch embassy in Islamabad.
Perhaps they should not print such pictures. Obviously if they want to be considered free and unbiased, they should only print pictures of Pakistani Mango Gardens, the canals full of sharab (opps sharabe tahoor), the hoors, the ghilman etc. etc.
