Devout Sikh wants to wear turban not bearskin

[JesusFightClub]

It's the Fail. Approach with caution.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rskin.html

 

I honestly cannot see the issue with this. Why not? The bearskins are part of history, but as any good Marxist knows, the present, er, changes things

 

If he was wearing the uniform people would know who he was and what he was doing. Whether he wears one of the (utterly outdated) bearskin hats or not wouldn't really matter.

 

Thoughts, FJists? This may raise a wider issue about religious attire?

[Fargood]

I feel like a butt-in-ski saying anything because I'm not British and therefore I'm not as vested in the traditions discussed in the article. That said, whenever someone argues that tradition is the reason we should or shouldn't do something, I bristle. It seems like a good opportunity to examine the tradition and determine whether it comports with the current values of the society or whether it's not a tradition worth perpetuating.

[PennySycamore]

Honestly, I 'm no fan of type bearskin hats if they're made of actual bearskins. Bearskins look better on their original owners.

I think they should allow him to wear a turban just to freak the tourists out.

[Hane]

I see no problem with this, but wonder why he can't wear his turban under the bearskin.

[Dollypeeps]

No one will notice or care really.

There maybe a war cry if he can why can't we in different jobs but it will die a death soon enough. Also the fail will have spun this all out of sync to what the actual story was as usual.

[Katiebug]

As an American it's not really my place to argue one way or another. In the US, our armed forces have requirements for personal appearance and grooming while in unform. One of those is that since the mid-80s, a beard can only be grown/worn in uniform if it is for medical reasons, and even then it can't exceed 1/4" in length (which can be achieved with clippers rather than a razor). I think some of the branches allow a mustache as optional for some ranks (my brother's does, but he doesn't know many men who choose to wear them). A servicemember with a shaving waiver or with a mustache cannot serve in the ceremonial guard units. There are also rules about religious headgear - basically if it's not conspicuous and of conservative appearance, religious headgear can be worn but may be subject to approval by the military. Religious headgear also can't interfere with safety related issues, like donning a mask or helmet. Practically speaking, much more than a kippah/yarmulke would be unusual to see.

The UK and Canadian militaries are more lenient than the US when it comes to allowing Sikhs to wear their beards and turbans while on active duty. I believe there are a handful (literally, like 3-4) Sikh men who have obtained exemptions and are currently on active duty in the U.S. Army with turbans and beards. Apparently two of them are a doctor and dentist who were (somewhat misleadingly) told by a recruiter that they could be commissioned into a medical/dental scholarship program even with their beards and turbans. While the exemption has been technically available, in practice they were not actually granted for around a 25-year period of time. But they are now being granted, at least in a few cases. I read an article about the doctor (an emergency room physician) who said that part of the process of getting the exemption was to demonstrate to the Army that his beard and turban wouldn't pose a safety risk - he uses vaseline to get a good seal on his gas mask, and wears a light bandana-style turban when in the field so that his helmet fits correctly.

I have no issue with the military accommodating a servicemember's religious beliefs when it comes to wearing religious apparel, so long as the servicemember's safety or ability to perform his/her duties is not compromised by virtue of wearing said apparel. However, for a unit with ceremonial duties which is comprised of volunteers, I personally think it's reasonable for the military to require compliance with more stringent uniform regulations which exclude visible religious apparel and require compliance with particular grooming standards. The key would be that the members of that unit had volunteered for that duty knowing what would be required above and beyond the usual requirements.

[happy atheist]

I have no issue with the military accommodating a servicemember's religious beliefs when it comes to wearing religious apparel, so long as the servicemember's safety or ability to perform his/her duties is not compromised by virtue of wearing said apparel. However, for a unit with ceremonial duties which is comprised of volunteers, I personally think it's reasonable for the military to require compliance with more stringent uniform regulations which exclude visible religious apparel and require compliance with particular grooming standards. The key would be that the members of that unit had volunteered for that duty knowing what would be required above and beyond the usual requirements.

I agree with this.

[Swamptribe]

Actually, I believe the British Military has a tradition of this sort of thing. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha Gurkha's come to mind. Though this may not be an accurate comparison. Frankly, I have no problem with reasonable religious accommodation for military personal. There have actually been Quakers who were drafted, who served with dignity and honor, while never using a weapon.

[Witsec7]

Actually, I believe the British Military has a tradition of this sort of thing. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha Gurkha's come to mind. Though this may not be an accurate comparison. Frankly, I have no problem with reasonable religious accommodation for military personal. There have actually been Quakers who were drafted, who served with dignity and honor, while never using a weapon.

I was about to mention the Gurkhas. When I made my first trip to the UK in the late 70's the Gurkhas were the guard at Buckingham Place. They were wearing their traditional uniforms and not the contemporary ones they wore as as daily dress.

[Maggie Mae]

Honestly, I 'm no fan of type bearskin hats if they're made of actual bearskins. Bearskins look better on their original owners.

I think they should allow him to wear a turban just to freak the tourists out.

I thought they switched to synthetic years ago.? I could be wrong, of course.

I'm an American, so I have no reason to have an opinion on this. But I don't see what the big deal is. I also don't understand why Americsn solders are subject to such strict appearance standards. It's not all safety, it's control, which I am opposed to. I also think we need to decide if our military members are doing a job (and pay them accordingly) or volunteers.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The Mounties in Canada allow Sikh officers to wear turbans instead of the traditional Mountie hat. I'd say it's a comparable situation.

[Guest Anonymous]

I can't find the story anywhere outside the Daily Mail style papers. It looks like the Army have taken a considered decision to allow the wearing of the turban and some fellow soldiers have taken umbrage and reported it to the Daily Mail. :roll:

I doubt there has been any soul-searching or consideration of the balance of human rights on the part of the Army Human Resources people. It will just be a calculated decision that, on balance, there is more to gain in terms of recruitment and PR, than there is to lose by upsetting the "traditionalists".

[Ramona]

The Mounties in Canada allow Sikh officers to wear turbans instead of the traditional Mountie hat. I'd say it's a comparable situation.

^^^ agreed... I don't see the problem? It's not a protective hat that leaves a wearer at risk without it ~ it's a big fuzzy thing.

"'....but if all the other guardsmen are in bearskins and he is in a turban, it is going to look ridiculous.'"

Um, no... it's going to look like a Sikh man is wearing a turban.

[B5SnowDog]

"....but if all the other guardsmen are in bearskins and he is in a turban, it is going to look ridiculous."

Out of the two choices, I'd say the bearskins are the ones that look ridiculous.

[Someonetocall]

My husband was outraged by this because he thought it was the MoD who was having an issue with the turban. When he found out it was the Fail and select individuals, he was much happier. For a supposed right-wing from Alberta, he's awfully open minded (I keep telling him that he is secretly a Liberal, but he gags because of certain personalities in that party currently)

The only issue I see is when JFC links to the Fail, I lose two hours to clicking on stories I don't even care about or that enrage me. FFS, how are the Ecclestone (sp?) sisters even real people?

JFC, I love your posts and would love to buy you a pint when I make it to Scotland, but why are you so mean to me?

[FaustianSlip]

I'm inclined to agree that if someone volunteers for a ceremonial guard unit, he or she should expect to encounter more stringent standards of dress that may be a step beyond what is required for other, non-ceremonial units of the armed forces. That's very typical; the Honor Guard units at Arlington National Cemetery, for instance, have height requirements. There are other units that have more stringent requirements based on their needs- if you want to be a SEAL, you need a higher fitness test score. If you want to work with computers, you have to have a higher score on your military intake tests. I don't think it's all that shocking for ceremonial units to have their own, additional requirements for conduct and/or appearance, and yes, those are often going to be based on tradition, because that's the reason most ceremonial units exist. As has been pointed out, you typically volunteer for ceremonial details; no one is going to force you to go and join one of these units, which I also think makes a difference when you have additional requirements that members are expected to meet.

All of that being said, I'm not quite sure, looking at the photos of the guy in the unit, why he couldn't fit a smaller, more streamlined turban inside the bearskin. He's wearing that blue safety helmet in one picture, which is probably similar in circumference to the bearskin. But if the military has okayed the turban instead, then presumably there's a reason why that wouldn't work. That's something that's between him and his superiors, and for people to give him a hard time about it is shitty. But unfortunately, the military is all about conformity (for reasons that are good as well as bad), and a byproduct of that is that if you stand out, you're going to draw more attention, most likely negative. He sounds like someone who knows how to pick his battles, so to speak, and I'm sure he'll handle it. I wish him all the best.

Sikhs have a long, proud tradition of service in the British forces, and while as someone who was in ROTC in college and is relatively familiar with military culture I can appreciate the need to preserve tradition and maintain uniformity, particularly in the case of ceremonial units, which are often the only contact that civilians will have with the military, I think it would be unfortunate to essentially close an entire unit to religious Sikhs because of something like a beard or a turban, not least because every Sikh kid who sees this guy is going to look at him and go, "Hey, I didn't know that I could do that when I grow up!" I think that's a pretty positive thing, personally, and outweighs anything that might be lost by one guy not donning a bearskin (which isn't much).

[Clementine]

Different jobs have different dresscodes. If you can't accept it, don't apply for the job.

[Guest Anonymous]

Different jobs have different dresscodes. If you can't accept it, don't apply for the job.

The thing is, it seems like he asked to wear his turban, the MoD said, "Yes, sure, fine", and nobody actually cares. I don't think he's been kicking up a fuss about it, or staging some huge battle over it. He asked, they said "yes", that's it.

[mkitten]

I agree with this.

Yup. I think that the military should disregard everything except for an individual's ability to perform the actual job required and ability to meet safety standards for the both individual and the unit at large. Why a person's religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. has ever been an issue is beyond me.

[Guest Anonymous]

The thing is, it seems like he asked to wear his turban, the MoD said, "Yes, sure, fine", and nobody actually cares. I don't think he's been kicking up a fuss about it, or staging some huge battle over it. He asked, they said "yes", that's it.

I doubt very much that this young man's request had much to do with the underlying decision which the MOD would already have had under discussion for some time. The HR function is run by civil servants, thinly disguised as soldiers. A LOT of committees will have discussed the ins and outs of a cat's arse before a decision was reached in principle. The MOD clearly want to make a statement about this, hence allowing it to happen in full view outside Buck House. My guess is that this lad just happens to be the first in line to gain permission. The Daily Mail opposition is just a pathetic, if predictable way to sell papers on the back of a ruckus caused by retired army bigots.

[Guest Anonymous]

I doubt very much that this young man's request had much to do with the underlying decision which the MOD would already have had under discussion for some time. The HR function is run by civil servants, thinly disguised as soldiers. A LOT of committees will have discussed the ins and outs of a cat's arse before a decision was reached in principle. The MOD clearly want to make a statement about this, hence allowing it to happen in full view outside Buck House. My guess is that this lad just happens to be the first in line to gain permission. The Daily Mail opposition is just a pathetic, if predictable way to sell papers on the back of a ruckus caused by retired army bigots.

That's a really good point. I don't doubt that's how it happened.

[Alecto]

In regards to wearing a smaller turban and wearing the hat, wearing caps and hats is against Sikh beliefs.

That being said, there are some exceptions for safety. Sikh policemen or firefighters might wear a smaller style turban so they can wear a helmet over it.

[Witsec7]

I just saw a photo in the Huffpo, Jatinderpal is wearing his turban.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... f=religion

[JesusFightClub]

It looks good! I don't really see why not if he can perform the duties, a tradition is for Sikhs in the British army to wear their turbans, they just don't all regard it in the same way.

This bloke has a strong feeling about it, he's not doing any harm and I get pissed off when people do the "AARGH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS" thing about anything really, especially some stupid ceremonial crap (just thinking about some of the comments there). If it was a Jewish bloke wanting to wear the yarmulke (sp?) or a Muslim woman wanting to wear hijab (though I do not think there are women in that unit) what's the problem. We are multicultural nowadays and I for one like living in "the early days of a better nation".

(rant over)

[luckystone]

It does look out of place and the ceremony/outfit is a large part of those guards. Considering the hats are so big and ridiculous (and I assume not real bear any more???) I don't see why he couldn't wear it on top. People wear stuff on top of turbans a lot. Regular military and some other companies (BA I think?) has uniform turbans though which makes sense.

I'm really torn on religious symbols (which is basically what it is) at work. On balance though I think letting him wear a matching turban is fine. But it does look different.