France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

[I think not]

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.

The following day, the Transport Ministry changed its order, specifically saying that the Interior Ministry ban was applicable on driver's licenses.

The case went back to the Council of State, which ruled Monday that Singh must take his turban off for the photo.

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

Singh's lawyer, Patrice Spinosi, has said they could take the case to other tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights.

The small, quiet Sikh community in France began making its voice heard after France banned religious signs in public schools in 2004, which forced Sikh students to remove turbans or be expelled.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/03/06/international/i145217S30.DTL

 

[Jersay]

Yeah this is just great.

First you rule it okay than you back track, bloody sneaks. Religious intolerance in the world must be the name of the game. Who can be more intolerant than the other.

 

[Said1]

The false pretense of assimilation. I guess.

 

[The Gunslinger]

I don't see how removing the turban for a photograph on a drivers licence would be intolerant. I mean, I can see why they're doing this.

 

[FiveParadox]

The Gunslinger, it would likely be construed as a violation of religious freedom; I have no doubt in my mind that if any such legislative measures were ever to be brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, it would likely be struck down in light of Section 2(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

The Gunslinger, it would likely be construed as a violation of religious freedom; I have no doubt in my mind that if any such legislative measures were ever to be brought to the Supreme Court of Canada, it would likely be struck down in light of Section 2(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I don't think it would. A photo and attending a school two different things. If the photo was so irrelevant, than that part of the process would be eliminated....to save money, or something.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think that it would be struck down if the tenets of the religion required that it be worn at all times in public; I would be in favour of striking down such a measure, if brought before the Court.

 

[Jay]

Don't worry Five....we will just say it is demonstrably justified in a democracy and we can do what ever the hell we want!

 

[Mogz]

I'm not going to debate these "religious issues" any more. I'll just say:

If you don't like the laws, get the hell out

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

I think that it would be struck down if the tenets of the religion required that it be worn at all times in public; I would be in favour of striking down such a measure, if brought before the Court.

Why? Like I said, attending a public school and a license photo are two seperate things. The line has to be drawn somewhere, what's the big deal about having to show your face for a required photo, especially when you are so progressive, you're actually allowed to drive?

 

[FiveParadox]

Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere; however, that line is not drawn by common sense, but rather by the Constitution Act, 1982, its provisions, and the interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court of Canada and the justices thereon.

 

[FiveParadox]

Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere; however, that line is not drawn by common sense, but rather by the Constitution Act, 1982, its provisions, and the interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court of Canada and the justices thereon.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

Yes, a line has to be drawn somewhere; however, that line is not drawn by common sense, but rather by the Constitution Act, 1982, its provisions, and the interpretation thereof by the Supreme Court of Canada and the justices thereon.

The supreme court decides what's constituional and what isn't as it pertains to the Bill of Rights, if there are issues that are not clear. ALL provisions thereof, aforementioned blah, blah etc are not clear and compulsively dropping that section of the act does not excuse you from thinking.

 

[FiveParadox]

Said1, the Bill of Rights is no longer practically applied; rather, we use the Charter. Section 2(a) is quite clear, in terms of its language and in terms of its place in the Constitution, and I would urge you to click here to review the Act for itself.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: France Says Sikhs Must Remove Turbans

Said1, the Bill of Rights is no longer practically applied; rather, we use the Charter. Section 2(a) is quite clear, in terms of its language and in terms of its place in the Constitution, and I would urge you to click here to review the Act for itself.

oops, yah, 2a, I know. Anyway, you're still not following me. I have to run, and I urge YOU to think about this a little more. Use your own common sense and think about the rammifications of headscarves and ministry photo identification. Seriously, rote (sp?) memory isn't critical thinking.

 

[FiveParadox]

Thought on the Situation

I have in fact thought about this situation, and my opinion is consistent with other opinions that I have adopted in respect of Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — this would be true in terms of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to the kirpan, and the situation occurring in relation to hardhats (with limitations as set forth by Section 1).

It is certainly not "rote memory"; I have thought about these situations.

 

[FiveParadox]

It occurs to me that it is perhaps a superfluous exercise to be discussing the Constitution Act, 1982 when this situation has nothing to do with Canada; I doubt that anyone would attempt to challenge the freedom of religion in that respect.

 

[Said1]

Re: Thought on the Situation

I have in fact thought about this situation, and my opinion is consistent with other opinions that I have adopted in respect of Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — this would be true in terms of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in relation to the kirpan, and the situation occurring in relation to hardhats (with limitations as set forth by Section 1).

It is certainly not "rote memory"; I have thought about these situations.

Exactly, situational. That was my point all along. Was I not clear about that? I really thought I was, perhaps not. It really did seem as though you disagreed at first. Hence my reference to "rote" memory. because it didn't seem like you were thinking in a situational context, just quoting the constituion, yet again.

 

[I think not]

I think this word coloring is catching on, eh Said1?

 

[Jay]

When I did it, Paradox thought I was mocking him.