New Calls For NYPD To Lift Turban Ban

[taft2012]

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/new-calls-for-nypd-to-lift-turban-ban/article_ec885158-a356-58fd-adc2-73dafe92e955.html


For more than a decade, Sikh-Americans who also wanted to be New York City police officers have had to decide between their career and certain aspects of their religious tradition, and a number of city officials, including Comptroller John Liu, are pushing to change that.


NYPD policy bans beards, which observant Sikhs wear, and does not allow turbans commonly worn by Sikhs to be worn on duty because they do not fit under the officers’ standard hat. The policy has been challenged with mixed success for over a decade, but the official rules are still in place.




“The NYPD shouldn’t force Sikhs to choose between serving their city and honoring their faith,” Liu said last week. “Changing these policies would show that New York City deserves its reputation as a global capital of religious acceptance.”

[Missileman]

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/new-calls-for-nypd-to-lift-turban-ban/article_ec885158-a356-58fd-adc2-73dafe92e955.html

Maybe they should sikh employment in a field without uniform standards.

[fj1200]

Maybe they should sikh employment in a field without uniform standards.

Ba-doom-che.

No reason why a public agency should have a policy that excludes a group of citizens. Other agencies have accommodated.


Washington DC Metro Police repealed their ban, and the MTA allows Sikhs to wear their turbans provided they affix the agency’s logo on top. The military has also recently changed their policies to allow Sikhs to wear turbans while serving. The NYPD has not said if it is open to repealing the ban, and says it does accommodate Sikhs by allowing them to wear a smaller turban commonly worn by Sikh children called a patka since it fits under the police uniform hat.

I'm not sure what's wrong with a patka though.

[jimnyc]

Ba-doom-che.

No reason why a public agency should have a policy that excludes a group of citizens. Other agencies have accommodated.



I'm not sure what's wrong with a patka though.

A policy excluding them would be a policy stating that Sikhs couldn't be employed there. The policy is a standard uniform. Those choosing to wear turbans and such are excluding themselves. I believe the US Military has standards for their uniforms, and everyone must be a part - are they excluding as well? But the more important question is, are the actions and standardizing of uniforms legal? I say yes, as the US military, a government ran operation, has been doing so for quite some time.

[tailfins]

A policy excluding them would be a policy stating that Sikhs couldn't be employed there. The policy is a standard uniform. Those choosing to wear turbans and such are excluding themselves. I believe the US Military has standards for their uniforms, and everyone must be a part - are they excluding as well? But the more important question is, are the actions and standardizing of uniforms legal? I say yes, as the US military, a government ran operation, has been doing so for quite some time.

Can a female cop wear a burka on the job? The purpose of a uniform is to visually identify someone as a cop. If this were allowed, could someone be charged for impersonating a police officer by wearing a turban?

[Noir]

Something that has to be asked is 'Why do the
Sikhs wear turbans'

This is a pretty comprehensive answer IMO

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/c78XrBvgBtM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>

In summery - Sikhs wear turbans to 'Stand out'. This is for several reasons; a) So they can be identified to be asked for help. b) It helps maintain high ideals. c) Because their Guru has told them to.

I don't see any reason as compelling, if you want to 'stand out' don't chose a job that requires uniformity.

[jimnyc]

Can a female cop wear a burka on the job? The purpose of a uniform is to visually identify someone as a cop. If this were allowed, could someone be charged for impersonating a police officer by wearing a turban?

Considering a burqa would literally cover their entire uniform - no, they cannot wear a burqa while in uniform. Maybe you meant a hijab? Well, an officer can still wear the cap with one of those:

http://i.imgur.com/AofHI.jpg

[Gaffer]

It's a public servant position. A turban would be promoting a religion, in this case, Sikh. So it would not be allowed.

[Thunderknuckles]

Good lord. It's time like these that I bemoan this nation for being the "melting pot" that it is. It used to be that immigrants came here and adopted the culture, language, etc.
Now, they all have some disposition that they feel must be accommodated.

It's a standard uniform. Accept it or look for employment elsewhere.

[fj1200]

A policy excluding them would be a policy stating that Sikhs couldn't be employed there. The policy is a standard uniform. Those choosing to wear turbans and such are excluding themselves. I believe the US Military has standards for their uniforms, and everyone must be a part - are they excluding as well? But the more important question is, are the actions and standardizing of uniforms legal? I say yes, as the US military, a government ran operation, has been doing so for quite some time.

And then there is a policy that excludes them by practice. There is a difference between allowing the individual beliefs to be accommodated within a standard uniform policy. The quote I pulled said that the military had recently changed its policy regarding Sikh's wearing turbans, I assume they meant the US military.

[fj1200]

It's a public servant position. A turban would be promoting a religion, in this case, Sikh. So it would not be allowed.

Congress has made no law establishing a religion and neither has the NYPD.

[jimnyc]

Congress has made no law establishing a religion and neither has the NYPD.

Can you point me to policy in other public servant jobs and police around the nation where burqas have been allowed, and full Christian attire like what a minister or priest would wear, and entire robe sets for the Muslim men who still dress in that fashion, and maybe a religious habit...

I would assume that if they make accommodations for one then obviously they should make them for all.

It's been held up time after time after time that employers are allowed to have a reasonable uniform policy that all employees must adhere to. If they can't adhere, then they can't work. It's as simple as that. No employer should have to change their entire policy for a handful of people, when it is NOT unreasonable to expect said people to adhere to policy.

[fj1200]

Can you point me to policy in other public servant jobs and police around the nation where burqas have been allowed, and full Christian attire like what a minister or priest would wear, and entire robe sets for the Muslim men who still dress in that fashion, and maybe a religious habit...

I would assume that if they make accommodations for one then obviously they should make them for all.

It's been held up time after time after time that employers are allowed to have a reasonable uniform policy that all employees must adhere to. If they can't adhere, then they can't work. It's as simple as that. No employer should have to change their entire policy for a handful of people, when it is NOT unreasonable to expect said people to adhere to policy.

Why are you switching to Burqas? There is already precedent for allowing Sikhs to wear turbans.

Washington DC Metro Police repealed their ban, and the MTA allows Sikhs to wear their turbans provided they affix the agency’s logo on top. The military has also recently changed their policies to allow Sikhs to wear turbans while serving. The NYPD has not said if it is open to repealing the ban, and says it does accommodate Sikhs by allowing them to wear a smaller turban commonly worn by Sikh children called a patka since it fits under the police uniform hat.

I have no problems with private employers having a uniform policy, that should be their right. Public agencies are a different matter.

[DragonStryk72]

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/new-calls-for-nypd-to-lift-turban-ban/article_ec885158-a356-58fd-adc2-73dafe92e955.html

I wanna talk about beards for a minute here. Why did we ban them? Used to be, even just back in the post Civil War era, that beards were just sort of assumed. Then suddenly, we ditched it for no adequately explained reason. I understand it somewhat in the military, where we have a realistic chance of being subject to gas attacks and need to be able to get a proper seal on the masks, which a beard prevents. But are you telling me that gas attacks against our police forces are so common that they need to be prepped to wear a mask, that they are not issued, at all times?

I can understand putting down some maintenance standards on the bear, so that nobody has a particularly ratty one and such, but some of our best generals have worn facial hair, so I don't see why it has to be tossed out wholesale.

As to the turban, please, like it's going to do more damage to the respect and awe of a policeman than this:

http://www.eatonvillenews.net/images/Bob/TOWN%20COP%20ON%20BIKE%20%28OP%202%29%20JUNE%2023, %202006%20004.jpg

[tailfins]

Why are you switching to Burqas? There is already precedent for allowing Sikhs to wear turbans.


I have no problems with private employers having a uniform policy, that should be their right. Public agencies are a different matter.

It boils down to what is a turban. Is there a headwear design that fits both the specifications of a police uniform and the specifications of a turban?

[DragonStryk72]

It boils down to what is a turban. Is there a headwear design that fits both the specifications of a police uniform and the specifications of a turban?

Believe it or not... There is. It's made of a police blue material, with a small badge front and center of the turban. Apparently, you can even get them made of kevlar. Yeah, bulletproof turbans, they're a thing.

http://www.sikhnet.com/files/news/2011/6-June/RajBirk.jpg

Took me a min to find a halfway decent pic.

[jimnyc]

Believe it or not... There is. It's made of a police blue material, with a small badge front and center of the turban. Apparently, you can even get them made of kevlar. Yeah, bulletproof turbans, they're a thing.

http://www.sikhnet.com/files/news/2011/6-June/RajBirk.jpg

Took me a min to find a halfway decent pic.

I believe that is non-American. If that's how they do it elsewhere, so be it, but when coming to America, and joining an American force, they should adhere to America's standards and policies.

[Abbey Marie]

Congress has made no law establishing a religion and neither has the NYPD.

I'm glad you understand that it is not the separation of state and religion that is required. If only more people and the courts could grasp the concept.

As for the Sikhs, put them all on undercover assignment. They will blend in pretty well in NYC. :laugh2:

[fj1200]

It boils down to what is a turban. Is there a headwear design that fits both the specifications of a police uniform and the specifications of a turban?

I'm sure there is, it's not like there aren't any Muslim or Sikh police officers anywhere on the planet.


The written change is said to be the first of its kind for a major metropolitan police force, though other law enforcement agencies have less formal arrangements, according to the Associated Press (http://online.wsj.com/article/AP5b9030e006664bd2990cb6ca6df9e9e7.html).
Under the new rules, Sikh officers are permitted to tie their beard in a knot and tuck it beneath their chin and wear a uniform-matching turban at all times unless it conflicts with duty requiring them to wear a helmet, such as when responding to a riot. The policy will also allow officers to wear other religious items such as steel bracelets around their wrists and small decorative swords under their clothing, the Washington Post reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-police-to-allow-sikh-officers-to-wear-beards-religious-items-on-job/2012/05/16/gIQAlNweUU_story.html).
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/d-c-police-to-allow-sikh-officers-to-wear-full-beards-and-turbans-on-the-job/

[Abbey Marie]

I wanna talk about beards for a minute here. Why did we ban them? Used to be, even just back in the post Civil War era, that beards were just sort of assumed. Then suddenly, we ditched it for no adequately explained reason. I understand it somewhat in the military, where we have a realistic chance of being subject to gas attacks and need to be able to get a proper seal on the masks, which a beard prevents. But are you telling me that gas attacks against our police forces are so common that they need to be prepped to wear a mask, that they are not issued, at all times?

I can understand putting down some maintenance standards on the bear, so that nobody has a particularly ratty one and such, but some of our best generals have worn facial hair, so I don't see why it has to be tossed out wholesale.

As to the turban, please, like it's going to do more damage to the respect and awe of a policeman than this:

http://www.eatonvillenews.net/images/Bob/TOWN%20COP%20ON%20BIKE%20%28OP%202%29%20JUNE%2023, %202006%20004.jpg

I don't know the official reason for the no-beards policy, but I could guess that you don't want your officers to have something so convenient for criminals to grab on to and gain an advantage up close? Or perhaps it is just to make them look more similar and/or neat. Same thing with long hair, right?

[gabosaurus]

Are members of NYPD allowed to wear a Yarmulke?

[logroller]

I believe that is non-American. If that's how they do it elsewhere, so be it, but when coming to America, and joining an American force, they should adhere to America's standards and policies.
that almost sounds like you believe Sikhs are non- American? I know what you meant, its not a uniform in America. But why couldn't it be? Standards and policies can be changed to accomodate indivuality with compromising the rationale behind uniforms. The issue as I see it anyways, is rather the cultural expression of the individual detracts from the official position the uniform represents. That's why uniforms are worn, right-- to readily convey official status?
a cop is still a cop without a uniform, but its not as apparent. Detectives don't wear uniforms, they're still peace officers, but executing their job doesn't require them to be readily identified. So does a turban prevent an officer from being readily identified as an officer?

As to the beard issue-- I know that fireman for example, can't have facial hair because it would interfere with the proper fit of respiration gear; perhaps the same rationale might apply to police who may be required to wear a gas mask.
Interestingly, the engineer (driver) isn't required to adhere to that standard because they need FIT test for the position-- so you can always tell them apart --they almost always have facial hair.

[Abbey Marie]

that almost sounds like you believe Sikhs are non- American? I know what you meant, its not a uniform in America. But why couldn't it be? Standards and policies can be changed to accomodate indivuality with compromising the rationale behind uniforms. The issue as I see it anyways, is rather the cultural expression of the individual detracts from the official position the uniform represents. That's why uniforms are worn, right-- to readily convey official status?
a cop is still a cop without a uniform, but its not as apparent. Detectives don't wear uniforms, they're still peace officers, but executing their job doesn't require them to be readily identified. So does a turban prevent an officer from being readily identified as an officer?

As to the beard issue-- I know that fireman for example, can't have facial hair because it would interfere with the proper fit of respiration gear; perhaps the same rationale might apply to police who may be required to wear a gas mask.
Interestingly, the engineer (driver) isn't required to adhere to that standard because they need FIT test for the position-- so you can always tell them apart --they almost always have facial hair.

How do you feel about observant Jews having the right to have off every Sabbath?

[jimnyc]

that almost sounds like you believe Sikhs are non- American? I know what you meant, its not a uniform in America. But why couldn't it be? Standards and policies can be changed to accomodate indivuality with compromising the rationale behind uniforms. The issue as I see it anyways, is rather the cultural expression of the individual detracts from the official position the uniform represents. That's why uniforms are worn, right-- to readily convey official status?
a cop is still a cop without a uniform, but its not as apparent. Detectives don't wear uniforms, they're still peace officers, but executing their job doesn't require them to be readily identified. So does a turban prevent an officer from being readily identified as an officer?

As to the beard issue-- I know that fireman for example, can't have facial hair because it would interfere with the proper fit of respiration gear; perhaps the same rationale might apply to police who may be required to wear a gas mask.
Interestingly, the engineer (driver) isn't required to adhere to that standard because they need FIT test for the position-- so you can always tell them apart --they almost always have facial hair.

I think it's about being in a UNIFORM, and officers should appear the same as their fellow officers. No different than military uniforms, also government/state ran, no? Are Sikhs allowed to bypass the uniform and cutting of the hair when going to basic? Do they get to represent themselves differently than their fellow soldiers?

The police and the military have uniforms for a reason, and it's for more than what the public sees, it's also about uniformity within the ranks with your equals and ensuring everyone gets the same treatment and part of a cohesive team.

Should the military start making changes? Perhaps allowing Muslim women to wear a burqa and bypass wearing a uniform in it's entirety? You can't very well wear a uniform AND a burqa. And if you're going to "accommodate" one religion, how can you deny another?

[jimnyc]

that almost sounds like you believe Sikhs are non- American?

My point about the Americans was that 1) that constable in that picture, and the logo, makes me think it is British 2) Traditionally speaking, Sikhism comes from India. While most certainly if they are born here, they are as American as I am, but we BOTH should adhere to what American wants and stands for, not for what is rooted in India.

[logroller]

How do you feel about observant Jews having the right to have off every Sabbath?
Absolutely, so long as its not paid. same way i feel i should get to take my wedding anniversary off. Do you think I should be penalized for that?


I think it's about being in a UNIFORM, and officers should appear the same as their fellow officers. No different than military uniforms, also government/state ran, no? Are Sikhs allowed to bypass the uniform and cutting of the hair when going to basic? Do they get to represent themselves differently than their fellow soldiers?

The police and the military have uniforms for a reason, and it's for more than what the public sees, it's also about uniformity within the ranks with your equals and ensuring everyone gets the same treatment and part of a cohesive team.

Should the military start making changes? Perhaps allowing Muslim women to wear a burqa and bypass wearing a uniform in it's entirety? You can't very well wear a uniform AND a burqa. And if you're going to "accommodate" one religion, how can you deny another?

So if the department made the uniform where everybody had a turban, that'd be fine with you.

[jimnyc]

So if the department made the uniform where everybody had a turban, that'd be fine with you.

Forcing someone to wear a religious garb & forcing employees to wear non-religious uniforms are 2 entirely different things.

[logroller]

Forcing someone to wear a religious garb & forcing employees to wear non-religious uniforms are 2 entirely different things.
Simple question: why do officers wear uniforms?

[jimnyc]

I think it's about being in a UNIFORM, and officers should appear the same as their fellow officers. No different than military uniforms, also government/state ran, no? Are Sikhs allowed to bypass the uniform and cutting of the hair when going to basic? Do they get to represent themselves differently than their fellow soldiers?

The police and the military have uniforms for a reason, and it's for more than what the public sees, it's also about uniformity within the ranks with your equals and ensuring everyone gets the same treatment and part of a cohesive team.

Should the military start making changes? Perhaps allowing Muslim women to wear a burqa and bypass wearing a uniform in it's entirety? You can't very well wear a uniform AND a burqa. And if you're going to "accommodate" one religion, how can you deny another?


Simple question: why do officers wear uniforms?

I believe I already gave my answer on that. I'll ask you - why are those in the military all forced to have their heads shaved and wear identical uniforms?

[jimnyc]

Simple question: why do officers wear uniforms?

I'd also like to add the very definition of "uniform to my answer:


1. identical or consistent, as from example to example, place to place, or moment to moment: uniform spelling (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spelling); a uniform building code.


2. without variations in detail: uniform output; a uniform surface.


3. constant; unvarying; undeviating: uniform kindness; uniform velocity.

[Abbey Marie]

Absolutely, so long as its not paid. same way i feel i should get to take my wedding anniversary off. Do you think I should be penalized for that?



So if the department made the uniform where everybody had a turban, that'd be fine with you.

So, from a scheduling pov, you equate a once-a-year day off with a weekly day off. I doubt you'll find a manager who agrees with that.

[logroller]

I think it's about being in a UNIFORM, and officers should appear the same as their fellow officers. No different than military uniforms, also government/state ran, no? Are Sikhs allowed to bypass the uniform and cutting of the hair when going to basic? Do they get to represent themselves differently than their fellow soldiers?

The police and the military have uniforms for a reason, and it's for more than what the public sees, it's also about uniformity within the ranks with your equals and ensuring everyone gets the same treatment and part of a cohesive team.

Should the military start making changes? Perhaps allowing Muslim women to wear a burqa and bypass wearing a uniform in it's entirety? You can't very well wear a uniform AND a burqa. And if you're going to "accommodate" one religion, how can you deny another?
ok jJim. Than why do undercover officers not wear uniforms or detectives not wear uniforms? Are they not equals, are they not part of the cohesive team?
Btw- your definition was for an adjective, not a noun.
Uniform(n)NounThe distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools. (Google)
n.
1. A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.
2. One set of such an outfit. (Free online dictionary)

Main Entry: 3uniform
Function: noun
Date: 1748
: dress of a distinctive design or fashion worn by members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification; broadly : distinctive or characteristic clothing (iword.com /idictionary)


1. the distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools:
airline pilots in dark blue uniforms
[mass noun]:
an officer in uniform (oxforddictionaries)


so tell me, does the picture of the officer in a turban not look distinctive, distuishing her as an officer?

Do they shave the heads of the females in the military???

[logroller]

So, from a scheduling pov, you equate a once-a-year day off with a weekly day off. I doubt you'll find a manager who agrees with that.

Well I have 52 wives. :laugh:

Seriously though, a manager wouldn't agree to that one day. I requested it and had it denied; told him wouldn't be thereand was written up upon return no call no show; quit 3 months later.
But from a scheduling POV, people usually get one day off per week anyways. Why does it necessarily have to be a Sunday-- the traditional Christian day of religious observance perhaps?

[jimnyc]

ok jJim. Than why do undercover officers not wear uniforms or detectives not wear uniforms? Are they not equals, are they not part of the cohesive team?
Btw- your definition was for an adjective, not a noun.
Uniform(n)NounThe distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools. (Google)
n.
1. A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.
2. One set of such an outfit. (Free online dictionary)

Main Entry: 3uniform
Function: noun
Date: 1748
: dress of a distinctive design or fashion worn by members of a particular group and serving as a means of identification; broadly : distinctive or characteristic clothing (iword.com /idictionary)


1. the distinctive clothing worn by members of the same organization or body or by children attending certain schools:
airline pilots in dark blue uniforms
[mass noun]:
an officer in uniform (oxforddictionaries)


so tell me, does the picture of the officer in a turban not look distinctive, distuishing her as an officer?

Do they shave the heads of the females in the military???

The detectives are different than police officers, but generally are also of a cohesive unit. Their dress is different of course based on strategical need to have anonymity to be successful at their jobs. That was a sucky attempt, no offense!

Take whatever definition you like, from the beginning of time, uniforms were used to make people members of a distinct group, for uniformity. A person with a turban simply looks distinctively DIFFERENT than the rest of the unit and cannot wear the police issued cap. At best case scenario, not available in the majority of precincts, they would have to wear special gear that 99% of the unit does not. I'd love to see you claim that the US Marines should also allow turban wearers. And I see very little difference between them and police officers when it comes to uniforms, discipline and everyone needing to adhere to the same rules as one another. They are looking for an accommodation for something they CHOOSE to wear.

AGAIN - IF they allow this - should they then allow Muslim women to wear full burqas, which would likely cover the entire uniform? And if not, why extend an accommodation to one that isn't a religious requirement, and deny an accommodation to another that would be a religious requirement?

[Gaffer]

The police wear uniforms so they can be easily identified by the public and each other. The uniforms are identical for that same purpose. Hats are worn for that purpose as well. It helps to identify an officer in a crowd or at a distance.

Detectives usually wear suits or sports coats. Ties are optional but will always be clip on types. Hair length is also optional, depending on the officers vanity. But it can be used against him.

Beards are not allowed because gas masks sometimes need to be worn and you never know when they might be necessary.

Undercover officers dress for the occasion. They have to blend in and be part of the crowd.

[DragonStryk72]

I believe that is non-American. If that's how they do it elsewhere, so be it, but when coming to America, and joining an American force, they should adhere to America's standards and policies.

And why can't we make any changes to those policies for a cosmetic issue? There is no reason to deny it other than "It's against regulations", but our whole history is swarming with people changing regulations that they believe to be wrong, or that need to be more inclusively.

Disclaimer: I am in no way shape or form endorsing wearing a burka in a police force. That thing is an actual hazard in the field. A beard and a turban? Well, the hat and clean shave or moustache is just a fashion point, so why not loosen it a little bit?

[Nell's Room]

I don't see anything wrong with them wearing a turban, as long as the public can ID them as cops, it shouldn't matter.

[DragonStryk72]

The police wear uniforms so they can be easily identified by the public and each other. The uniforms are identical for that same purpose. Hats are worn for that purpose as well. It helps to identify an officer in a crowd or at a distance.

Detectives usually wear suits or sports coats. Ties are optional but will always be clip on types. Hair length is also optional, depending on the officers vanity. But it can be used against him.

Beards are not allowed because gas masks sometimes need to be worn and you never know when they might be necessary.

Undercover officers dress for the occasion. They have to blend in and be part of the crowd.

Except, as posted previously, gas masks are not issued on the day-to-day basis, and are not even kept in the officers' vehicles, which means that, in the event of a CBR attack, they're either not in the area, or already fucked. Sure, on a Navy ship, we've got a fighting chance, since we have airtight bulkheads doors and filtration systems to control the flow of air, as well our CBR gear being kept on hand for the emergencies, but NYC? Not quite so well equipped for it.

Police officers also wear multiple different uniforms, just like the military, so why is the addition of just a different type of hat and a beard so jarring? Why allow moustaches then, shouldn't that throw it off as well, since it's half a beard?

Also, are we really going to argue that gas attacks are more likely here than they are in Afghanistan, Iran, or Iraq?

[SassyLady]

If you don't like the dress code, then don't apply to work there.

[DragonStryk72]

If you don't like the dress code, then don't apply to work there.

Generally, I'd agree with this, except that it's a religious thing for them. They want the job, but basically, it's like telling you or we have to go piss on a church every Sunday in order to join the force.

As well, the dress change would be minor at worst. I'd much rather have more capable police officers in the field, than adhere to a single point of fashion statement.



Also, on an engineering standpoint separate of replies, gas masks are horribly designed. You could get a proper seal, protect the neck, AND allow for the fashionable goatee if you just made the mask go down the neck, and tuck under the shirt collar. God I hated those things in the Navy.

Wore em dozens of times, and it just sucked every single time. You have no idea how frustrating it is to be an engineer, and have to continually use an item that is of inferior design and make. Grrr...

[SassyLady]

Generally, I'd agree with this, except that it's a religious thing for them. They want the job, but basically, it's like telling you or we have to go piss on a church every Sunday in order to join the force.

As well, the dress change would be minor at worst. I'd much rather have more capable police officers in the field, than adhere to a single point of fashion statement.



So, are they being discriminated against because of their religion ...... or is it just enforcing a policy?

I don't think I want a religion involved in dress codes. What if my religion said I can't wear pants .... but I want to be in the military, or be a policeman, or be firefighter. Should I be allowed to wear a dress in these professions?

[logroller]

The detectives are different than police officers, but generally are also of a cohesive unit. Their dress is different of course based on strategical need to have anonymity to be successful at their jobs. That was a sucky attempt, no offense!
None taken. I'm actually quite pleased.
You admit detectives have unit cohesion without uniforms; disproving the necessity you set forth saying--


The police and the military have uniforms for a reason, and it's for more than what the public sees, it's also about uniformity within the ranks with your equals and ensuring everyone gets the same treatment and part of a cohesive team.

So what if everyone gets to wear the head covering they desire, they are getting the same treatment. You don't think that, within the ranks, officers don't know who is a detective, a sergeant, a captain or a chief without their uniforms signifying such? Their shields say so, that's all that's required for internal recognition. Cops are trained to observe such details. Training and serving together is what builds a cohesive team, regardless of the type of hat they wear.

Now I'm not sure if you were addressing the undercover cop issue; but I assume that's what you were referring to by strategic anonymity-- and you'r right-- they don't wear uniforms because they don't want to stand out, they want to blend in. Uniforms would distinguish them. Detectives do stick out, at least to me. I pay attention to things like a sidearm and shield. Not exactly anon. Detectives don't wear a uniform because they aren't patrol officers; so they don't usually respond to service calls which would require them to be readily identified as a peace officer. There are times where a detective would need to be readily identified, like in a forced entry situation. They would probably wear a vest that says "POLICE" on it, and perhaps have their shield on a lanyard rather than on their belt....because they need to be readily identified, not by their peers, but by the public.


Take whatever definition you like, from the beginning of time, uniforms were used to make people members of a distinct group, for uniformity. A person with a turban simply looks distinctively DIFFERENT than the rest of the unit and cannot wear the police issued cap. At best case scenario, not available in the majority of precincts, they would have to wear special gear that 99% of the unit does not.

I provided a definition from 1748, before our nation existed, so I believe that's a satisfactory definition of what 'a uniform' is for sake of modern policy discussion. But nonetheless, from the beginning of time, uniforms don't make someone a member of a distinct group for uniformity, it identifies them as such. A soldier in the Army is a soldier in the Army even when not in uniform. From the beginning of time it was necessary to distinguish friend from foe-- uniforms enabled this.

In the picture below, I can tell this is a police officer. A friend to good citizens, and a foe to criminals. Do you disagree?

http://www.sikhnet.com/files/news/2011/6-June/RajBirk.jpg


BTW-- NYPD doesn't issue uniforms, nor caps, they provide an allowance and the officers buy their own. It works out better that way since the officers take better care of their own stuff. I believe they even buy their own weapons for the same reason.


I'd love to see you claim that the US Marines should also allow turban wearers. And I see very little difference between them and police officers when it comes to uniforms, discipline and everyone needing to adhere to the same rules as one another. They are looking for an accommodation for something they CHOOSE to wear.

AGAIN - IF they allow this - should they then allow Muslim women to wear full burqas, which would likely cover the entire uniform? And if not, why extend an accommodation to one that isn't a religious requirement, and deny an accommodation to another that would be a religious requirement?

A- we're talking about peace officers, not the military. They have distinctly different missions and tactical concerns. For example, might a turban increase the silhouette and make them an easier target or prevent them from taking concealment, possibly giving away a position? I don't know for sure, but it is possible and I would consider those risks when deciding whether turbans should be accommodated.
B- burqas, why not....provided they wouldn't interfere with the execution of their duties. I think they would personally. Running, for one, might be more difficult in a long dress. Climbing a fence another. The face covering part makes identifying the person difficult, and maybe that isn't really required if they have a name and badge number visible; but I think it would put a lot of people off not being able to see her face...so I'd say no toburqas for a patrol officer. Though I'm sure they could fulfill some other duties under special circumstances. But as a regular beat cop, no.


If you don't like the dress code, then don't apply to work there.

My mom was really gifted in math and science. She was consistently at the top of her class throughout her college career, culminating with a doctorate. She really wanted to be an engineer, but at the time it was a forbidden for a professional women to wear pants. Being an engineer required one to be able to do field work, which required the wearing of pants. She was told by her professors that she could an engineering degree, but she couldn't get a job; so she'd best get a female- friendly job like teaching. My mom told me that story so many times, she might as well of ended with walking uphill both ways in the snow; but I realize just how much it hurt her to be practically forbidden from a job she not only wanted, but would have been really good at.

Women being required to wear dresses, that's just dumb. Quite frankly, Sikh's being required to wear turbans is equally dumb IMO. However, I believe all people have a right, within reason, to express themselves however they wish, including dress, and shouldn't face exclusion from employment based on something as trivial as what kind of hat they wear. I've seen cops that have the traditional simple brim, the smokey style full brim, a cowboy hat like the texas rangers, a stocking cap with ear flaps, and I've seen quite a few without their head covered at all-- so there's clearly a range of what qualifies as a uniform.

[SassyLady]

My mom was really gifted in math and science. She was consistently at the top of her class throughout her college career, culminating with a doctorate. She really wanted to be an engineer, but at the time it was a forbidden for a professional women to wear pants. Being an engineer required one to be able to do field work, which required the wearing of pants. She was told by her professors that she could an engineering degree, but she couldn't get a job; so she'd best get a female- friendly job like teaching. My mom told me that story so many times, she might as well of ended with walking uphill both ways in the snow; but I realize just how much it hurt her to be practically forbidden from a job she not only wanted, but would have been really good at.

Women being required to wear dresses, that's just dumb. Quite frankly, Sikh's being required to wear turbans is equally dumb IMO. However, I believe all people have a right, within reason, to express themselves however they wish, including dress, and shouldn't face exclusion from employment based on something as trivial as what kind of hat they wear. I've seen cops that have the traditional simple brim, the smokey style full brim, a cowboy hat like the texas rangers, a stocking cap with ear flaps, and I've seen quite a few without their head covered at all-- so there's clearly a range of what qualifies as a uniform.

Women who belong to a religion that doesn't allow them to wear pants will still not be allowed in specific industries. I know it sucks ... but they chose their religion and have to understand that it will preclude them from having certain types of jobs.

Girls were not allowed to wear pants to school until a few years after I graduated. I walked to the bus stop in the freezing cold wearing a dress with a coat over it. My brothers had the privilege of wearing pants.

My first two jobs (large corporations) .... not allowed to wear pants. And, when we were allowed to start wearing pants a few years later, it was those stupid pantsuits. I personally think it had to do with the mini-skirt era.....we were allowed to wear pants because the powers to be (men) liked the mini-skirt. :laugh:

[DragonStryk72]

So, are they being discriminated against because of their religion ...... or is it just enforcing a policy?

I don't think I want a religion involved in dress codes. What if my religion said I can't wear pants .... but I want to be in the military, or be a policeman, or be firefighter. Should I be allowed to wear a dress in these professions?

Actually, pants are, believe it or not, a serious safety. Note that I discounted the use of the burka for the same reason. In a fire, exposed legs won't be functional anymore (Which with yours would just be a crime against nature), and on a Navy Ship, the non-skid would rip all the skin off your legs. Pants serve a function to the job. The kevlar turbans even serve a better function than the regular police officer covers, without compromising safety, and still looking professional.

With beards, as long as they're appropriately maintain (such as my rather well-groomed goatee), they still look professional.

Blindly adhering to policies that exclude solid candidates is not helping the police force one bit. I'm not saying just let everyone come in however they wanna look, far from it. I actually miss my old denims from when I was in the Navy, but I don't see how one precludes the other, aside from a general dislike of changing even a single line of long held regulations.

[SassyLady]

Does their religion preclude them from killing someone in the line of duty? I find it odd that their religion dictates what they wear, but allows them to take another's life. I would definitely not want to partner with someone that had second thoughts about using their weapon.

[DragonStryk72]

Does their religion preclude them from killing someone in the line of duty? I find it odd that their religion dictates what they wear, but allows them to take another's life.

lol, so does ours, hasn't really stopped us yet, now has it?

[SassyLady]

lol, so does ours, hasn't really stopped us yet, now has it?

Nope .... but, then again, I'm not religious. Precisely because I don't want to be dictated to about how to live my life.

[taft2012]

ok jJim. Than why do undercover officers not wear uniforms or detectives not wear uniforms?


Undercovers and detectives *DO* wear uniforms at times, and at those times they are required to meet uniform standards. Beards off, hair not touching the collar, etc.

[taft2012]

As well, the dress change would be minor at worst. "Minor"??? NYC police officers wearing turbans would be a "minor" uniform change? Why don't we have a pilot project in the Navy first? You guys can work all day alongside, and go on shore leave with guys in white cotton loincloths and turbans. We've seen what you guys do when you cross the equator and the international date line, so we know uniform appearance isn't terribly important to you.

[logroller]

Undercovers and detectives *DO* wear uniforms at times, and at those times they are required to meet uniform standards. Beards off, hair not touching the collar, etc.

keep it up in a turban.:coffee:

interesting study on grooming standards here:

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=152&issue_id=112003



<tbody>

<tbody>
Table 3

Public Opinion of Police and Grooming Standards*



Statement
% Agree
% Disagree
% No Opinion


1. Police are a symbol of justice
95

5


2. A uniformed police officer should be governed by strict grooming standards
87
4
9


3. The public view of the police is shaped by their appearance
86
4
10


4. I believe diversity within the force would be enhanced if grooming standards were relaxed
20
56
24


* N = 97, and given population size of 112,000 the margin of error is plus or minus 10 at a 95 percent confidence level. All figures rounded.

</tbody>


<tbody>
Table 4

Public Opinion of Consequences of Allowing Officers to Deviate from Strict Grooming Standards*



Consequence Presented
% Agree
% Disagree
% No Opinion


1. Public respect for the police would drop
88
2
10


2. I would have less pride in the police
79
8
13


3. The public would have less pride in the police
78
4
18


4. I would have less respect for the police
77
9
14


5. Public trust in the police would drop
76
7
17


6. I would trust the police less
66
11
23


* N = 97, and given population size of 112,000 the margin of error is plus or minus 10 at a 95 percent confidence level. All figures rounded.

</tbody>






From The Police Chief, vol. 70, no. 11, November 2003. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.



</tbody>

[fj1200]

interesting study on grooming standards here:

I think it's a misnomer to say allowing a diversity of uniforms is relaxing grooming​ standards.

[jimnyc]

So if one religion has been granted an accommodation on religious basis - then burqas should be allowed, habits, robes and any other religious wear by anyone who chooses to join. I'm confident these other folks can tie in their robes and outfits to make them safer, and just pop a logo on the portions just above their heads. There is a place for a badge on every dress wear in all religions that I can think of. It'll look a tad odd wearing a full burqa, tied in of course so that movement is possible, and will certainly be far safer than the 250-400lb cops I see bouncing around the streets now! And a nun wearing a full habit, just pop the badge/logo in the front. The force will look a little different, just as it would with turbans, but at least we'll equally be allowing folks to wear their religious attire.

[logroller]

So if one religion has been granted an accommodation on religious basis - then burqas should be allowed, habits, robes and any other religious wear by anyone who chooses to join. I'm confident these other folks can tie in their robes and outfits to make them safer, and just pop a logo on the portions just above their heads. There is a place for a badge on every dress wear in all religions that I can think of. It'll look a tad odd wearing a full burqa, tied in of course so that movement is possible, and will certainly be far safer than the 250-400lb cops I see bouncing around the streets now! And a nun wearing a full habit, just pop the badge/logo in the front. The force will look a little different, just as it would with turbans, but at least we'll equally be allowing folks to wear their religious attire.

it need be a "reasonable accommodation"; You're just being facetious.

[jimnyc]

it need be a "reasonable accommodation"; You're just being facetious.

So it's reasonable for a Sikh to wear a Turban, but unreasonable for a Muslim to wear a tied down burqa, or a Nun to wear a habit, or for a Muslim man to wear a tied down robe? I don't see how these other religions, so long as their religious attire is secured down and movement is available and safe, should be treated any differently than other religions. If you bend and make changes to policy for one religion, we should also be willing to bend and find accommodations for other religions.

[logroller]

I think it's a misnomer to say allowing a diversity of uniforms is relaxing grooming​ standards.

I couldn't find anything on a headwear survey. It did say the appearance of a uniform changed opinions drastically; that even a tattooed ear-pierced sasquatch would receive a heightened public opinion thanks to a uniform....I'm paraphrasing, of course.:laugh:

[logroller]

So it's reasonable for a Sikh to wear a Turban, but unreasonable for a Muslim to wear a tied down burqa, or a Nun to wear a habit, or for a Muslim man to wear a tied down robe? I don't see how these other religions, so long as their religious attire is secured down and movement is available and safe, should be treated any differently than other religions. If you bend and make changes to policy for one religion, we should also be willing to bend and find accommodations for other religions.


Do you seriously believe a cop could do their job in a robe or dress as effectively as in pants?

[jimnyc]

Do you seriously believe a cop could do their job in a robe or dress as effectively as in pants?

I tied down robe such as what Muslim men wear, or a tethered burqa for the women, would be no different than sweatpants. Tie it down at the ankles for no tripping, just below the knees, the waist level and have it designed like the turban, where it will have a collar or such making the neck area proper. Then they wear the hijab style top allowing for the wearing of the cap. Same with all of the other religious attire for every religion, each can easily be designed in a fashion where it would be comfortable but also safe. None of them would prohibit wearing the police belt and all that comes with it, a badge and cap. I see no reason why one should be accommodated and another not, so long as the attire can be designed to be safe for the officer, and the belt with utilities and logo/badge worn at the top for identification. I think the force will look a little silly with everyone looking different, but at least one religion only won't be getting accommodated.

[Abbey Marie]

Well I have 52 wives. :laugh:

Seriously though, a manager wouldn't agree to that one day. I requested it and had it denied; told him wouldn't be thereand was written up upon return no call no show; quit 3 months later.
But from a scheduling POV, people usually get one day off per week anyways. Why does it necessarily have to be a Sunday-- the traditional Christian day of religious observance perhaps?

In jobs like policing, which is the topic at hand, there is no traditional day off. They work 24/7, 365 days a year. Asking for every Saturday off would be burdensome to the force, to say the least.

[Abbey Marie]

If you don't like the dress code, then don't apply to work there.

Sums it up perfectly.
:beer:

[fj1200]

"Tough luck" is not exactly a positive solution but surely 'tis a thumbs up for white-bread America.

[jimnyc]

"Tough luck" is not exactly a positive solution but surely 'tis a thumbs up for white-bread America.

Excellent reply!!!

[Abbey Marie]

"Tough luck" is not exactly a positive solution but surely 'tis a thumbs up for white-bread America.

Uniform dress codes are white bread now? I wonder how the armies and police forces in Asia, Africa and South America would feel about that.

[fj1200]

Uniform dress codes are white bread now? I wonder how the armies and police forces in Asia, Africa and South America would feel about that.

They might say wheat bread but when you are intractably against policies that would accept diversity...

There is something to be said for being inclusive and having a force that "looks like" those it polices.

[jafar00]

Police women in Asia don't have a problem and are not looked upon as being lesser than their male counterparts just because they wear a hijab.

Actually, they look smart/baddass.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lIlojMYK6_k/SYv2UMewD8I/AAAAAAAAAGM/BEdBNuXsJNM/s320/IMG_2648-1.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2527928553_2f08bfcf96.jpg

[fj1200]

What, no burqa-clad Muslim policewomen? :poke:

[jimnyc]

What, no burqa-clad Muslim policewomen? :poke:

What, no more useless comments that add nothing to the discussion? Oh, wait a minute...

[jimnyc]

Wow, who would have thunk it, head scarves and full attire, even using automatic weapons. But, they're muslims, and while this may be possible in another country, can't have it here! Only give into certain religions, this would be too far, and besides, we should only placate some and not others.

http://guitarguy.de/wp-content/uploads/muslim-police-woman-i1.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

I don't see anything wrong with them wearing a turban, as long as the public can ID them as cops, it shouldn't matter.

Should we allow Muslim cops to pull over several times a day, get out of their police car, and kneel towards Mecca?

[Abbey Marie]

Wow, who would have thunk it, head scarves and full attire, even using automatic weapons. But, they're muslims, and while this may be possible in another country, can't have it here! Only give into certain religions, this would be too far, and besides, we should only placate some and not others.

http://guitarguy.de/wp-content/uploads/muslim-police-woman-i1.jpg

Judging by the gender of these officers (?), no one will care if they trip over themselves and get killed. They are completely expendable.

[jimnyc]

Judging by the gender of these officers (?), no one will care if they trip over themselves and get killed. They are completely expendable.

LOL

I'm just showing, that it IS possible for women and burqas to be policewomen, which they are doing here, even titled by the picture I linked to. And they don't even have their outfits tethered at all. If we are going to make accommodations for other religions, then I think we need to make accommodations for all religions. The ONLY point would be ensuring that the outfit is visible as a police officer, and that it is safe. Logos and badges are quite simple to adhere, and tethering of the outfit to ensure the ability to run and what not would also be simple.

Am I advocating such? Of course not. But this is what the force would eventually look like if you toss out standards and one by one start changing UNIFORMITY to placate religious attire.

[007]

I don't know the official reason for the no-beards policy, but I could guess that you don't want your officers to have something so convenient for criminals to grab on to and gain an advantage up close? Or perhaps it is just to make them look more similar and/or neat. Same thing with long hair, right?
the beard policy has something to do with the need to wear a respirator during a potential gas attack, the beard prevents the mask creating a tight seal against the skin.

Seikh tradition requires that they engage in public service, many join the military in their respective countries, large numbers become police officers.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Police women in Asia don't have a problem and are not looked upon as being lesser than their male counterparts just because they wear a hijab.
The ones in the group picture look like soldiers instead of police. What country/city are they officers in?--Tyr

Actually, they look smart/baddass.

How do we know what duties they perform, could be thats just a publicity photo and they have no ideal how to use those weapons. PERHAPS THEY SERVE AS JANITORS /COOKS IN THE POLICE STATIONS THERE.
Where is your link to the photos?-Tyr




http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lIlojMYK6_k/SYv2UMewD8I/AAAAAAAAAGM/BEdBNuXsJNM/s320/IMG_2648-1.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2325/2527928553_2f08bfcf96.jpg

Really, ordinary cops with machine guns? Look to be either military trained or maybe a staged photo.

Where is the link??????-Tyr

[tailfins]

Really, ordinary cops with machine guns? Look to be either military trained or maybe a staged photo.

Where is the link??????-Tyr


If you want to see ordinary cops with machine guns, just visit Rio de Janeiro. If it matters, I haven't studied enough to have an opinion on this matter. I suspect this turban issue has lots of moving parts, in spite of the turban itself not having moving parts.

[007]

Wow, who would have thunk it, head scarves and full attire, even using automatic weapons. But, they're muslims, and while this may be possible in another country, can't have it here! Only give into certain religions, this would be too far, and besides, we should only placate some and not others.

http://guitarguy.de/wp-content/uploads/muslim-police-woman-i1.jpg
Placate?
siekhs have a long and proud tradition if service to their countries.
you may be confusing them with Moslems!
they are not Moslems.

[jimnyc]

Placate?
siekhs have a long and proud tradition if service to their countries.
you may be confusing them with Moslems!
they are not Moslems.

So your answer is that we should accommodate the Sikh religion, because of their traditions and prior service to their countries, but we should ignore any possible accommodations to Muslims? Personally, I think we should accommodate none, or accommodate all, but picking and choosing is a hell of a lot worse than not accommodating any.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If you want to see ordinary cops with machine guns, just visit Rio de Janeiro. If it matters, I haven't studied enough to have an opinion on this matter. I suspect this turban issue has lots of moving parts, in spite of the turban itself not having moving parts.

Bull, I was told when first posting here that links are required when listing evidence from others. I did not ask to see ordinary cops with machineguns, I asked for the link to the pics he used!
What, Jafar is to be held above such standards here??
Well you havent studied enough, them study more if you want to keep up. Nothing like a fool speaking and not knowing what the ffkk he is talking about.-Tyr

[logroller]

LOL

I'm just showing, that it IS possible for women and burqas to be policewomen, which they are doing here, even titled by the picture I linked to. And they don't even have their outfits tethered at all. If we are going to make accommodations for other religions, then I think we need to make accommodations for all religions. The ONLY point would be ensuring that the outfit is visible as a police officer, and that it is safe. Logos and badges are quite simple to adhere, and tethering of the outfit to ensure the ability to run and what not would also be simple.

Am I advocating such? Of course not. But this is what the force would eventually look like if you toss out standards and one by one start changing UNIFORMITY to placate religious attire.

And that they could actually perform the tasks of the job....so discernible markings, safe, and able to do their job.....that's actually THREE points.

And I strongly disagree about the ease by which it could be tethered and made safe. I would have to see proof. And that picture isn't proof of anything but their lack of safety. Top reason- don't point a weapon at something you're not willing to destroy...which they clearly are in the picture you posted-- at one another no less. SO apparently they don't care about each other? Odd for a police force...not going to go off on why that might be, but If I was going to fixate on something, that'd be it. Not their damn burqas. In light of their lack of weapon safety, I have to question their safety consideration overall-- including the wearing long and loose clothing.

[jimnyc]

And that they could actually perform the tasks of the job....so discernible markings, safe, and able to do their job.....that's actually THREE points.

And I strongly disagree about the ease by which it could be tethered and made safe. I would have to see proof. And that picture isn't proof of anything but their lack of safety. Top reason- don't point a weapon at something you're not willing to destroy...which they clearly are in the picture you posted-- at one another no less. SO apparently they don't care about each other? Odd for a police force...not going to go off on why that might be, but If I was going to fixate on something, that'd be it. Not their damn burqas. In light of their lack of weapon safety, I have to question their safety consideration overall-- including the wearing long and loose clothing.

And you know they are not going through maneuvers with unloaded weapons, how? Perhaps they are performing maneuvers for a crowd or some sort of presentation. Interesting that excuse after excuse is made to say that a Muslim woman cannot perform her job while wearing a burqa. Again, if tethered at the ankle, knees, waist and shoulder area, I see NO reason as to why it would limit movement in anyway whatsoever. In fact, I would state that movement would be more than someone wearing pants. Loose fitting clothing, designed in a manner to allow running and prevent getting caught on things, shouldn't prevent them from doing anything at all that the job requires.

[jimnyc]

Iranian Policewomen during a parade:

http://afp.google.com/media/ALeqM5j6lmAPkLoz2cokIkylmx0ZhfIzlw?size=m

[jimnyc]

Additionally, what would be worse, women perhaps holding a gun, with safety lock on, fingers along side gun away from trigger - or men holding rifles, spinning them so that the barrels spin past fellow members, tossing guns back and forth at one another and basically holding extremely complicated maneuvers with guns between one another? Or are perhaps men safer with guns? Or are we to assume one group has safety in mind and the other doesn't? Lot's of assumptions and excuses to exclude one group from accommodation.

[Abbey Marie]

They might say wheat bread but when you are intractably against policies that would accept diversity...

There is something to be said for being inclusive and having a force that "looks like" those it polices.

You sound like a Quotas kind of guy.
How about we hire the best people for the job, have uniform standards that make sense for the job at hand, and stop trying to placate every group that comes along?

And I still object to calling dress codes "white bread". Besides not making sense, it's rather insulting.

[logroller]

You sound like a Quotas kind of guy.
How about we hire the best people for the job, have uniform standards that make sense for the job at hand, and stop trying to placate every group that comes along?

And I still object to calling dress codes "white bread". Besides not making sense, it's rather insulting.
Quotas make no sense to me...but neither does excluding a group based on headwear.

Can you explain how one kind of hat makes sense for the job at hand.

[tailfins]

Bull, I was told when first posting here that links are required when listing evidence from others. I did not ask to see ordinary cops with machineguns, I asked for the link to the pics he used!
What, Jafar is to be held above such standards here??
Well you havent studied enough, them study more if you want to keep up. Nothing like a fool speaking and not knowing what the ffkk he is talking about.-Tyr

Nice! Being undecided makes one a fool. So much for civil discussion. Did you go to the Joe Biden school of debate? :laugh:

[logroller]

And you know they are not going through maneuvers with unloaded weapons, how? Perhaps they are performing maneuvers for a crowd or some sort of presentation. Interesting that excuse after excuse is made to say that a Muslim woman cannot perform her job while wearing a burqa. Again, if tethered at the ankle, knees, waist and shoulder area, I see NO reason as to why it would limit movement in anyway whatsoever. In fact, I would state that movement would be more than someone wearing pants. Loose fitting clothing, designed in a manner to allow running and prevent getting caught on things, shouldn't prevent them from doing anything at all that the job requires.
If while wearing a burqa one could perform all the necessary maneuvers while wearing it, then I'd say it'd b allowable. I have my doubts, but the burden would be upon them to show they can. I've seen female service members in dress uniform wearing skirts alongside males in slacks. I have not seen them in skirts while in working uniforms. Any Wonder why?

[jimnyc]

If while wearing a burqa one could perform all the necessary maneuvers while wearing it, then I'd say it'd b allowable. I have my doubts, but the burden would be upon them to show they can. I've seen female service members in dress uniform wearing skirts alongside males in slacks. I have not seen them in skirts while in working uniforms. Any Wonder why?

Then I think all religions would bear a burden of proof, not just one. And you're going to compare a skirt, to what would be the equivalent of sport sweatpants? I believe a skirt would leave a woman in perhaps a compromising position, where a long tethered burqa would not. It's done elsewhere, and I looked, but can't find a single story where harm was brought to a woman due to her dress.

You know I'm arguing as the devil's advocate here, I still stand by my original position and have still only brought forth one other religion thus far. As soon as you open the door for religious wear to be substituted for official department gear, you are opening it up to all religious wear, otherwise run the risk of discrimination. As police officers, serving the community, and ran by the community/state, I think part of the position should be wearing the standard department issued uniform. If they cannot do this, then perhaps entering into a field where uniforms are fairly standard, just isn't a position for them. Granted, perhaps a department or 2 has already made exemptions for certain religions, but I don't think this should be standard country wide, and giving in to one gives in to every other reasonable religious accommodation pertaining to dress. And while we always concentrate on the more popular religions, there are a lot more out there that are recognized that have some less than desirable wear for a police officer, but if considered a legit religion, and the wear is safe and such, then it would be discriminatory to stop them if you allow others.

[Abbey Marie]

Quotas make no sense to me...but neither does excluding a group based on headwear.

Can you explain how one kind of hat makes sense for the job at hand.

Who is excluding them? They are welcome to compete for a job if they comply with the current and long-standing dress code, and all other requirements.

Can you explain how the hat doesn't make sense?

[Abbey Marie]

Then I think all religions would bear a burden of proof, not just one. And you're going to compare a skirt, to what would be the equivalent of sport sweatpants? I believe a skirt would leave a woman in perhaps a compromising position, where a long tethered burqa would not. It's done elsewhere, and I looked, but can't find a single story where harm was brought to a woman due to her dress.

You know I'm arguing as the devil's advocate here, I still stand by my original position and have still only brought forth one other religion thus far. As soon as you open the door for religious wear to be substituted for official department gear, you are opening it up to all religious wear, otherwise run the risk of discrimination. As police officers, serving the community, and ran by the community/state, I think part of the position should be wearing the standard department issued uniform. If they cannot do this, then perhaps entering into a field where uniforms are fairly standard, just isn't a position for them. Granted, perhaps a department or 2 has already made exemptions for certain religions, but I don't think this should be standard country wide, and giving in to one gives in to every other reasonable religious accommodation pertaining to dress. And while we always concentrate on the more popular religions, there are a lot more out there that are recognized that have some less than desirable wear for a police officer, but if considered a legit religion, and the wear is safe and such, then it would be discriminatory to stop them if you allow others.


Headgear with horns for the devil worshippers.

[tailfins]

Headgear with horns for the devil worshippers.

Or Vikings.

[jafar00]

Should we allow Muslim cops to pull over several times a day, get out of their police car, and kneel towards Mecca?

Why not?



The ones in the group picture look like soldiers instead of police. What country/city are they officers in?--Tyr
The first pic is Indonesia, the second Malaysia.

How do we know what duties they perform, could be thats just a publicity photo and they have no ideal how to use those weapons. PERHAPS THEY SERVE AS JANITORS /COOKS IN THE POLICE STATIONS THERE.
Where is your link to the photos?-Tyr

From personal experience, they perform the same duties as the men from border control, to traffic duties.

No links needed. I just did a simple google image search.


Really, ordinary cops with machine guns? Look to be either military trained or maybe a staged photo.

Where is the link??????-Tyr

Yes, its from a parade. Ordinary cops are not usually armed in Malaysia. They don't need to be.

[jimnyc]

Why not?

Should all Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran... Should they all allow hiring of Christians and allow Christians to take a minimum of 5 breaks per day to pray based on their faith?

[gabosaurus]

Should all Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran... Should they all allow hiring of Christians and allow Christians to take a minimum of 5 breaks per day to pray based on their faith?

Apples and Oranges.
Muslim countries have a state religion. You have no choices.
The U.S. has freedom of religion.
You can't compare the U.S. to Muslim countries. Even though you want to because it makes arguing your point easier.
Different cultures.
Remember that. Say it to yourself a few times. "Different... cultures."

[Abbey Marie]

Apples and Oranges.
Muslim countries have a state religion. You have no choices.
The U.S. has freedom of religion.
You can't compare the U.S. to Muslim countries. Even though you want to because it makes arguing your point easier.
Different cultures.
Remember that. Say it to yourself a few times. "Different... cultures."

Unless maybe the Sikhs are being forced to work as cops, nothing about requiring a uniform denies anyone freedom of religion.

[jafar00]

Should all Muslim countries, like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran... Should they all allow hiring of Christians and allow Christians to take a minimum of 5 breaks per day to pray based on their faith?

I employ several Christians in Cairo and they get Christmas, Easter etc... off while the Muslims work. Is that OK with you?

Besides, only 2 or 3 of the daily prayers are during normal office hours anyway and they can be done during breaks. Or do you want to ban lunch and afternoon tea breaks for everyone so as not to be seen to be unfairly singling Muslims out? :p

[red states rule]

http://www.qchron.com/editions/queenswide/new-calls-for-nypd-to-lift-turban-ban/article_ec885158-a356-58fd-adc2-73dafe92e955.html

Could this be the future of the NYPD? NY cops walking their beat?

http://gothamist.com/attachments/garth/201208_sikhs.jpg

[jimnyc]

Apples and Oranges.
Muslim countries have a state religion. You have no choices.
The U.S. has freedom of religion.
You can't compare the U.S. to Muslim countries. Even though you want to because it makes arguing your point easier.
Different cultures.
Remember that. Say it to yourself a few times. "Different... cultures."


I employ several Christians in Cairo and they get Christmas, Easter etc... off while the Muslims work. Is that OK with you?

Besides, only 2 or 3 of the daily prayers are during normal office hours anyway and they can be done during breaks. Or do you want to ban lunch and afternoon tea breaks for everyone so as not to be seen to be unfairly singling Muslims out? :p

Nope, I just find it odd that Muslims want to take advantage of OUR culture, our freedoms, where the majority of Muslim nations don't even respect Christians and sure aren't going to give them accommodations. "We want you to do this in the USA for us, but it's laughable to think we would do this in an Islamic ran nation"

Different cultures - maybe so, then when you come to the USA, don't expect our culture to bend at every whim for another culture.

[red states rule]

Nope, I just find it odd that Muslims want to take advantage of OUR culture, our freedoms, where the majority of Muslim nations don't even respect Christians and sure aren't going to give them accommodations. "We want you to do this in the USA for us, but it's laughable to think we would do this in an Islamic ran nation"

Different cultures - maybe so, then when you come to the USA, don't expect our culture to bend at every whim for another culture.

Jim, this reminds me of Muslim check out clerks who REFUSE to touch pork products

Or Mulsim cab drivers who REFUSE to pick up passengers with seeing eye dogs, or adult beverages

Seems they want to tell their boss what they will and will not do

Of course if anyone objects to their demands they are tagged as islamophobic

[jimnyc]

I employ several Christians in Cairo and they get Christmas, Easter etc... off while the Muslims work. Is that OK with you?

Now if you can get the majority of Egypt to follow suit, and get the government to stop treating them differently than every other citizen.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Copts
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/i-will-kill-you-you-are-dirt-egypts-coptic-christians-live-in-fear-as-islamist-govt-takes-control/
http://worldblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/07/5785968-coptic-christians-just-want-to-be-treated-like-egyptians?lite
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/12/24/184335.html
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/11/134440532/in-new-egypt-christians-face-old-discrimination

[jimnyc]

Jim, this reminds me of Muslim check out clerks who REFUSE to touch pork products

Or Mulsim cab drivers who REFUSE to pick up passengers with seeing eye dogs, or adult beverages

Seems they want to tell their boss what they will and will not do

Of course if anyone objects to their demands they are tagged as islamophobic

Yep, nothing but PC crap. I wonder how Muslims would feel if I moved to an Islamic nation and demanded all kinds of accommodations as a Christian?

[red states rule]

Yep, nothing but PC crap. I wonder how Muslims would feel if I moved to an Islamic nation and demanded all kinds of accommodations as a Christian?


YOu would find out real quick Jim. You would probably lose your head over the matter

[tailfins]

I employ several Christians in Cairo and they get Christmas, Easter etc... off while the Muslims work. Is that OK with you?

Besides, only 2 or 3 of the daily prayers are during normal office hours anyway and they can be done during breaks. Or do you want to ban lunch and afternoon tea breaks for everyone so as not to be seen to be unfairly singling Muslims out? :p

It seems your so-called "conservative" debate adversaries don't know much about running a business. You don't pass over talented people for their religion. If you do, your competitors will hire them, leaving you at a disadvantage.


Yep, nothing but PC crap. I wonder how Muslims would feel if I moved to an Islamic nation and demanded all kinds of accommodations as a Christian?

You're making an assumption. There might just be some Islamic nations that would make reasonable accommodations for you. Especially if you are gifted and have lots to contribute and are serious about pulling your own weight.

[red states rule]

You're making an assumption. There might just be some Islamic nations that would make reasonable accommodations for you. Especially if you are gifted and have lots to contribute and are serious about pulling your own weight.

What accommodiations would that be? Death by beheading, hanging, stoning, or firing squad?

[jimnyc]

You're making an assumption. There might just be some Islamic nations that would make reasonable accommodations for you. Especially if you are gifted and have lots to contribute and are serious about pulling your own weight.

Seriously, an assumption? I can state right now as fact that I would get NO accommodation from Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Mauritania, Yemen, Pakistan, Oman - and any other areas that are ruled under Shariah Law. This isn't assumption. If a woman will get beaten for simply forgetting to cover up, I highly doubt they will ignore their laws to accommodate lil ol me and my wife.

[taft2012]

I think it's a misnomer to say allowing a diversity of uniforms is relaxing grooming​ standards. Beards accompany the turbans, so it would require altering grooming standards as well. Beards are not allowed without a medical reason/documentation.

[tailfins]

Seriously, an assumption? I can state right now as fact that I would get NO accommodation from Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Bahrain, Mauritania, Yemen, Pakistan, Oman - and any other areas that are ruled under Shariah Law. This isn't assumption. If a woman will get beaten for simply forgetting to cover up, I highly doubt they will ignore their laws to accommodate lil ol me and my wife.

I think some of the countries listed below would not harass a Christian minding their own business.


<tbody>



Name
Population
% of Muslims


1
Afaganistan
18M
99%


2
Albania
2.3M
75%


3
Algeria
22M
98%


4
Bahrain
.220M
99%


5
Bangladesh
100M
85%


6
Cameroon
6.2M
55%


7
Central African Republic
2M
55%


8
Chad
4M
85%


9
Dahomey
3M
60%


10
Egypt
51M
93%


11
Ethiopia
27M
65%


12
Gambia
.4M
85%


13
Guinea
4.3M
95%


14
Guinea-Bissau
.81M
70%


15
Indonesia
161M
95%


16
Iran
48M
98%


17
Iraq
14.5M
95%


18
Ivory Coast
5M
55%


19
Jordan
3M
95%


20
Kuwait
1M
98%


21
Lebanon
3M
57%


22
Libya
3M
100%


23
Malaysia
14.5M
52%


24
Maldive Islands
12M
100%


25
Mali
6M
90%


26
Mauritania
2M
100%


27
Morocco
24M
99%


28
Niger
4.5M
91%


29
Nigeria
100M
75%


30
Oman
.75M
100%


31
Pakistan
90M
97%


32
Qatar
.18M
100%


33
Saudi Arabia
10.5M
100


34
Senegal
7M
95%


35
Sierra Leone
3M
65%


36
Somalia
5M
100%


37
South Yemen
1.5M
95%


38
Sudan
22M
85%


39
Syria
11M
87%


40
Tanzania
15M
65%


41
Togo
2.1M
55%


42
Tunisia
7M
95%


43
Turkey
66M
99%


44
U.A.E
.32M
100%


45
Upper Volta
6M
56%


46
North Yemen
6M
99%

</tbody>

[jimnyc]

I think some of the countries listed below would not harass a Christian minding their own business.


That wasn't the discussion or question, we were talking about Islamic countries granting accommodations to Christian employees, and more so by states/governments, if they would even hire a Christian to begin with.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think some of the countries listed below would not harass a Christian minding their own business.


<TBODY>



Name

Population

% of Muslims



1

Afaganistan

18M

99%



2

Albania

2.3M

75%



3

Algeria

22M

98%



4

Bahrain

.220M

99%



5

Bangladesh

100M

85%



6

Cameroon

6.2M

55%



7

Central African Republic

2M

55%



8

Chad

4M

85%



9

Dahomey

3M

60%



10

Egypt

51M

93%



11

Ethiopia

27M

65%



12

Gambia

.4M

85%



13

Guinea

4.3M

95%



14

Guinea-Bissau

.81M

70%



15

Indonesia

161M

95%



16

Iran

48M

98%



17

Iraq

14.5M

95%



18

Ivory Coast

5M

55%



19

Jordan

3M

95%



20

Kuwait

1M

98%



21

Lebanon

3M

57%



22

Libya

3M

100%



23

Malaysia

14.5M

52%



24

Maldive Islands

12M

100%



25

Mali

6M

90%



26

Mauritania

2M

100%



27

Morocco

24M

99%



28

Niger

4.5M

91%



29

Nigeria

100M

75%



30

Oman

.75M

100%



31

Pakistan

90M

97%



32

Qatar

.18M

100%



33

Saudi Arabia

10.5M

100



34

Senegal

7M

95%



35

Sierra Leone

3M

65%



36

Somalia

5M

100%



37

South Yemen

1.5M

95%



38

Sudan

22M

85%



39

Syria

11M

87%



40

Tanzania

15M

65%



41

Togo

2.1M

55%



42

Tunisia

7M

95%



43

Turkey

66M

99%



44

U.A.E

.32M

100%



45

Upper Volta

6M

56%



46

North Yemen

6M

99%


</TBODY>


So what? You think a lot of wrong things about Islam. As a muslim apologist(which you are) your views should be ignored by any and all decent Americans when the subject is about Islam.
What do you base that silly statement on ? Christians in many of those countries have been attacked, kidnapped and murder by muslims. So am I to guess that in those cases you say the doctor or aid workers helping sick people were not minding thier own business , so deserved to be murdered by the muslim animals?
In short, you just posted a list then cleverly phrased it by using the wording "some of these countries" .. Either from ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive by using that wording. Knowing if that clever wording isnt properly noticed and taken into account you can reply back to anybody that disagreed that "some" have no record of doing so. Its an obvious clever attempt at deception by you .-Tyr

[taft2012]

You're making an assumption. There might just be some Islamic nations that would make reasonable accommodations for you. Especially if you are gifted and have lots to contribute and are serious about pulling your own weight. So you can just make an assumption to this question; How many Jewish police officers do you reckon there are in Islamic countries? Or do you think Jews have nothing to contribute and are not serious about pulling their own weight?

[red states rule]

That wasn't the discussion or question, we were talking about Islamic countries granting accommodations to Christian employees, and more so by states/governments, if they would even hire a Christian to begin with.

They will accommodate Christians Jim. They will give every Christian a piece of ground once they are accommodated

http://img.ehowcdn.com/article-new/ehow/images/a07/bh/4f/do-make-christmas-grave-blanket-800x800.jpg

[tailfins]

So you can just make an assumption to this question; How many Jewish police officers do you reckon there are in Islamic countries? Or do you think Jews have nothing to contribute and are not serious about pulling their own weight?

Your reference to the original post is duly noted. In other capacities, how do you know there are not Jews working?


So what? You think a lot of wrong things about Islam. As a muslim apologist(which you are) your views should be ignored by any and all decent Americans when the subject is about Islam.
What do you base that silly statement on ? Christians in many of those countries have been attacked, kidnapped and murder by muslims. So am I to guess that in those cases you say the doctor or aid workers helping sick people were not minding thier own business , so deserved to be murdered by the muslim animals?
In short, you just posted a list then cleverly phrased it by using the wording "some of these countries" .. Either from ignorance or a deliberate attempt to deceive by using that wording. Knowing if that clever wording isnt properly noticed and taken into account you can reply back to anybody that disagreed that "some" have no record of doing so. Its an obvious clever attempt at deception by you .-Tyr

It's not a matter of being a Muslim apologist unless you want to accuse Microsoft, Google or Coca-cola of being Muslim apologists. They all have a presence in Muslim countries. An executive has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize return on investment. If he allows prejudice to interfere with that objective, he is committing executive malpractice.

[taft2012]

Could this be the future of the NYPD? NY cops walking their beat? http://gothamist.com/attachments/garth/201208_sikhs.jpg Possibly. The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission already looks like this.

[red states rule]

Possibly. The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission already looks like this.

Updated Miranda warning

"You are also entitled to a copy of the Quran, a prayer rug, and a pork free menu while in jail"

[fj1200]

What, no more useless comments that add nothing to the discussion? Oh, wait a minute...

It seems possible that Muslim women from other countries can serve as police officers and presumably be adequately Muslim.


http://guitarguy.de/wp-content/uploads/muslim-police-woman-i1.jpg

What indicates them as police officers? And no one is saying that every accommodation needs to be made but reasonable accommodations should be made if possible.

[jimnyc]

What indicates them as police officers? And no one is saying that every accommodation needs to be made but reasonable accommodations should be made if possible.

To me? The fact that the picture was/is labeled "Muslim Policwomen". Unless of course you think I renamed it and uploaded it on someone else's website. Either way, doesn't matter, the point is that they are obviously capable of such positions with the attire specified. Even if it were mislabeled, a military position is a hell of a lot more demanding than a typical police officer, so if they can do so in the military, they can surely do so in the police department. And "I" am the one saying that if you allow accommodations for other religious attire, that I think it would be reasonable to allow for such attire for Muslim women, especially given that it's been proven in several countries that they can already handle such positions with the attire.

[fj1200]

You sound like a Quotas kind of guy.

You would be way off base then.


How about we hire the best people for the job, have uniform standards that make sense for the job at hand, and stop trying to placate every group that comes along?

We should hire the best, we should have uniform standards, and we should be able to make reasonable accommodations.


And I still object to calling dress codes "white bread". Besides not making sense, it's rather insulting.

I'm sorry you're insulted, but it does make sense.


Who is excluding them? They are welcome to compete for a job if they comply with the current and long-standing dress code, and all other requirements.

You, with the intractable position of holding policies which may exclude them from the position.

[fj1200]

To me? The fact that the picture was/is labeled "Muslim Policwomen". Unless of course you think I renamed it and uploaded it on someone else's website. Either way, doesn't matter, the point is that they are obviously capable of such positions with the attire specified. Even if it were mislabeled, a military position is a hell of a lot more demanding than a typical police officer, so if they can do so in the military, they can surely do so in the police department. And "I" am the one saying that if you allow accommodations for other religious attire, that I think it would be reasonable to allow for such attire for Muslim women, especially given that it's been proven in several countries that they can already handle such positions with the attire.

Fine, considering I can't see the file name. As log said there are certain other standards to being an officer that must be met and whether it's been proven to US standards or not is a completely different matter. It is not a failing of US culture to be accommodative to new citizens and being inclusive in my mind is far better than holding fast to certain norms without justification.

[red states rule]

Well, if this happens I can see the tolerant ones allowing Catholic cops to wear crosses, Baptist cops to carry Bibles, and gay cops to wear rainbow colored wrist bands.

This is really beyond pandering folks

[taft2012]

To me? The fact that the picture was/is labeled "Muslim Policwomen". Unless of course you think I renamed it and uploaded it on someone else's website. I think the question was intended to ask how would a citizen walking down the street be able to distinguish these women as police officers from the masses of other women on the street wearing black burquas. Perhaps that little patch on the sleeve is intended to do so, but I don't that's sufficient IMO.