Oh the things I want to type ...

Ennis,

I agree with you.

Maybe, Prime Minister Singh should tell him all the nuclear contracts will go to General Electric and Toshiba - Chirac will be singing a different tune.

i'm almost scared to post anything on this topic for fear that it will be shut down after appeals for intervention :) but hopefully no one will find fault with the following:

the captions are great. do the French require nuns to remove their habit when taking a driver's licence photo?

WGiia - well said!

This is related: how do you feel about hijab and burkha bans in driver license photos?

Good question, and I don't know, however the examples aren't parallel. Most nuns I know no longer wear habits, it seems to be an optional thing. However, for a Sikh male to go bareheaded is a very different matter.

IMO identification is the whole point of driver license photos; turbans and hijabs don't really impair that, while full burkhas do. And the whole French psuedosecular thing with banning the hijab and the turban in schools is just silly.

Again, a difference. If somebody has a full face covering, and only their eyes are visible, then they are hard to identify. That's not true with a turban. Like I said, getting rid of the turban in the photo will only make individuals harder to identify, not easier.

Secondly, even with the hijab/burka ban, there's a good tech solution to this - fingerprints and portable fingerprint readers. In this day and age, if you want to ID somebody, maybe we shouldn't be relying to visual matching of faces using photos that are years old. It would make much more sense to use fingerprints.

Sorry, point 6 is in response to the comment about nuns, and point 9 is in response to the comment about other head coverings.

thanx badmash. as far as hijab and burkha go, i personally see no problem with the hijab because it still shows most of a person's face, as does a habit. the only problem would be covering up a distinguishing hair color like red, but then anyone can color their hair. A full burkha that covers the face is of course a problem. even one that only shows the eyes is a problem for a drivers licence photo in my opinion. the turban ban is plain ridiculous.

I agree with you on turbans and hijabs. Separately, full-face burkhas which reveal only the eyes defeat the main purpose of driver licenses.

... even with the hijab/burka ban, there's a good tech solution to this - fingerprints and portable fingerprint readers.

True, but there are bad civil liberties implications of creating a large government database of biometrics.

I don’t see the fuss in india about Mittals acquisition of Arcelor.
It is upto Arcelors share holders to decide if they should go thru with the acquisition. I don’t see it as an anti India thing, ultimately the buyer and seller both need an amicable deal. Most hostile takeovers don’t work(risk alienating the knowledge worker) and its doubtful that mittal would do that. Besides Mittals seems to have leverage with the brits and dutch so may be they can push for the deal on their diplomatic channels.

The turban issue India can use some diplomatic leverage. I dont think they have any thing substantial on that.
It may be a good test to see how much leverage do the indians have with them.

In the short run it is in Indias interest that French start selling them reactors soon b/c it puts pressure on the Americans to do so.

The airbus deal number seems wacky may be that is what just goes into French economy.
43 airbus for 2.5 billion (may be its some other model)

don’t see the fuss in india about Mittals acquisition of Arcelor. It is upto Arcelors share holders to decide if they should go thru with the acquisition. I don’t see it as an anti India thing, ultimately the buyer and seller both need an amicable deal.

interesting. Ratan Tata agrees with you. that's exactly what he said when interviewed by Charlie Rose. he wondered why the Indian govt. was intervening on Mittal's behalf.

i'm almost scared to post anything on this topic for fear that it will be shut down after appeals for intervention

Requests to any third-parties will be unnecessary because Ennis -- who initiated this thread -- is a practicing Sikh himself. I am sure he will be able to intervene in this discussion as and when appropriate as per his discretion if matters take a negative course or, as was the case with regards to my original message to him with regards to the other thread, he will be available to clarify any areas of confusion regarding any aspect of the Sikh religion.

WGIIA, mind using the quote or italics button around text you're quoting? Very confusing otherwise, thanks.

Absurd. It isn't a "security concern" anywhere else in the world.

Jai, brother, you're really not helping things any with your clarification :)
Why don't you let things lie for a little while. Like I said, multiple authors here post on Sikhism and multiple authors close threads down. I actually didn't close down the Fresh Prince thread. So please, let's move on here and not mention this any more ....

[section deleted]

Anyway, regarding the French turban ban:

It's illogical for them to think that this will assist identification; it's not as though keshdhari Sikhs have different hairstyles which they hide under their turbans. Possibly the French authorities concerned are not aware of this ? *shrug*

Manish, will do.

There is no controversy here. This is a ridiculous restraint placed upon Sikhs and should be condemned.

Personally, I can’t believe the gall of this faint Gallic shadow of De Gaulle...

Golly, Gullu! Give it to the shock-Jacques.

I smell pun-eer.

This is not a single isolated case. I was personally shocked by the visceral reaction of the Canadians to the Canadian Supreme Court decision on the Kirpan issue. The reaction to the Dubai Port deal, Minutemen patrolling the streets of Maryland, legislation to ban all burqas worn anywhere in some European nations are all tied in to a bigger racial unease which is engulfing the West.
The hysteria that has been building up in the West towards Muslims (some justifiable, some vitriolically hyperbolic and over the top) and also to the illegal mexican immigration in the US will have unintended consequences for all minorities living in the West. We can either have a tolerant, multicultural society where diversity is considered a strength or we can have a xenophobic inward looking society where 'funny' names, looks, accents, and religions are considered a threat.
For people who believe that its possible to build up surgical hysteria against Muslims/Arabs or over illegal Mexcian immigration without it eventually encompassing all minorities are in for a rude surprise.
This is also relevant to some of our own H-1B/LPR warriors who convolute in uncontrollable mirth when LGF, Right Wing Talk radio and Ann Coulter raise doomsday scenarious about ummah, hoors, virgins, 5th column Muslims in the West and Eurabia.
Schadenfreude on the Right Wing hysteria to the 'Muslim' problem in the West might give temporary pleasure, but in the long run it will only come back to bite all minorities living in the West. I have worked with some civil rights groups (nowhere near to what I would like to) and most of the shit in the 9-11 induced world actually happens with Non Muslims living in America.
I cringe when I hear some right wing observant Jews talk about stuffing pork into the mouths of Guantanamo detainees (the irony is of course lost on them)
I hope we are not seeing the beginning to the rolling back of the welcome mat to 3rd world immigrants in the West.

I wouldn't count on Manmohan Singh doing much for this case. When this issue first started up regarding school children, from what I remember, it took him months to even say a word (and this after mass campaigns urging him to do so). So, I don't see him being interested enough this time around either.

We can either have a tolerant, multicultural society where diversity is considered a strength or we can have a xenophobic inward looking society where 'funny' names, looks, accents, and religions are considered a threat.

yeah, thanks for setting up the either/or scenario, you're either with the muslims or in favor of xenophobia? as for those evil right-wingers, yeah, look at schumer and clinton, those reactionaries making a big fuss over some arabs running out prots....

yeah, thanks for setting up the either/or scenario, you're either with the muslims or in favor of xenophobia? as for those evil right-wingers,

Yes, thats exactly what I meant. The choice is between supporting terrorists and being xenophobic ;)

I have already stipulated that some of the hysteria over Muslim extremism in justifiable. (The hysteria that has been building up in the West towards Muslims (some justifiable, some vitriolically hyperbolic and over the top)
However talks of Eurabia with a Muslim majority in Europe in 50 years and the kind of hate mongering which you see on sites like LGF are not meant to address the problem of Muslim extremism but used to spread fear and hate.

as for those evil right-wingers, yeah, look at schumer and clinton, those reactionaries making a big fuss over some arabs running out prots....

I dont support the opportunistic nativism displayed by some feckless democrats on the port deal. The Left Wing is creating anti-globalization hysteria and economic nativism, but that was not the point of this post. The Right Wing blogosphere, right wing talk radio are singularly responsible for creating mass hysteria over the Muslim extremism problem and Mexican illegal immigration.

The Right Wing blogosphere, right wing talk radio are singularly responsible for creating mass hysteria over the Muslim extremism problem and Mexican illegal immigration.

i think it is responsible, but singularly? no, i think that there is a lot of blame to go around. for example in the netherlands the "pillar" mentality helped result in a subculture of muslims who are totally insulated from the rest of dutch society. this was not the doing of right-wing xenophobes, it was the complacent mainstream of the dutch political class which simply thought the new minorities could be treated like the roman catholics and right-wing calvinists (as opposed to the plural majority mainstream calvinists), forgetting that these two groups had centuries of existence within dutch society.

to some extent right-wing nativist/racialist xenophobia is inevitable. to some extent though it is given support by the neglect that the cosmopolitan elites have directed toward rising immigrant subcultures which pose real challenges to consensus values in many societies. and i don't personally think platitudes like "diversity is strength" really contribute to the discourse, it is great to say diversity is strength, but it isn't like affluent liberals or conservatives live amongst the diverse lives they praise as adding to the strength of their nations (they might eat out at restaurants where the diversity is on display in various cuisines and cheap labor in the back). there is some diversity i'm really not too fond of. let's change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength. if you are a large company that needs to market to different ethnic and cultural segments some workforce diversity in sales is a strength, but if you a small business with a very tight and narrow niche a cultural homogeneity might be a strength. if you want an example, i have a friend who preferably hires non-relgious people for her small business because conservative christians just can't get along in the atmosphere where NPR-politics is normative.

This is not a single isolated case. I was personally shocked by the visceral reaction of the Canadians to the Canadian Supreme Court decision on the Kirpan issue.

ok...cut and dry - eddie put it well -

There is no controversy here. This is a ridiculous restraint placed upon Sikhs and should be condemned.

i second the motion.

i think it is responsible, but singularly? no, i think that there is a lot of blame to go around. for example in the netherlands the "pillar" mentality helped result in a subculture of muslims who are totally insulated from the rest of dutch society. this was not the doing of right-wing xenophobes, it was the complacent mainstream of the dutch political class which simply thought the new minorities could be treated like the roman catholics and right-wing calvinists (as opposed to the plural majority mainstream calvinists), forgetting that these two groups had centuries of existence within dutch society.

The Muslims themselves are the cause of Muslim extremism and the Dutch who immigrated them without any restrictions also share some blaim for being naive enough to believe that all types of immigrants could assimilate in the Dutch society. Even though there is a problem of Muslim extremism in Europe, the over the top reaction is the result of nativist hyteria. If the reaction was more muted and in proportion to the threat, it would be a different matter. But when the reaction is overly hysterical as compared to the real or perceived threat, surely the hysteria mongers are to be blamed for the disproportionate reaction.

i don't personally think platitudes like "diversity is strength" really contribute to the discourse, it is great to say diversity is strength, but it isn't like affluent liberals or conservatives live amongst the diverse lives they praise as adding to the strength of their nations (they might eat out at restaurants where the diversity is on display in various cuisines and cheap labor in the back). there is some diversity i'm really not too fond of. let's change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength.

I dont believe its a platitude. It would be a platitude if you say that 'all diversity by itself strengthens a society' or 'all diversity is always necessarily a good thing'. Of course not all diversity strengthens a society and no one in his right mind would suggest so. I take issue with people who believe that diversity can never contribute anything positive and will necessarily lead to Balkanization and ruin without creating any exceptions and who treat all diversity as a social ill. The diversity haters make no distinctions between Arab cab drivers and Phd students from India/China. It is this form of nativism where diversity is always negative that I object to.

Why does this not surprise me in the least? Mmm... France. One part wine, one part baguette and pate, two parts charming Ameliesque scenes, un peu du sex thrown in for good measure and a whole seedy underbelly of xenophobic nationalism. Just from recent memory - hijab ban and banlieue riots, anyone? Yet again, democracy and fascism join hands and sing for freedom!

I take issue with people who believe that diversity can never contribute anything positive and will necessarily lead to Balkanization and ruin without creating any exceptions and who treat all diversity as a social ill

yeah, so do i. but those people are a minority. and you have another minority who use "diversity" as a weapon to silence dissent. there are other positions in the middle that do exist. we should start speaking (sometimes) as if they do exist, instead of ceding ground to the extremists on both sides.

Secondly, it doesn’t even make sense! Unless they’re planning on banning driving while turbanned, this is going to make it harder for the police to compare drivers license photos with the individuals driving.

Unless France is planning to pass laws that allow police to require Sikhs to remove their turbans in public for questioning etc...

So, France is xenophobic and turbans, burkhas and hijabs scare them; I wonder how scared they'll be years from now, when everyone looks the same and they can't tell who's who.

there is some diversity i'm really not too fond of. let's change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength.

Dogday -
Haha. Good one.

i said: there is some diversity i'm really not too fond of. let's change it to diversity that is compatible with the liberal order might be a strength.

you said: Wow - that sounds like the arguments used by proponents of the 'White Australia Policy'...

well, if white australia is a liberal australia, and a racial mixed australia is an illiberal australia, go white australia! the point is simple: the value i privilege above all others is the liberal enlightenment civilization. if non-white immigration threatens that, and certainly the whole denmark affair and the sikh theater riots suggest that is not totally impossible, well, i oppose non-white immigration. i have minimal interests in a particular racial, ethnic or religious order, aside from a wish that religion be driven into the private domain since i think most of it is nonsense and dislike it when people have to treat nonsense like it is sense. white australia was overturned in part because of liberal values, but liberal values do not arise from thin air, and the majority of the world is illiberal.

the point is simple: the value i privilege above all others is the liberal enlightenment civilization.

But of course these groups of illiberals are OK because they are white. It's only the darkies who want respect for their religion who arethe ones trying to destory "Western enlightenment".

forgot to mention

razib - is the top story one of the progressive enlightenments you are referring to? There is something very stifling and illiberal about the word 'ban'.

But of course these groups of illiberals are OK because they are white. It's only the darkies who want respect for their religion who arethe ones trying to destory "Western enlightenment".

savagery is found amongst all peoples. but the proportions are not equitable.

razib - is the top story one of the progressive enlightenments you are referring to? There is something very stifling and illiberal about the word 'ban'.

some things need to be banned. some things need to be stifled. though perhaps not turbans in france.

the west is the best by my lights. i am fine with people thinking dubai, india, singapore, etc. are better. they all have their own systems and values. let those values rule there...i like common law and constitionalism just fine. a gov. of laws, not men. and yes, shitting religion is a mighty fine liberty.

Razib

I've read you post "the West is the Best" a few times now and until this thread, somehow I've always thought you were being facetious or at least tongue-in-cheek. While of course I understand you would like a society where violence is not privilaged and there is harmony amongst its members I really fail to see your logic on this. Your means just do not justify thier ends.

Whites, or the west, have been anything but friendly, docile, harmonious or non-violent. Western European and American (North and South) have a long and filthy history of colonial invasion, forcible take over of land, the obliteration of indigenous history, wars, oppressive state techniques, slaughter, concentration camps, riots, and um, serial killers. Amongst these lurk usual suspects of Nazis, neo-Nazis, mafia, fascists etc. This of course is not restricted to the West - and this kind of brutality can be found in perhaps more culturally mediate forms everywhere from China to India to many parts of Africa, the Middle East - you name it.

But you know this - you're handwringing the hooliganism often found within visible minority communities in "western" countries. What I think your logic is perhaps overlooking is the fact that there is a reason there isn't more rioting and shouting and protesting and public gathering of white people in western countries - they are the dominant majority. They have economic power and a political voice by the virtue of the colour of thier skin and the cadences of thier names. People gather collectively to protest (both peacfully and violently) when they have grievances. When they need the power of numbers because what they want is not being heard by the state and they must make a show of solidarity and outrage. It seems highly unlikely in, say, Australia where the whites have already conquored the land, set themselves up as its leaders and decided all the rules of the game to thier advantage, that you'd find much need for flag waving and slogan shouting - unless of course it's to keep thier um, brown black and yellow Australian sisters and brothers from "stealing thier jobs" or "talking over the neighbourhoods/beaches" or whatever.

As my father always says, two wrongs don't make a right. So while I am in no way supporting violence amongst minority groups who have some kind of greivance, I do sympathise usually with thier plight. HOWEVER, it is almost puzzling simplistic for you to propose that "western" societies display some kind of inherent thrust to liberal enlightenment when its history has had and still has such evidence of oppression and brutality. Shadowy state prisons? Supporting dictatorial regimes? Anti-abortion killings? Homophobic, racial beatings/killings? Arbritrary arrest of WTO-protesters because they mess with the system too much? The suppression of labour unions, outsourced child labour; of course they don't have to riot - they can use the system. I would encourage you, if you haven't already, to watch The Battle of Algiers. It makes no bones about the brutality of the violence on the part of the Algerians, who kill many (shock and horror) white people. However, it also gives you a very good idea of where that rage comes from, what the violence facing them, in turn, looks like and just the sheer brutality of the French regime. It gives you an idea of what that anger of being treated like less than a second-class citizen in a land that is your home feels like.

Because that's what this is really about. The French government is not afraid that it can't recognise its Sikh citizens underneath thier towering and ominous turbans. This is a very clear message - it is a humiliating act meant to remind Sikhs - and Muslims and I'm sure Hindus and all those other "immigrants" that France is for the French. White, and with ties either to the revolution or a chateau. So much for liberal enlightenment.

if non-white immigration threatens that, and certainly the whole denmark affair and the sikh theater riots suggest that is not totally impossible, well, i oppose non-white immigration.

Since Razib, who I normally regard as being a very good guy indeed, has now raised the issue of that Sikh play as an example several times on a number of unrelated topic threads, I think I should respond to this and end this matter, once and for all.

1. There were no "riots". A large crowd -- both men and women -- were protesting peacefully outside the theatre, and a very small number of people at the very front got pushed forward in the crush and decided to make some trouble. To describe what happened as a "riot" is a truly massive exaggeration. The theatre was not burned down, no cars on the street were trashed, no houses or buildings wrecked, there was no fighting on the streets or running battles with the police.

2. The vast majority of Sikhs, both conservative and "liberals", in real-life and indeed on normally-quite-conservative Sikh internet discussion forums, condemned the actions of the tiny minority who had caused some minor damage to the theatre. No excuses were made. It was generally agreed that the contents of the play were grossly offensive, deliberately inflammatory, and a calculated tactic to gain publicity by deliberately misrepresenting certain Sikh religious practices and the normal state of affairs within gurdwaras, and that therefore legitimate legal means should have been used to shut the play down, or alternatively it should have been left to run its course with Sikhs simultaneously continuing to protest peacefully whilst disseminating relevant information in the media to explain exactly what was inaccurate about the play itself. The writer herself admitted that it was not remotely based on reality, despite the original publicity behind the play.

The above example is therefore not relevant in any discussions about the supposed incompatibility of non-white immigrant groups in the West and hence this should be the end of the matter.

The above example is therefore not relevant in any discussions about the supposed incompatibility of non-white immigrant groups in the West and hence this should be the end of the matter.

I dont know enough about the Behzti controversy to comment, but a section of the Sikh community has had problems assimilating in Canada. I think the US Sikh community is pretty well assimilated but I get a different impression from the Canadians that I have talked to. In fact I was in Canada last month and I did notice a lot of racial unease between the Sikhs and the white population in some provinces.
The reaction to the Kirpan ruling by some sections of the Canadian society is a good example of the racial tensions in Canada. Some of the Canadian Sikhs are still clinging on to the lifestyle they had in rural Punjab a few decades back kinda like some Pakistani Mirpuris in UK who still believe that they are living in Mirpur. Maybe its more of a Punjab thing than a Sikh thing.

I am slightly puzzled by one thing in this thread, and in most discussions re. French laïcité and its demands : why is everyone bothered by the so-called intolerance of Republican laws and no-one even questioning the even greater intolerance of religious laws according to which one cannot be a proper (choose:) Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Hindu... if one does not (choose again :) wear a turban and keep one's hair long, cover one's hair in a scarf, abhor abortion etc etc etc. French secularism was meant to make whoever lived in France free of those stringencies that should be kept in the private sphere. If it sometimes verges on the absurd, I don't think it is any worse than the absurdities of political systems where the common law must bend to the irrational demands of religions (based on personal conviction mind you, and not on any established rationality) -some of which are just antagonistic to basic human rights. Where does one stop and when must one really start being shocked?
As for being scared of not being able to tell who is who, I think I'd prefer it to the current hysteria over respect of 'roots', 'identities' and 'differences' -translating mostly into respect of sexism, orthodoxy and close-mindedness.
So glad Crash got the Oscar...

well, if white australia is a liberal australia, and a racial mixed australia is an illiberal australia, go white australia! the point is simple: the value i privilege above all others is the liberal enlightenment civilization. if non-white immigration threatens that,..... well, i oppose non-white immigration.

1. Many -- not all -- of the issues that have occurred in a number of Western nations in recent times are dominated by the 2nd generation, ie. those actually born in the West. This is especially true with regards to the situation in the UK. Taking steps to restrict non-white immigration is therefore not going to address the present problem in these situations.

2. It's quite a generalisation to state that non-white immigration itself is the basic problem. It depends on exactly where the immigrant is coming from, their reasons for a) wishing to leave their home country and b) wishing to migrate to the specific target country. It's also going to vary wildly according the person's own personality, background, family, and regional/religious background with regards to their country of origin. These matters have to be taken on an individual, case-by-case basis.

3. If an individual is going to migrate to a country whose core values are in some way highly incompatible with the individual's own beliefs and value-system, then they should consider alternative countries which are more in line with their own values, if they genuinely believe that integrating successfully into the target nation is going to be too difficult for them and living in that culture will be an intolerable idea. Again, this also depends on exactly why they wish to move there, eg. political refugees, purely/predominantly for financial reasons, or because they actually find some aspect of the target culture more attractive and amenable to the kind of lifestyle they desire for themselves.

4. Whether the target/host nation is under any moral obligation to accomodate "foreign" values (either cultural and/or religious in nature) depends on whether the practice/belief system is grossly in violation of accepted human rights and in some way hurts any innocent third-parties. This is the core issue.

don’t see the fuss in india about Mittals acquisition of Arcelor. It is upto Arcelors share holders to decide if they should go thru with the acquisition. I don’t see it as an anti India thing, ultimately the buyer and seller both need an amicable deal.

interesting. Ratan Tata agrees with you. that's exactly what he said when interviewed by Charlie Rose. he wondered why the Indian govt. was intervening on Mittal's behalf.

When Mittal tried to buy India's white elephant SAIL(Steel Authority of India),the government of India shooed him away. It's amazing to see Kamal Nath crying foul when the French do similar things.

Not taking anything away from Mittal, his empire is still far away to get the same respect that Pohang Steel, Nippon Steel or Tata Steel gets. It's made up of plants acquired from former Soviet republics, former East European communist nations,Latin Americans and small European nations. It is still not known for technologigal or managerial innovation. Neither it is known for setting up large greenfield plants. It's more like the empire of Chengis Khan --- disappears as quickly as it forms.

So far Tata Steel is the only world class steel company from India. It consitently beats international rivals and technologically it is on par with it's Japanese and Korean rivals. Now it has learnt from Mittal and started taking over steel plants abroad.

Kush writes:

>>Prime Minister Singh should tell him all the nuclear contracts will go to General Electric and Toshiba - Chirac will be singing a different tune

PM Singh should do deals keeping the interests of a billion Indians in mind - not a few hundred(?) Sikhs in France. His job is to serve the people of India - and India only. His was not hired to represent the interests of Sikhs in France or Hindus in Trinidad or Jains in Britain. And it is undiplomatic to tell other countries how to take care of their security.

Ennis:
>>However, for a Sikh male to go bareheaded is a very different matter.

Religious leaders of all Sikh panths need to come together and chalk out a strategy that is religiously compliant for modern times. Why should practices be frozen at a time when there were no drivers' licences?

Brahmins are generally not allowed to eat meat or kill animals. However, there have been cases where Brahmin kings or soldiers were doing a Kshatriyas' job. In those case, exceptions have been made with the approval of religious leaders. Brahmins are not supposed to cross the ocean. There too, exceptions have been made and rules have changed over the millennia.

No culture survives by freezing its practices. Change is permanent, to use a cliche', and if you fight change, your culture will not be permanent.

M. Nam

Moornam,

Religious leaders of all Sikh panths need to come together and chalk out a strategy that is religiously compliant for modern times.

Authority in religious matters actually lies predominantly with the global Sikh community itself, although there are of course various Sikh figures/groups (eg. the SGPC, the Akal Takht) who have a role in these matters too.

No culture survives by freezing its practices. Change is permanent, to use a cliche', and if you fight change, your culture will not be permanent.

Your point and indeed the analogy you've given are both correct. However, for keshdhari Sikhs, the turban represents a crown in the royal sense of the term. Historically, the actual physical gesture of taking off the turban in many situations has been regarded as representing an act of submission or supplication to the other party; of course, this gesture has also included a number of other turban-wearing groups in India (sometimes accompanied by laying the turban at the feet of the other party). Being photographed bare-headed therefore has an added emotional & psychological resonance for male Sikhs; plus in their view, you're basically asking them to pose semi-naked.

In any case, as I mentioned previously, this still doesn't necessarily assist identification, because such Sikhs do not have different hairstyles under their turbans -- just long hair tied into a top-knot.

Why stop there? In fact, all religious and cultural practices predate the modern era. Why not have the French government draw up a list of requirements for anybody who wishes to set foot in France. They can demand that we adopt French names, religions, speak only French, eat only French food, and consume only French cultural products. That, and all skins must be bleached so that ones skin color falls within the appropriate range.

Your argument could extend that far too, if you let it.

Ennis, I think, the point was that cultural change should come from within the Sikh community. What you said was imposition from outside.

Razib wrote:
if white australia is a liberal australia and a racial mixed australia is an illiberal australia, go white australia!

About as sensible as: if a child-molesting Australia is a liberal Australian..etc. A white Australia can never be a liberal australia. It's an Australia where illiberality is camoflauged due to racial conformity.

Quebec's difficulties with the Kirpan (and read the letters and columns in Le Devoir to get a taste of the visceral reaction) and France's hostility to headgear (apparently hair is a  Republicain virtue) arise from illiberal impulses. In a Christian, white Quebec, or White Australia, these illiberal attitudes would manifest themselves, but they would still exist. I would rather Australian and Quebec illiberality be resolved rather than camoflauged.

(Note: Yesterday's french press carried an aricle about Sikh truckdrivers in Montreal that will try to get a religious exemption from wearing helmets on the docks. Similar to Canada's current Sikh exemption to the motorcycle helmet rules. Thoughts?)

h_s:

MoorNam was suggesting "change from within" in response to pressure from without. Why not be honest about it, and just call it pressure from without? After all, it's the French (and MoorNam) who have a problem with these "non-modern" behaviors.

AMfD
Some of the Canadian Sikhs are still clinging on to the lifestyle they had in rural Punjab a few decades back kinda like some Pakistani Mirpuris in UK who still believe that they are living in Mirpur. Maybe its more of a Punjab thing than a Sikh thing.

The two major terrorist acts carried out by South Asians in the west (Air India 182 and the London tube bombings) were both carried out alomost entirely by Punjabi speakers. Perhaps the common ground we can all agree on is a prohibition on Punjabi immigration to the west!

1) re: non-white immigration. please note the context in which i responded. "bengali" was the one who set up the dichotomy, i did not. and, i am offering that if given a manichaean choice, i pick a culture & values over a race. i also do not think it is a unpardonable sin for the western peoples to want to remain as they are, religiously, racially and linguistically, just as the various non-white peoples of the world believe in their own self-determination and coherency. myself, i don't care much about such things, but i know i am not a normal person in many ways.

2) means vs. ends, this is a complicated issue, and whether you find this argument is contingent upon your attitudes in regards to the particular issue and your understanding of the situation on the ground. consider ikram, about 4 years back he expressed the opinion that a uniform civil code, and an assumption of liberal individuality in a western sense, was not viable in india on suman palit's blog. but, he has also expressed a strong and hard line in regards to liberal individualism in the west. obviously changing location matters for him, circumstances differ.

3) jai, re: the london "riot." perhaps you know the details, but i have seen enough quotes about "free speech," even ignoring any violence of lack of, from sikh radicals to get my muslim-dar kicking. i'm not one to make an equivalence between muslim and non-muslim browns, i think repeated national experiences tend to show the latter are somewhat more assimilable...that being said, i was depressed and saddened to see illiberal attitudes among sikhs in england. this matters to me re: religion because a) i'm an atheist, b) like gays, we aren't liked in large parts of the world (mostly muslim) c) the space that the godless have won in the non-east asian world (east asians have always been OK with godlessness from what i can see) is a relatively new and precious thing to me. of course, the sikhs expressed opinions that many westerners of traditional religious opinions ahve expressed, but, to me, a good immigration policy reinforces a liberal society, rather than enforces the status quo (or, in the case of muslims, tends to destabilize and threaten and already fragile order).

4) as for european barbarity, i think that that barbarity is a function of tools, and not particular nefariousness. europeans took the slave trade to new heights, but they also abolished it. i would rather be a pauper on the streets of an american city than a lord in dhaka, that is the simple truth that expresses my reality. perhaps i am on the only one here, surely there are many on these boards that sometimes express triumphalism of india, etc. to each his own.

Ennis writes:

>>After all, it's the French (and MoorNam) who have a problem with these "non-modern" behaviors.

Can we do without the snide accusations? It does not behoove you...

I don't have a problem with Sikhs who choose to wear turbans. However, Sikhs cannot demand to follow their culture at the expense of breaking laws that are made for everyone in the land. If France makes a law saying no headgear allowed for Sikhs (but allows it for Arabs), then I would oppose it tooth and nail. If France makes a law that bans the display of Om for Hindus, but allows the display of the Cross for Catholics, I would throw the book at them. However, they have not done that. They have made a law that's common to everyone - regardless of race, religion etc.

In America, Hindu temples have been told by the local Fire Departments that there should be no smoke generated indoors due to any religious activity. Which means no havans, no agarbattis, not even diyas in some cases. Are Hindus whining and snivelling about it? No. Do you see lawsuits or cries of religious discrimination against them? No. They understand that even churches and mosques come under the same Fire Department codes. But due to the nature of religious practice, Hindus are affected more so than the others. And yet we accept it.

Why are you after only the French? Saudi Arabia violates all religious rights for non-muslims. Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak out of any Sikh when the King was in India a few weeks ago for Republic Day.

M. Nam

If France makes a law that bans the display of Om for Hindus, but allows the display of the Cross for Catholics, I would throw the book at them. However, they have not done that. They have made a law that's common to everyone - regardless of race, religion etc.

Cute!

The ban on headgear is not overtly discriminatory but an example of insidious discrimination because no ethnic French citizens will be adversely affected by the ban. If ethnic french citizens were adversely affected, you might have a point. But when all headgear is banned and the only people around with permanent headgear are the Sikhs, it sure reeks of discrimination and bigotry.

ethnic French citizens

what do you mean by ethnic french? eg., "root french," or inclusive of all the descendents of the europeans who immigrated in the 19th century? anyway, the sikhs should really bitch at god, because it seems that muslims were made to cause trouble for them. the french don't give a shit about sikhs, they are just trying to smother a culture of radicalism and separatism which uses the hijab as a social identifier. true, there are issues regarding individual expression, but the consequences can be as liberating as allowing raiders starter jackets in an american school riven by gang tension.

Why are you after only the French? Saudi Arabia violates all religious rights for non-muslims. Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak out of any Sikh when the King was in India a few weeks ago for Republic Day.

western nations are held to a higher standard.

Moornam
Saudis are wackos. The French are more reasonable than saudis.
Indian Government has no leverage with saudi arabia. There is a some leverage with the french.
It would not hurt to see if they can make some concession.

If people are given a choice of living in 2 countries only, France/Saudi Arabia. Most people will chose france.
It is b/c one society is more reasonable.

This is why it makes some sense to see if the french will accomodate them
I agree that the number is too small for the french to really worry about. and indians have to appriciate that the french
are fighting another social battle.
Their society went through a huge transformation following WWII, from 90% of population being religious to 10% and
now face a large number of immigrants whome are religious and belong to another culture.
The sikh immigrants have to weigh that aspect too here.
Which France did they(or their parents) wanted to emigrate too.

I do see your point on no protests in india regarding saudi arabias king being the guest of honor on republic day parade.
Hell few years before that it was iran.
If we are going to celebrate democracy and constitution lets bring in countries which are democratic on such days!
And why the likes of arundhati,communists,bjp,akalis did not make a big dead about that is not known to me.

Saudis have caused more trouble for india by funding madarsas, pumping up pakistans airforce(check out who flies saudi arabian
airforce's plane)

Their society went through a huge transformation following WWII, from 90% of population being religious to 10% and
now face a large number of immigrants whome are religious and belong to another culture.

before we forget, the french have not been a highly religious culture, especially at the elite levels, since the mid 19th century. in fact, the influx of religous catholics from spain, italy and poland in the 19th were a cause of concern for secular root french of that day. france is a country of immigration, and has swallowed and emulsified several waves of people. the problem with sikhism as ennis chooses to identify it is that its strong bent toward orthopraxy, a particular set of markers, is that the french state puts forward the orthopraxy of laicism which direct conflict with a variety of other praxies...the idea that the french state is particularly biased against islam or sikhism is false, the french state has smashed catholicism, and the revolutionaries were wont to say that "to the jews as individuals everything, as a people nothing." that isn't american liberalism, but it is a liberalism of a sort.

MoorNam wrote:
If France makes a law that bans the display of Om for Hindus, but allows the display of the Cross for Catholics, I would throw the book at them. However, they have not done that. They have made a law that's common to everyone - regardless of race, religion etc

A law that applies equally to everyone is not necessarily an equal law. The Canadian gvt could pass a law providing gvt services in English only to all Canadians. But that would not be providing equal treatment to the 5 million unilingual french speakers.

A law taxing skirts only could apply equally to men and women buying skirts, but its burden would not fall equally. (Unless you count a Lungi as a skirt. I think I'd support a ban on lungis for aesthetic reasons only).

A law banning headgear in schools does not hamper Catholics or Protestants. It affects some Muslim women, but can be accomodated. It hits Sikh men hard. Equal law, unequal application. Sometimes that's OK, but only if there is a strong public interest behind the law. I don't understand the principle of laicite behind the French law, but I freely admit I don't understand France one bit.

Moornam also wrote:

Why are you after only the French? Saudi Arabia violates all religious rights for non-muslims. Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak

Ah. The 'look over there' argument. If you do not spend your life denouncing every bad thing in the world, you have no right to denounce any bad thing.

More seriously, there is actually a good reason for having different approaches in different situtations (Razib -- who the Hell remembers the crap comments they wrote on blogs four years ago! Still, you're right.).

For example, Multani (the Sikh Kirpan kid in Quebec) was prohibited from going to a public English school only because his parents are immigrants. It's part of Quebec's illiberal language laws -- laws I have no problem with.

What's the difference? Over the past 30 years, the language laws have been extensively debated and modified to limit the damage, while still achieving the goal of protecting the French language. Quebeckers are aware the law is illiberal, they've specifically exempted it from the purview of the constitution.

Case by case -- what a mess. But that's the only way to go.

(Another example of accomodations for Sikhs. The International boxing authorities demand boxers have no beards for health reasons. But they allow mustaches and sideburns. The Canadian boxing federation refused to make an exception for Sikhs. Canadian Sikh Boxer Pardeep Nagra went to court. With the support of the Canadian gvt, he won an exception for Sikh beards, and was able to box. Thoughts?)

Yet, I did not hear a single pip-squeak out of any Sikh when the King was in India a few weeks ago for Republic Day.

For what its worth, I did display my disgust at Saudi-Arabian Monarch being invited to India , here but then I am not a Sikh and most of my posts are rants (written in bad english :-) )

who the Hell remembers the crap comments they wrote on blogs four years ago!

i do. i'm a bitch for finding inconsistencies. for example, you got mad at "duende" on my blog in 2003 for posting something about how all muslims need to take responsibility for the actions of some muslims. then later that year i recall you posting something how americans needed to take responsibility for what the american gov. did in the past, even if their ancestors weren't there when the deed was done. the inconsistency is minor, and to some extent islam:american citizenship are not analogous since the latter is must more legally structured, but i think the principle does work to illustrate a contradiction, and i do think americans (like i) need to accept the good and the bad with the corporate identification with the american state. similarly, if you call yourself a muslim, i do think that you need to accept that you can't disavow people willy-nilly, unless you want to totally fall into nominalism and reject any group recognition in the face of the state (which i would favor, but most muslims seem to what some recognition that confers upon them legitimacy). this is why i firmly reject the label muslim when people try to pin it on me because of my origin.

in any case, everyone is filled with inconsistencies and assumptions. most stupid flame wars erupt over assumptions unstated. but another problem is that some people are just really dumb, and unfortunately now that SM has 10,000 uniques per day we are dipping into the lower half of the IQ pool now & then....

and by the lower part of the IQ distribution, i am mean there are people who sometimes express opinions to me that seem merely an inversion of the eurocentric paradigms they decry. but they can't even conceive of that reality because they are totally unaware of the slimness of their data set.

Moor Nam - just very briefly - the French do allow crucifixes even though their law is against religious symbols. For crucifixes, the ban extends only to "large ones"

And who told you that there are no havans in America?

Again, tersely. There are two issues that arise here. The first is whether the law is neutral on its face, i.e. whether it applies to all groups. The answer is no.

Christian schoolchildren are prohibited from wearing crucifixes of a "manifestly excessive dimension," not all crucifixes. Similarly, secular scarves aren't banned, only religious ones.

Secondly, it isn't neutral its application. The areas chosen are areas where majority religions do not have a stake. If they really wanted to ban religious symbols, they could ban wedding rings in the classroom, since these have a Christian origin. They do not. Instead, they choose things which are unlikely to offend the majority, but which offend the minority.

An example of a law which is neutral on its face but not in its application would be a law that says that you have to work 7 days a week. This would be neutral on its face - applied to everybody - but clearly designed to target those religions which keep the sabbath.

As for Saudi Arabia, it doesn't claim to be a liberal democracy like France does, so I have lower expectations. The French are hypocrites, despite the differences between Laicite and Anglo-Saxon Freedom of Conscience.

From The Economist on the subject of the head covering ban for school children:

The government stresses that its new law refers to all religions, but nobody is fooled. How many schoolchildren turn up to class wearing crucifixes of a “manifestly excessive dimension”?

"For what its worth, I did display my disgust at Saudi-Arabian Monarch being invited to India , here but then I am not a Sikh and most of my posts are rants (written in bad english :-) )"

there was muted grumbling by some, but not from the communists or leftists, in India over the fact that the Saudi King would not be visiting Gandhi's samadhi because it allegedly violated his religious beliefs. not that I think every foreign head of state who visits India should be obliged to visit Gandhi's samadhi, but imagine if Bush had given the same reason? those protests would have been even louder. as it is they protested his visiting Gandhi's samadhi, so i guess he would have lost either way.

with regard to the Sikh turban controversy, it's not surprising that the indian government hasn't said anything - whether it should is another matter altogether. when the russian orthodox church leader recently said Lord Krishna was an evil demon because he opposes an ISKON temple in Moscow, the Indian government kept quiet. that's fine. when shown evidence of widespread discrimination against Hindus in neighboring countries, the government kept quiet. ok. but when the danish cartoon controversy broke out the indian government saw fit to complain to the danish government and basically urged them to apologize and ensure that no other Danish newspapers print such offensive cartoons. so not sure why the Manmohan Singh government has chosen to remain quiet over the turban issue.

"in India over the fact that the Saudi King would not be visiting Gandhi's samadhi because it allegedly violated his religious beliefs"

Whose God is it anyways,

RC did complain on SM, I think I remember. I read the news through his link.

And who told you that there are no havans in America?

"RC did complain on SM, I think I remember. I read the news through his link."

hi Kush, i guess i didn't express myself properly. i meant there wasn't any real groundswell of criticism over the Saudi King's decision. not that i think there should have been, that's his personal religious belief. however, i do think that if Bush or any other leader not so popular with a certain section of India's population had decided to do the same, the outcry would have been a lot louder.

because he opposes an ISKON temple in Moscow, the Indian government kept quiet. that's fine. when shown evidence of widespread discrimination against Hindus in neighboring countries, the government kept quiet. ok. but when the danish cartoon controversy broke out the indian government saw fit to complain to the danish government and basically urged them to apologize and ensure that no other Danish newspapers print such offensive cartoons. so not sure why the Manmohan Singh government has chosen to remain quiet over the turban issue.

what do you mean by ethnic french? eg., "root french," or inclusive of all the descendents of the europeans who immigrated in the 19th century?

I meant the latter.

Ennis: Are you a lawyer/went to Law School?

Ikram

Unless you count a Lungi as a skirt. I think I'd support a ban on lungis for aesthetic reasons only

Man....What is up with all the hostility towards the Lungi???? Cant we all (Lungi-ed and non Lungi-ed) just get along????

Razib makes points that most people will agree with in the mainstream of all of the 'savage people' living in the West. About the need for adjustment and compromise.

The point when he dissapears with his brown face up his brown ass is when he ascribes to entire communities the attributes of a minority. From his extrapolation of the disturbances at the Birmingham Rep to a conclusion that Sikhs in Britain are a cancerous threat to civilisation it is a plain sail to the rhetoric of the extreme right. As well as being a cancerous lie. In fact, the same arguments are made time and time again by people against Muslims (for obvious reasons), Jamaicans for the gang culture, riots and drive by shootings, Africans for isolated cases of child abuse, Jews and others for various reasons. For twenty years whilst the IRA were bombing across the mainland the Irish were the scum of the Earth to be expunged and expelled (a common racist trope of the English this hatred for the savage Irish)

Abberations in a general narrative of prickly co-existence, manageable, fixable? Nope - Razib has spoken - and the hordes of barbarians are breaching the walls of Rome!

I cannot for the life of me figure out why a turban would prevent a Sikh from being misidentified on his drivers licence. Can anyone explain to me? It is not covering his face, and if he needs to show the licence whilst he is driving he will be wearing a turban, and if identifying is by facial perspective, what is the problem? It just doesnt make sense to me.

I'm know your question is rhetorical Anand. This notion of turbans being a security threat smells of cartloads of steaming um, xenophobia and the need for ensuring docility and humility amongst France's feared brown citizens.

As for Razib's charming take on the immigrant/racial minority/barbarians at the gates issue - after I scraped my jaw off the floor that he can keep going with it for so long I realise that there's really nothing more I want to say to engage those opinions. And then I start to wonder, after reading so many of these posts, how much of a dialogue is ever being reached. The lefties keep preaching to the converted about injustice and inequality and hegemonic systems and the rightwing nutjobs people on the right will continue to hi-five each other on racial profiling and societies which are determined to be kept as pure as the driven snow.

brownfrown

The trouble I have with Razib style rhetoric is this - it throws the baby out with the bath water. It condemns totality for incidences and problems within, even when recurrent, do not represent the fullness of a people. It stigmatises individuals with the mark of irremediable problem. It dissuades reformers and liberals from within by marking them with the sign of the devil. It destroys nuance and understanding and places minorities inside a rhetoric of disease and threat.

In the UK this narrative has applied to people of all racial and religious minorities. Not just brown or black minorities - Jews and Irish too. The Irish analogy works well - millions of people of Irish descent live in the UK. But for thirty years Irish terrorists were bombing and killing and maiming thousands of people in Britain through the Republican campaign. There were supporters and apologists for this inside the Irish community in Britain. But most of them were horrified and sickened by that violence. They were stereotyped and in some cases persecuted.

I have too many memories and knowledge of the Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Jamaican and Irish communities to accept this barbarian-totality narrative. It brutalises and denies people the space to dissent from within. You are not going to help the majority to reform their communities from within when you mark them as scum to begin with.

And those who gloat because their own community has not been given this attibute yet beware, it can happen to you too. That is a good point Al Mujahid makes above.

Well put, Anand. To step off my angry race-issues soapbox for a second, and to state what I thought was the obvious; it really is a disservice to everyone concerned to essentialise communities and start atributing certain "characteristics" to them. Not only do these stereotypes all-to-often become part of the dominant rhetoric, but it often serves to silence or stifle voices of dissent and heterogeniety amongst and within communities. And after a while, if you keep accusing people of being a certain way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Social constructs, discourses and "false consciousness" are all an important part of "identity" formation after all. As is resentment and oppression. So West or Rest, this constant harping on about crazy "immigrants", especially in the context of current massive global demographic shifts (I'm not even touching the ethical issues involved) is really an assbackwards way of going about things.

brownfrown

The most insidious aspect of this ass backwardness (great phrase!) essentialising is the aspect you describe - the devilry made and cutting away of the ground beneath the feet of individuals within minority communities. Let me give you an example from the UK and the personal experience of one of my friends.

In the UK the exam pass rate for black boys of Jamaican descent at school is the worst out of all ethnicities. This is a problem that various black thinkers, academics, journalists have begun to address in community media, forums etc. They do so at risk of being called an 'Uncle Tom' for suggesting that reasons other than racism by the majority white community might be to blame for this, especially in light of black girls of similar age performing well. When arguments are made by some outside the community that black boys are incapable of achieving academic success and are pre-destined for a life of low employment levels and criminality, and that this is a predisposed attribute, irremediable, you basically stab in the back those black intellectuals and activists who are starting to get to grips with the complex issues involved here. Their agenda is compromised and they are stigmatised because the Uncle Tomists who stick their heads in the sand have ammunition and armour to beat the reformers with.

I see the same dynamic with people inside all desi communities in the UK. Most of all it annoys me because it seems so self evident to me that a simple appreciation of the rhetoric and underlying attitude is plain and obvious that this is so. Why can't it be appreciated? Rather than engaging and helping, you transform it into something else, and use it as a stick to beat entire peoples with.

It's a no-brainer. And it comes across as so CRASS to think like that.

it really is a disservice to everyone concerned to essentialise communities and start atributing certain "characteristics" to them. Not only do these stereotypes all-to-often become part of the dominant rhetoric, but it often serves to silence or stifle voices of dissent and heterogeniety amongst and within communities. And after a while, if you keep accusing people of being a certain way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

word up!

it like half the problems (scientifically its been judged to be exactly half) come from making ass-u-m-ptions. Maybe not on grand social scales, but interpersonally most of the drama we get from people around us if from judgementalisms

If religon is so important with muslims with their head scarves, jews with their skull caps and sikhs with turbans its better to stay in your own country...