...to make some points - just thought others could help with ideas
2006-09-27 08:00:15 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Look in Wikipedia under Sikh prohibitions.
It was positive Discrimination that allows Sikhs to wear a turban in place of Motor Cycle Helmet also applicable on Building sites.
This has led to negative discrimination in that some people grumble about it being one one law for some and not for all. Read some of the previous answers. Must a Sikh break religious vows to appease those that are uneducated?
2006-09-30 00:58:15 · answer #1 · answered by Ashley K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem with British people is that although they don't like stupid rules that their authorities dream up in the bath, they obey blindly without a whimper of protest and when anyone else gets round the rules they moan like cry babies. If you don't like helmets why don't you join to get the rules changed? If you think they save lives and they are good then you should be happy you are not as Sikh and you don't have to die a horrible death. Whichever way you look at it, there appears no room for whingeing. Who cares if Sikhs want to gamble on the bike ? I just hate moaning for the sake of it without proper thought given to the subject. And talking about discrimination, in the proper sense, if a Sikh and a whitey apply for the same job, who do you think would get it? To be in charge of children's education and up bringing, I think you should be given a test and a licence, don't you think?
2006-09-27 13:35:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sikhs are exempt from the otherwise mandatory requirement to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, due to their religious obligation to wear a turban. This is certainly a form of positive discrimination. I don't think it's a particularly significant one though.
2006-09-27 08:14:37 · answer #3 · answered by Darren R 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think there are some valuable points to made here. For instance, while we as a country, allow religious freedom up to and including the wearing of headresses for religious purposes, what is more important. religious freedom or safety? Will insurance companies insure a Sikh if he doesn't wear a helmet? Should they? And what about the rest of us? Will we pay higher premiums in order for the insurance company to compensate for those who are not required to follow the letter of the law? Is that fair to the rest? Jut food for thought.
2006-09-27 08:32:05 · answer #4 · answered by Raymond 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Millions of Sikhs were allowed to die for the british Empire with thier right to wear turbans why cant they be allowed to wear thier turbans on a bike??? (without some honkies moaning about it)
2006-09-28 22:01:53 · answer #5 · answered by Oracle 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think the point here is that Sihk's don't need to wear a motorcycle crash-helmet, something to do with the turban getting in the way I think. Or is that just an urban myth? Surely everyone has to wear a helmet don't they? I don't really get the point of this question...
2006-09-27 08:14:26 · answer #6 · answered by Mental Mickey 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Sikh? I'm not even sure what the question is here. You have a computer ... google it!
2006-09-27 08:08:23 · answer #7 · answered by AzOasis8 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
How about:
A black man and a white man with identical skills and experience apply to join the police....
Gregorz and his family arrive at Dover and go straight to the top of the housing queue....
Mr & Mrs Pike build a house on Greenbelt land - and nobody does anything to force them off.....
2006-09-27 08:13:25 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
tell him to do his own homework regardless of the subject
2006-09-27 08:09:18 · answer #9 · answered by mini the prophet of fubar 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋