Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

[Capetan Mihali]

Seriously, enough with the punjabs. 

I don't know. I think it's been a pretty sikhcessful thread so far.

Extra credit to Guller for expanding the scope of the punning.  [No puns present in this post.]

[crazy canuck]

The sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion.  It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.

I've always said that reasonable accomodations must be made for religious observations.  In this case the individual has already gone through the metal detector.  Unless there is some reason to require further investigation I see no need to deny this man access to his flight because it is policy to make people remove their headwear.

Why must you accommodate all religions?

Yeah, I have never understood why we should allow people carry crosses in the guise of necklaces onto airplanes.  Those suckers have sharp edges.  Someone could lose an eye.

[ulmont]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

Because some are more easily accommodated than others.

Then perhaps we could make reasonable accommodations, while refusing unreasonable accommodations, for all religions?

[Ed Anger]

Seriously, enough with the punjabs. 

I don't know. I think it's been a pretty sikhcessful thread so far.

Extra credit to Guller for expanding the scope of the punning.  [No puns present in this post.]

I'd like to sikh a dog on Dorsey.

[Maximus]

Then perhaps we could make reasonable accommodations, while refusing unreasonable accommodations, for all religions?

Quit being so reasonable.

[Iormlund]

The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.

Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet?  Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?

What is tough about that? Yes and yes.

[Razgovory]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

Because some are more easily accommodated than others.

This does make sense, but we are used to accommodating some religions which makes it easier.  For instance, offering a child sacramental wine, is technically giving alcohol to a minor.  But nobody thinks it a big deal.  We've done it for a long time. I think letting the guy on the plane with his stupid hat is not much of a problem.  Those daggers are bit more troublesome, but perhaps they can arrive at some accommodation.

[alfred russel]

If it is deemed necessary in the US to put me randomly through a scanner that lets security personnel see my image naked, then how can you allow someone with an uninspected turban on a plane? For that matter, as we discussed before, in the US I can't even get on a plane without taking off my flip flops, to mitigate a security risk I have not yet figured out.

We also fingerprint and photograph foreigners. I find that stuff offensive to my admittedly non religious belief system, but that doesn't mean security will accomodate my beliefs and skip the fingerprinting of people when I'm in the room.

[Valmy]

We've done it for a long time. I think letting the guy on the plane with his stupid hat is not much of a problem.

Um they are not taking their turbans from them, they just have to take them off to make sure they are not sneaking something onto the plane in them.

[Razgovory]

We've done it for a long time. I think letting the guy on the plane with his stupid hat is not much of a problem.

Um they are not taking their turbans from them, they just have to take them off to make sure they are not sneaking something onto the plane in them.

Yes, but I thought the problem was they wouldn't take them off in public.  The could just say "Fine, we'll x-ray your skull, if means so much to you.  Now I'm going to stand behind this lead shield".

[Martinus]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train? If someone had an irrational fear of removing their shoes, or believed that by going through a metal detector, his or her soul is being stolen, surely special measures would not be taken to accommodate a lunatic like this at the airport security checks. So why should we take an exception for a lunatic who believes the hair on his head is a private part that must not be showed to strangers?

Once again, I full applaud the French model of approaching these things. Sure, you have a right to be insane and do all kinds of crazy stuff your lunatic belief system tells you to do (as long as you are not harming anyone). But we won't move a millimeter to accommodate your insanity when it comes to the standards set by our laws. If it means you won't get a driver's license, won't get on a plane or won't be able to get a public job, so be it. The Republic prevails over your idiocy.

[Josquius]

I wonder; were they demanding he do it in the standard security check room in front of dozens of other passengers and security staff?
I'd imagine they may be willing to do it in extreme occasions in a private room with another person of the same gender- like stripping down to your pants for other folk.

The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train? If someone had an irrational fear of removing their shoes, or believed that by going through a metal detector, his or her soul is being stolen, surely special measures would not be taken to accommodate a lunatic like this at the airport security checks. So why should we take an exception for a lunatic who believes the hair on his head is a private part that must not be showed to strangers?

It is a bit arbitrary. When is enough people believing the same thing enough to make it a religion?
Just when the census says so?

[Martinus]

The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.

Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet?  Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?

What is tough about that? Yes and yes.

Yeah. The fact that this is even a dilemma shows you how fucked up Canada is.

[Martinus]

It is a bit arbitrary. When is enough people believing the same thing enough to make it a religion?
Just when the census says so?

Exactly. "You have a right to get a special exception for your insanity that other people do not enjoy, if you get enough people to believe in your insanity with you." If that's not discriminatory I don't know what is.

[Martinus]

I wonder; were they demanding he do it in the standard security check room in front of dozens of other passengers and security staff?
I'd imagine they may be willing to do it in extreme occasions in a private room with another person of the same gender- like stripping down to your pants for other folk.

But that requires extra resources, e.g time spent, additional officers/staff, delay of routine checks. Again, I ask: why all of this for a lunatic?

A few years ago there was a furor here in Poland over some mentally challenged Polish guy who went to Canada to reunite with his mother. Something apparently spooked him at the Toronto airport, and he started to act weird (but apparently not violently) and got tased multiple times, which led to his death. My question: what makes both lunatics different? Surely, there is a middle ground between both extremes?