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

[garbon]

I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.

Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.

Indeed.  In this case I think it would be entirely fair to ask him to step into a private room and take off his turban - if it was necessary - much as I'd think it was right for a Muslim woman or a nun.

If such accommodations were available and used for nuns and muslim women (which I am not sure whether they exist at Polish airports) then yes. Otherwise no.

Then such speaks to the backwardness of your state.

[Razgovory]

I agree. Freedom of religion is no different from a more general freedom of expression which essentially means people are free to do what they want, as long as it does not harm others (or, more practically, there is no compelling reason to restrict this freedom in some way - e.g. by telling them to drive on one side of the road).

If we think there is a compelling reason for some rule to restrict personal freedom (e.g. "remove your hat during security checks", "do not slaughter animals in some particular way" etc.) then such rule should apply to everyone equally. Likewise, if we think someone's religious beliefs are a good enough reason to override such rule, then everyone should have a right not to obey that rule on other grounds, and not just because of their religion.

A good example is military service in countries that practice conscription. One person may object to it based on their religion. Another person may object to it based on their non-religious pacifistic worldview. If we create an exemption for the former but not for the latter, then this is discrimination pure and simple and the most glaring inequality under law imaginable - certainly nothing that can even remotely be described as a "freedom" of any kind.

I thought I already showed your "Do not slaughter animals in some particular way", to be hypocritical self righteousness.

[Martinus]

Then such speaks to the backwardness of your state.

No, just the fact that not many muslims or sikhs travel through the Warsaw airport, so arranging for such accommodations would be a misuse of resources.

I also do not want my state to spend taxpayer money on accommodating religious manias.

[Martinus]

I searched for the article about the sikh guy and it seems they did ask him to go to a private room to remove his turban. He thought they should have used a metal detector instead.

[Sheilbh]

If such accommodations were available and used for nuns and muslim women (which I am not sure whether they exist at Polish airports) then yes. Otherwise no.

If such accommodations could reasonably be offered then they should be.  I cannot imagine that there's an airport in the world without private rooms for different sorts of interviews or security purposes.  But even if there was just a screen - say he's travelling in a cowshed airport.

I searched for the article about the sikh guy and it seems they did ask him to go to a private room to remove his turban. He thought they should have used a metal detector instead.

Then it's probably fair that it went against him.  Though I'm still on his side because I hate the generally meaningless misery of airport security now.  I hear it's even worse in the US.

[garbon]

Then such speaks to the backwardness of your state.

No, just the fact that not many muslims or sikhs travel through the Warsaw airport, so arranging for such accommodations would be a misuse of resources.

I also do not want my state to spend taxpayer money on accommodating religious manias.

Do you not have private rooms in Poland where more invasive searches can be performed? Here you can request private space if you are to receive a pat down. Do then basically everything that Sheilbh said in his reply.

[grumbler]

The legislature may delegate non-essential lawmaking powers to the executive, what is termed quasi-legislative powers, to make regulations that fill the gaps often left by statutes, or almost as often make concrete their vague directives.

Yes, exactly.  Quasi-legislative powers, not legislative powers.  The regulations only give the guidelines to enforce the statutes.  They cannot exist without the statutes, and if the statutes  are repealed or overturned, so are the regulations, automatically.  The statutes are the laws that can be violated by violating the regulations.

Not sure how your argument works against mine at all.  Polish airport authorities could alter the regulations regarding religious headgear removal without affecting the law involved at all.

Regulatory law is subordinate to statutory law, yes.

Exactly.  Now you understand.

In another example, if the FDA establishes a limit of 1 part mercury per million in fish, and some fishmonger sells fish with 10 parts per million, they have "violated the law" even if the authorizing statute says something along the lines of "no excessive amounts of heavy metals in food."  That reg couldn't exist without the statute, but the reg need not have taken that particular form once the statute authorized the FDA to regulate heavy metals.  It has life in its own right.

That is my point exactly.  If science shows that the safe limit is one part in ten million, then the EPA could modify the regulations without consulting the legislature (though the legislature could overturn the regulation if they desired).  In effect, the law would not be different, just the regulation.

If you think federal regs have no force of law, why not go violate an agency order and explain your position clearly to intra-agency appeals personnel and eventually the district court judge, and see what happens.

Name some agency orders that are not backed by statute, case law, or the Constitution, and I'll consider it.

[grumbler]

I don't think so. You seem to focus on the state making accommodations if they possibly have the resources (which cash strapped States tend not to have) whereas I think the state should always make reasonable accommodations available...especially in cases where acccomodations are already available but just need to be added to protocol.

Sorry we only respect your religion if not busy isn't the freedom of religion, I'd want to have.

Exactly.  Now, the "reasonable accommodation" may take a bit longer than the standard procedures, but, again, the authorities have to be reasonable about that, as well - no "go wait int he room and we will get to you when there are no other passengers trying to board planes" routine because they think Sikhs desiring privacy for this is a religious attempt to "influence state politics or legal procedures."

But, then, I've never heard of elected airport security inspectors before, either.

[Martinus]

But, then, I've never heard of elected airport security inspectors before, either.

Why would they be elected? 

[Martinus]

Name some agency orders that are not backed by statute, case law, or the Constitution, and I'll consider it.

Federal statutes are also backed by the Constitution - the Congress can only pass such laws as authorized to do so by the Constitution. That does not make such statutes non-laws. 

[garbon]

Btw

http://www.krakowpost.com/article/2640

Changes to EU airport security regulations in 2010 caused controversy because they allowed for hand searching of religious headgear. New regulations issued by the British Department for Transport in February 2011 allow individuals to refuse hand searches of religious headgear as long as they submit to screening by security technology. Last summer Italian courts decided Sikhs would no longer be asked to remove their turbans during airport security checks.

[Martinus]

That is my point exactly.  If science shows that the safe limit is one part in ten million, then the EPA could modify the regulations without consulting the legislature (though the legislature could overturn the regulation if they desired).  In effect, the law would not be different, just the regulation.

The regulation is still the law. It's the so-called secondary legislation which is a source of law (as explained by the link you ignored). Seriously, in your absolute inability to ever admit you are wrong, you say the dumbest things sometimes.

[Martinus]

Btw

http://www.krakowpost.com/article/2640

Changes to EU airport security regulations in 2010 caused controversy because they allowed for hand searching of religious headgear. New regulations issued by the British Department for Transport in February 2011 allow individuals to refuse hand searches of religious headgear as long as they submit to screening by security technology. Last summer Italian courts decided Sikhs would no longer be asked to remove their turbans during airport security checks.

We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.

[garbon]

Also per this audio - there is a lot more that is reprehensible in what the border guard is supposedly doing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-16318914

[garbon]

We are not British or Italian, thank God. If we were, we would have a recession or be on the verge of bankruptcy, respectively.

Yes, clearly recession is linked to not having security guards waste time hand-checking sikh headgear.