Canada has at least one. America has them. Being able to see someone’s hair doesn’t really seem like a requirement for police officers. Back in the day, police officers all wore hats in the US anyways.
What part of a police officer’s job is made impossible by wearing a scarf or a hat?
The government should not be forbidding anyone’s religious practice. That being said, a patch on a uniform is not a religious obligation. Totally different category from a kippah, hijab, turban, ash, bindi, etc.
Yeah this is the equality vs equity debate. Saying that you are banning all religious dress doesn’t weigh equally on Christians vs non-Christians. Additionally even when it would there are loopholes given. The NT endorses woman to grow their hair long. The various security forces of the world usually allow woman to do it. So even the argument that you are treating every religion the same doesn’t hold up.
A turban is not endorsement of Sikhism. By banning mandatory religious garments you are just promising that the police do not reflect the demographics of the area. Which is not a great thing.
That position requires a willful ignorance of the difference between a religious symbol and a religious practice.
Do you really think it’s a coincidence that the law carves out a specific prohibition on religious practices that doesn’t affect Christians, the dominant religious group? Your flag has a cross on it.
deleted by creator
Sikh cops are allowed to wear turbans and it doesn’t harm anyone when they do.
deleted by creator
Canada has at least one. America has them. Being able to see someone’s hair doesn’t really seem like a requirement for police officers. Back in the day, police officers all wore hats in the US anyways.
You talking about the uniform caps, or just hats in general?
I consider caps to be hats, yes.
What part of a police officer’s job is made impossible by wearing a scarf or a hat?
The government should not be forbidding anyone’s religious practice. That being said, a patch on a uniform is not a religious obligation. Totally different category from a kippah, hijab, turban, ash, bindi, etc.
deleted by creator
Yeah this is the equality vs equity debate. Saying that you are banning all religious dress doesn’t weigh equally on Christians vs non-Christians. Additionally even when it would there are loopholes given. The NT endorses woman to grow their hair long. The various security forces of the world usually allow woman to do it. So even the argument that you are treating every religion the same doesn’t hold up.
A turban is not endorsement of Sikhism. By banning mandatory religious garments you are just promising that the police do not reflect the demographics of the area. Which is not a great thing.
That position requires a willful ignorance of the difference between a religious symbol and a religious practice.
Do you really think it’s a coincidence that the law carves out a specific prohibition on religious practices that doesn’t affect Christians, the dominant religious group? Your flag has a cross on it.
deleted by creator
Why didn’t you address their point? The flag has a cross on it
deleted by creator
I see.
Well thanks for confirming some things I have always suspected about Christianity in general and European Christianity in particular.
“We can’t allow distinctive religious or cultural symbols representing the state!”
“What about that one right there?”
“Well, obviously that one is allowed. It’s a part of who we are!”
Uniform dress
By that logic, these officers are not able to function in their job. Or maybe it’s just certain types of hats and scarves that are objectionable.
Any symbols other than the flag of the jurisdiction you’re serving should be forgone while wearing a uniform.
And insignia of course