American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Sikh Policemen to Get Bulletproof Turbans So They Can Join Firearms Units

More news stories on Britain

Daily Mail (London), May 7, 2009

Police are trying to develop bullet-proof turbans for Sikh officers to wear instead of helmets.

The headwear would allow those who insist on always wearing turbans to join gun or riot squads for the first time.

Scientists are investigating whether bullet-proof Kevlar could be used for the 15ft strip of cloth a turban requires.

British Police Sikh Association vice-chairman Gian Singh Chahal said: ‘Sikh officers have been prohibited from becoming firearms officers because our religion does not allow us to remove the turban.

‘Nor can we wear the NATO helmet for public order policing.’

He said research had already begun into finding the perfect material to create a ballistic turban, but that the high-tech headgear would need to pass Home Office tests before being used by officers.

He said: ‘There has been some research done into producing a ballistic material for turbans and we would like to follow any opportunity where we could manufacture a ballistic product—made out of something like Kevlar—that would ensure a certain degree of protection so Sikh police officers could take part in these roles.

‘We need to approach the Home Office and police forces and to gain their acceptance so that Sikh officers could become firearms and public order officers whilst wearing turbans.

‘There needs to be a recognition from the Home Office that would allow Sikh officers to carry out these roles.

‘The will is there from chief constables but perhaps not yet from the Home Office.’

One Sikh PC, who didn’t want to be named, said: ‘It would be incredible if they developed a bulletproof turban.

‘It would make life a lot easier for us and would mean we could go for jobs as firearms and public order officers—which a lot of Sikh officers would like to do, but are currently not allowed to go for.’

Last year West Midlands Police spent tens of thousands of pounds trying to find protective headgear to fit over a turban after a Sikh officer applied to join the counter-terrorist Operational Support Unit.

The force spent 18 months looking for a solution, but failed to find any suitable equipment.

The officer was rejected from the job because he couldn’t fit a helmet and respirator over his turban, and instead returned to his job on the beat.

The unnamed officer reportedly claimed to have been discriminated against and was on long-term sick leave suffering from stress.

Dr Indarjit Singh, director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, said Sikhism is the only religion in the world in which wearing a turban is mandatory for all adult males.

He said: ‘It is mandatory for adult Sikh men to wear the turban.’

Turbans consist of around 15ft of cloth wound around the head.

Sikh men wear them to cover their hair, which they leave uncut in accordance with their religion. They often wear their long beards rolled up.

As well as being a sign of spirituality, the turban is also a symbol of Sikh identity and of courage.

There are more than 750,000 Sikhs, the only religion allowed to ride motorbikes without crash helmets, in the UK.

Sikh soldiers serving in the British Army refused to wear helmets during the First and Second World Wars.

They fought with their turbans on, several receiving the Victoria Cross for acts of gallantry.

Legendary British General Sir Frank Messervy praised the Sikh soldiers who laid down their lives in the two world wars.

He said: ‘In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded.

‘They all died or were wounded for the freedom of Britain and the world, and during shell fire, with no other protection but the turban, the symbol of their faith.’

A Home Office spokesman said: ‘The Government wants a police service that reflects the diverse communities it serves.

‘It is down to individual forces to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the religion or beliefs of individual officers, as far as operational requirements permit.’

Original article

(Posted on May 8, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Spartan24 wrote at 6:52 PM on May 8:

This is like the article a few weeks ago about Muslim women given new fire service uniforms that look as if they will go up like a torch at the slightest hint of fire. While I applaud the Sikhs that served in both wars, I think it would be a question of job performance. If you cannot perform the essensial duties of the job in question in the clothing that fits your religious beliefs then take another job.

2 — Tim in Indiana wrote at 8:45 PM on May 8:

‘In the last two world wars 83,005 turban wearing Sikh soldiers were killed and 109,045 were wounded.

Okay, the question that comes to my mind is why there were so many Sikhs in England during the two world wars, which were, racially speaking, supposedly saner times.

3 — SKIP wrote at 12:33 AM on May 9:

I wonder how heavy 15 feet of Kevlar is, I KNOW how much a U.S. military Kevlar weighs. I see early FULL PENSION medical retirements (neck distress) in the future and easy street for the Sihks.

4 — Anonymous wrote at 12:35 AM on May 9:

“83,000 Sikhs killed in the two world wars”…

I question that figure very strongly. Does this count only combat-related deaths? I couldn’t find any confirmation of this number except on Sikh websites which I don’t trust to be unbiased.

5 — Anonymous wrote at 3:32 AM on May 9:

“Okay, the question that comes to my mind is why there were so many Sikhs in England during the two world wars, which were, racially speaking, supposedly saner times.” - They were recruited from India which was under British control.

“There are more than 750,000 Sikhs, the only religion allowed to ride motorbikes without crash helmets, in the UK.” - So you can get a pass because of your strange beliefs about how your hair accessories relates to the supernatural, but for everybody else the government doesn’t think freedom of choice is an issue.

6 — Johnny English wrote at 8:47 AM on May 9:

Personally I don’t mind if a few small concessions are made to Sikhs resident in the UK. In general they actually demand very little from the host society, unlike another large, predominantly South Asian group (towards whom, incidentally, they feel very little love).

Also, unlike Muslim women firefighters, Sikh policemen - who tend to be physically strong and intelligent - are likely to be operationally efficient, as well as loyal to the host society.

7 — SKIP wrote at 11:34 AM on May 9:

Okay, the question that comes to my mind is why there were so many Sikhs in England during the two world wars, which were, racially speaking, supposedly saner times.

Because India was a colony of England for years and years and the Sihks were/are formidable fighters and loyal to the crown. This of course, was before the muslim ideaology contaminated them to make them just another group of trouble makers.

8 — Spartan24 wrote at 12:36 PM on May 9:

I wonder if the number of Sikhs who served in the world wars was due to India having been a Crown colony at the time.

9 — Anonymous wrote at 2:01 PM on May 9:

Reply to Johnny English:

I still think Great Britain would be better off without any Sikhs there. One LESS minority group. One LESS source of social tension and division. One LESS dilution of the British people and their national character. One LESS ethnic group with their own alien agenda. I can’t think of any advantage at all that accrued to Britain by changing from a mono-racial to a multi-racial state.

10 — Wulfstan wrote at 7:06 PM on May 9:

“why were there so many Sikhs in England during WW2 etc”

There weren`t.Most of them were serving in the 14th Army in Burma, where they fought with great courage and distinction against the Japanese.Though serving under British command,they were in effect fighting to secure the future for what would inevitably become an independent India`rather than for the benefit of far off Blighty.That said one sikh is worth twenty
Muslims.

11 — Jan Sobieski wrote at 2:22 AM on May 10:

Because India was a colony of England for years and years and the Sihks were/are formidable fighters and loyal to the crown.

Posted by SKIP at 11:34 AM on May 9


In fact there were countries in Asia that were
subjected to colonialism much longer. Indonesia
was under Dutch rule for something like 450 years.
The Philipinnes was under Spanish and later American
rule for also some 450 years. Same with Malaysia,
Singapore, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka,
the Central Asian countries under Russian rule upto
1991 AD.


India was under colonial rule for roughly the same
time as Hong Kong was, about 150 years. Not quite
that long compared to Indonesia or Philippines for
example. Also colonial rule was mostly indirect,
through the Indian Maharajas (ie.kings).


Does anybody know about the Gurkhas? The reason I
ask is because I remember reading sometime back
about how during the 1st world war, how the Germans
were actually scared of Gurkha soldiers more than
they were of the French.

Does anyone know anything about this?

12 — SKIP wrote at 8:29 AM on May 10:

I still think Great Britain would be better off without any Sikhs there. One LESS minority group.

England would indeed be better off. I think the Sihks of today are not the same caliber of men as the ones who have fought and died for the English. I know a lot of them and they are muslims, BUT England would indeed be even BETTER if they could run off all the muslims, which is never going to work out now. They are entrenched in the Emerald Isles and would be ‘outraged’ at any attempt at displacement, and we all know what happens when muslims are outraged.

13 — SKIP wrote at 7:31 PM on May 10:

Does anybody know about the Gurkhas?

OSPREY publications has specific books on them and many others in their various series. Their website is available and the books are also available in Barnes & Noble, I have many of them and they are very good reference books for so many things. I think the Ghurkas are in their “Warrior” series, a blinding glimpse of the obvious there.

14 — SKIP wrote at 10:42 AM on May 11:

about how during the 1st world war, how the Germans
were actually scared of Gurkha soldiers more than
they were of the French.

Hahahaha of course they were, no one is afraid of the French Armee De La surrender. Franceistan is mostly outraged muslims now anyway (except customs, that’s CONGO)

15 — Anonymous wrote at 8:03 PM on May 11:

I ask again, does anybody have any INDEPENDENT information on the number of those alleged Sikh casulaties? I have read an awful lot of military history and those figures sound WAY TOO HIGH to me.

16 — Anonymous wrote at 4:18 AM on May 12:

SKIP: “I know a lot of them and they are muslims”

Its worth noting that Sikhs are Sikhs, not Muslims. They’re a religion, not a race, hence the fact that they wear turbans, whereas Islam is less strict on that front.

17 — White wrote at 5:13 AM on May 12:

Wearing a rag on your head in combat probably causes a greater number of casualties.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search