singh211

I have been told the Dudley committee has made contact with Sangat TV through an intermediary to attend Sangat TV to take part in the discussion on the Dudley issue this evening - should be interesting viewing! Whether they turn up given their previous reluctance to talk on the issue remains to be seen!

Good news - again the family should be congratulated for doing the right thing notwithstanding it being so close to the date of their event This again shows the power of the media. This practice although thought to have been stopped in the main in the UK was raised on the Sikh Channel last Sunday and within a few days the Satkaar Campaign was made aware of another instance of it. We still have work to do in terms of education and getting the message out to the wider Sikh community.

This is an amazing victory for all those who have campaigned on this issue! You cannot underestimate the humiliation of the Dudley committee before the family, their own sangat, the wider Sikh community and the West Midlands Police at this turn of events! The families on whose shoulders these Dudley committee people want to stand and fight their thirst for meat and alcohol have seen through them and pulled the rug from beneath them! Let this be a salutary lesson to them: the families will not stand by you when they learn the truth about your deceptive ways - no wonder you did not wish them to meet directly with sevadaars of the campaign! This will embolden the sangat to eradicate the cancerous practices of committees such as this Dudley one! The strength of the feeling against the Dudley committee can be gauged by the fact there are many including on this forum who despite the cancellation of the party still wanted to attend at Dudley this weekend to give the committee a message! Watch out for further coverage of the Dudley issue this weekend on Sangat TV this Friday from 7pm and on the Sikh Channel on Sunday on the Youth Show.

sukhdev, you talk about liberalism yet it appears you don't want to extend it to the right of the sangat to voice their opposition to the dudley committee in the form of this protest you talk about the matter being for dudley people only yet you continually spout off your ill-informed nonsense on this forum even though by your own admission you haven't lived in dudley for 20 years! what's it all got to do with you then by your own argument? you talk about the origin of donations made to a gurdwara; if you feel so strongly about the issue why don't you take up the matter with the akal takht to give you a ruling on the issue you talk about wanting to make a living for your family yet judging from the number of your posts today it appears you have spent your day behind your keyboard even though you refuse to state your position on whether you believe meat and alcohol should be served on gurdwara premises the truth is the diversionary tactics used by you on this forum and your dudley committee wale will not work; you clearly are educated to some level and you want us all to know you know what subsidiarity means and that you can cut and paste poems written by wordsworth yet you don't seem able to grasp the simplest of facts of this situation which are these - 1. the dudley gurdwara is permitting meat and alcohol to be consumed in premises which are owned/managed by it 2. this is forbidden in the sikh faith as expressly provided in the akal takht sandesh of 2006 3. a wide spectrum of other gurdwaras and sikh organisations in the west midlands region have attempted to meet with the dudley committee and discuss the matter with them but the dudley committee has refused 4. the akal takht has mandated all sikhs to take all steps to implement the 2006 sandesh 5. the sikh community from dudley and beyond will protest against the actions of the dudley committee this saturday

Not sure if this has been publicised - there is a debate organised by Paul Uppal in Parliament at Westminster Hall today 1.30 to 2pm on the searching of dastaars at airports Live feed here: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=8192

in theory a good idea but in practice will likely lead to more coalition governments like this one for sikh lobbying it could be beneficial in certain constituencies where politicians would have to work harder to gain the minority vote

http://www.guruharrai.org/baba-harbans-singh-domeli-wale.html

It's time for Sikh Canadians to vote not on the basis of party allegiances but for those who will do most for the Sikh community if they get elected If the WSO or others are reading this you guys may wish to circulate election pledges to candidates regarding Sikh issues like the Sikh Federation have done in the past in the UK and then name and shame candidates particularly Sikh ones in large Sikh constituencies who fail to pledge

I have been told the Gurdwara committee and trustees are proposing to create a new charity and transfer the ownership of the community centre to this new entity for a nomimal value perhaps as little as £1. Would they sell their own properties for nominal sums? If not why do they believe they have the right to do this to assets of the Guru's house? A lawyer I know has said the trustees have legal duties to look after the best interests of the Gurdwara and will be personally financially liable to the Gurdwara's sangat if they try to transfer the ownership at below value.

Who are business thugs and why? As far as I have seen Sangat TV has had a number of programmes on 1984, shows footage of Sant Jarnail Singh's speeches every week and has given the Federation time to raise awareness of the Sikh lobby. What more do you think they should be doing?

Sharma did not attend but did anyone from Southall lobby him to? MPs may not attend even if they are lobbied to but they surely won't if we as constituents don't even ask them to do so

I didn't see the programme but if caste issues were raised then the controllers should consider whether it is worth doing such programmes in the first place. The live show format has its limitations in any case and there should be a debate about whether Sangat wishes to continue down this road Jas Singh and Harminder Singh, it is a little outlandish to suggest motives or conspiracy theories about the channel owners. Sangat trust is a charity and the identity of the trustees is not hidden. They are various wealthy UK based Sikhs who have come together to fund a channel without constantly appealing for direct debits from viewers. They sought a merger with the Sikh Channel but this was not achievable for various reasons.

The following are photos of Baba Harbans Singh jee - a short history of Sant Jee will be up soon http://www.guruharrai.org/baba-harbans-singh-domeli-wale.html

The law has recognised religious discrimination since 2003 under the anti-religious regulations which have now been consolidated under the new Equality Act. The ethnic monitoring issue is about the additional benefits and recognitions provided to ethnic groups as oppose to merely religious groups.

The evidence clearly shows that the community centre is owned by and inextricably linked to the Gurdwara notwithstanding what representatives of the Gurdwara committee have said. That they seek to mislead the sangat is not surprising as they have no answer to the charge that permitting the consumption of meat and alcohal on premises owned or linked to a Gurdwara is wrong so they attempt to divert the issue. They should even now recognise their obligations to the sangat and do the right thing.

Can this be recorded and put up for the sangat jeeo

Gurbar Akaal, Sikhs are recognised as an ethnic as well as a religious group in English law and have been since the case of Mandla -v-Dowell Lee http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/equality/Mandla_DowellLee.htm

no they are not banned! the new equality act gives the government the power to ban caste based discrimination in various areas but it hasn't yet and judging by the hindu groups the government is consulting with it could be some time before any such measure is taken - see http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_act_2010/faqs_on_commencement_of_the_eq/caste.aspx

.

i'm speculating that these recent reports may be linked to the review of the blacklist of sikhs which the punjab government has asked the indian home ministry to undertake with a view to taking some names off it. the indian reports that i recall reading suggested that the punjab police and intelligence agencies were not happy with this and i would not be surprised if these news stories are suddently being planted in the indian press at the behest of those agencies

Jagtar Singh Has the venue for the lobby been confirmed? Also can you provide more informaiton about the format of the lobby?

the bbc is trying to keep the kirpan debate going by publishing this article by rebecca roache from oxford university - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8506074.stm Should religion be an excuse for carrying daggers? Sikhs should be allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools and other public places, says Britain's first Asian judge. But can religion ever justify loopholes in the law, asks philosopher Rebecca Roache. The idea of children being allowed to carry knives while at school sounds like a red rag to a bull. But that is what Sir Mota Singh QC, Britain's first Asian judge, who is now retired, says should be allowed. Not any old knife - but the ceremonial dagger known as the Kirpan. The Kirpan is one of five "articles of faith" which also include Kesh (unshorn hair) and Kara (steel bangle) that are worn by practising Sikhs. Given the UK's well-publicised problem with knife crime, his suggestion is controversial. It raises the question of how far society should "bend the rules" to accommodate people who wish to practise a religion. CARRYING KIRPANS IN THE UK Worn by fewer than 10% of Sikhs in UK, according to Dabinderjit Singh, adviser to Sikh Federation UK Banned by many schools in the UK, and have been confiscated in public places Yet Criminal Justice Act 1988, which bans blade carrying, has exemption for religion Toleration, equality, and respect for others are important values in Britain today. Indeed, it seems unlikely that any multicultural society could be harmonious without them. Even so, the balance between them can be easily upset. Respecting the views of one group in society by allowing them special privileges can seem like favouritism, and this can foster resentment and undermine toleration. So, how much freedom should people have to live the way they want to live? The political philosopher John Rawls believed that everyone should have the maximum amount of freedom compatible with everyone else having the same amount. In other words, we should be free to act as we please, provided that our doing so does not restrict the freedom of others. This principle - with its commitment to both equality and liberty - underpins much UK legislation. For example, car owners living in built-up residential areas often face restrictions on how many cars they can park on the street, since there is not enough space to allow unlimited parking for everyone. Religion v football Another influential view is that of John Stuart Mill, who argued that, in disagreements about whether or not a certain activity should be permitted, the burden of proof rests with those who favour restricting the activity. In liberalised societies like the UK, activities are generally restricted only with good reason, usually because they pose a significant risk of harm to others. "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) Of course, religious people may argue that religion plays a far more important role in their lives than music or football play in the lives of those who enjoy these activities, and that as a result, special efforts should be made to accommodate religious practices. However, not only is this claim difficult to verify, but giving religious people privileges denied to non-religious people goes against the commitments to equality and respect for others, both of which are important values in Britain today. Practicing religion, then, should be subject to the same standards as non-religious activities. So, for example, driving while drunk is illegal because of the increased risk of injuring someone. On the other hand, restrictions on activities that do not pose a risk of harm to others - such as restrictions on sexual activity between consenting adults - tend to be controversial. Applying Rawls's principle to the case of Kirpan-carrying, it turns out that if Sikhs are to be permitted to carry them, then everyone else should be permitted carry knives too. However, to relax the restrictions on carrying knives in this way would raise the risk of knife injury for everyone. This risk of harm to others justifies restricting Kirpan-carrying by Sikhs and everyone else, in much the same way that many other potentially harmful activities are restricted. So, it seems sensible not to allow anyone and everyone to carry a knife. Is religion special? Currently, however, there is an exemption - under the Criminal Justice Act 1989, people are allowed to carry blades for religious reasons. But, is it right that they should be exempt? To answer this, we must consider whether a person's religion justifies their being allowed to behave in a way that others are not allowed to behave. What is special about religion? Well, a plausible answer is that practising a religion is central to the well-being of many people and communities - therefore, we should not curtail the freedom to practice religion without good reason. However, this could be unconvincing as a justification for allowing Sikhs to carry Kirpans. Many non-religious activities are also central to the well-being of many people and communities, and yet such activities are frequently and uncontroversially restricted. For example, playing musical instruments is centrally important to the lives of many people, yet we do not allow people to play their instruments loudly in residential areas in the middle of the night. And playing football is important to many people, yet football games are not permitted on busy roads, in shopping centres, on other people's property without their consent, and so on. The reason these activities are restricted brings us back to considerations of harm: unrestricted freedom for musicians and footballers to practise their chosen activities would cause harm to others. Of course, religious people may argue that religion plays a far more important role in their lives than music or football play in the lives of those who enjoy these activities, and that as a result, special efforts should be made to accommodate religious practices. However, not only is this claim difficult to verify, but giving religious people privileges denied to non-religious people goes against the commitments to equality and respect for others, both of which are important values in Britain today. Practicing religion, then, should be subject to the same standards as non-religious activities. Religious cannabis That is, those who wish to practise religion should be free to do so, but they should not be permitted to engage in activities that pose significant risk of harm to others. Relaxing the restrictions on carrying knives would pose such a risk of harm by increasing the risk of knife injuries. As a result, it seems reasonable to restrict the carrying of Kirpans. On the other hand, the Millian view that activities should not be restricted without good reason calls into question current restrictions on all sorts of other practices, religious and otherwise. It is not clear, for example, that palnned French restrictions on Muslims wearing full veils can be justified; nor is it clear that Rastafarians (and others) should be prevented from smoking cannabis. Cannabis is a holy herb of Rastafari religious ritual, yet in Britain it is illegal. On this view, even many apparently innocuous restrictions - such as the restriction that many workers and schoolchildren should wear uniforms - may turn out to be unjustifiable. It is not always obvious whether or not an activity is potentially harmful, and so deciding which activities should be restricted is not always a simple matter. For example, whilst the French government sees burqa-wearing as undermining the freedom of women, this view is controversial and many disagree that it justifies restricting the freedom of people to dress as they please However, in cases where it is clear that an activity is potentially significantly harmful - and Kirpan-carrying seems to be just such a case - failing to restrict it is difficult to justify. Rebecca Roache is a philosopher at the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford.

any links to listen to the asian network interview? the story is running on the front page of the bbc news website - shows the difference it makes when sikhs in establishment positions raise sikh issues

thanks for the info kaljug singh jeeo