Here is an mp3 (thanks to Tony), beginning with a Sikh spokesman decrying the new TSA regulations mandating the searching of Sikh turbans -- after all, Sikhs aren't Muslims, much less jihadists, so why should they be singled out? Then I come on.
UPDATE: For those having trouble with the file, Tony has kindly made it available here.
Sikhs, who are not at all terrorists, now have to suffer these indignities--all because of Islam.
I think the point is ANYONE has to comply with security precautions.
Since there is no fool-proof way to know someone wearing a Sikh turban is truly a Sikh, and such head coverings could be used for bad purposes we all are safer if such searches are permitted.
A turban is no more sacrosanct than my shoes.
Stop whining and help defeat the terrorists.
You the man, Robert!!
If anyone chooses to wear, by virtue of their culture, or sense of fashion, an item of clothing that can easily conceal an object, they must remove it. If Sikhs find themselves targeted because they wear turbans, as do the muslims, our society can not be expected to absorb that problem. They must absorb it. The Sikh gentleman was essentially saying that it is not his problem that he wears the same head covering as a muslim. I say it is, indeed, his problem. He must make allowance, not our society.
Not only is it unfair to ask our society to bend over for his culture in this matter, but the consequences of his culture not acquiescing to our needs, is far greater and far more terrible, than the consequences of our society not acquiescing to the needs of his sensibilities. His needs center on cultural pride, even vanity, our needs center on security. Surely one should logically trump the other in any conflict of interest.
Why the Jews are not required to remove those big hats, that I don't know. That has to change. Those are some pretty big hats.
In fact, religious garb has no place in an airport. I don't know your religion, and I don't want to know it when I'm travelling. I don't flaunt my religion in your face, please respect my rights and don't flaunt yours in mine. Keep your robes, your hats, your turbans, and all your other costumes for more appropriate places. What is wrong with slacks and a shirt? Whose religion does it violate to wear slacks and a shirt? None that I know of. A sikh or a Jew or a muslim can wear a pair of jeans and a shirt like anyone else without in any way compromising his ticket to paradise. Nor is wearing the turban in an airport mandatory for entrance into the afterlife. The fact that many of them chose to wear their religious costumes in public, especially in airports, especially after 9/11, shows disrespect and contempt for our sensibilities, our cultural norms, and our security. Those that dress like this know full well that they cause us anxiety, but they continue to do so quite happily. Therein lies the contempt.
Religious garb in open western society is an in-your-face proposition to the rest. It is in fact a challenge to the norms of our society. And we tolerate it. But when it becomes a challenge to our security, our willingness to tolerate it must come to an end.
jihadwatcher, Jews are not required to wear hats. Orthodox adult Jewish men cover their heads, and a skullcap is completely adequate for the purpose. Hats are added merely as a point of dress or fashion on top of the skullcap and add nothing religiously. The hats can be removed without incurring any consequence.
I have not heard of anyone hurt by an Orthodox Jew's hat or a Sikh's turban. But as JW/DW has documented, people have been hurt by men going around cross-dressing in (women's) burqas.
At a minimum, I think we should ban the niqab, or veil, in public. Our faces should remain visible at all times in public.
Nevertheless, jihadwatcher has a point when s/he speaks about the message being sent by clothing (this applies also to people who expose their midriffs or their underwear, but that's another story). I am fascinated, looking at the Muslim students at the colleges where I've taught. Those from the Middle East or South Asia may wear a hijab (scarf) or not, together with jeans. Do you know who's wearing the abaya (big bag), chador (Iranian big bag) and niqab (veil)? Black American women. What's with that? Of all people on Earth willingly accepting submission...!
I have no luck downloading this file from mediafire.
Is anyone else having difficulty? I created an account, when I click download, the cursor just spins endlessly.??
I also can not access the file.
sikhs are not terrorists? anyone hear of the air india flight 182, that blew up off the coast of ireland, killing everyone on board?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
I want more and more MP3 files from our illustrious leader and soon to be, Sir Robert Spencer. I cannot get enough of Robert's speeches and have several rippers burnt to CD for distribution...
From the article:
That's not being singled out, that's the same process we all have to go through. Thanks to Islamic terrorism, I have to take off my belt, shoes, and coat, and power up my laptop; and Sikhs have to take off their turban; and my Grandmother has to get wanded, and have her walker inspected. Thanks to Islamic terrorism.
This is the cost of allowing Islamic jihadists to live amongst us. But I'm sure all the benefits outweigh the costs, right?
Is anyone able to access the mp3 of Spencer?
I cannot download the file either. Maybe some unindicted co-conspirators to terrorism complained and Robert's speech was deleted for being "Islamophobic".
"sikhs are not terrorists..."
If indeed the people involved in the downing of 182 were sikhs then yes, terrorist is accurate for those men. How pervasive the threat of sikh terror has been to us in the west is another question altogether but as a rule, India is more a threat to western jobs than western lives.
The point is not one of religion or singling out the turban-wearer but of the possibility of concealing an item within the turban itself. I am surprised that this has not happened sooner in that a metal detector requirement would only detect metal but there are other non-metallic explosive components (tatp)to be aware of.
I have had a hard time determining whether Air India has a turban search policy but have found nothing so far. I won't be flying AI anytime soon.
If someone does attempt to smuggle something onto an American flight within a turban well "Sikh and you shall find."
-XRDC
"sikhs are not terrorists..."
If indeed the people involved in the downing of 182 were sikhs then yes, terrorist is accurate for those men. How pervasive the threat of sikh terror has been to us in the west is another question altogether but as a rule, India is more a threat to western jobs than western lives.
The point is not one of religion or singling out the turban-wearer but of the possibility of concealing an item within the turban itself. I am surprised that this has not happened sooner in that a metal detector requirement would only detect metal but there are other non-metallic explosive components (tatp)to be aware of.
I have had a hard time determining whether Air India has a turban search policy but have found nothing so far. I won't be flying AI anytime soon.
If someone does attempt to smuggle something onto an American flight within a turban well "Sikh and you shall find."
-XRDC
Minority of One says,
"sikhs are not terrorists? anyone hear of the air india flight 182, that blew up off the coast of ireland, killing everyone on board?"
Equating Sikhs with Moslems as our enemies is doing these fine people a disservice.
Why "fine people?" Because Sikhs have fought off Moslem attempts to convert of kill them long before we became aware that Islam is the enemy that is trying to destroy us.
The Air India flight 182 incident cited by Minority of One is not an act of terrorism against the West to conquer, convert, kill or dhimmify as is the case with our Islamic enemies but a result of the following:
"Disturbed by the spread of militancy by [a Sikh] group, [Indira] Gandhi ordered the Army to storm the Golden Temple to remove Bhindranwale and his followers on June 3, 1984. Thousands of innocent Sikh pilgrims were killed in the process, leading to widespread anger over the desecration of Sikhism's holiest shrine. The blatant disregard for the thousands of civilians within the temple and excessive use of military force has remained a source of great controversy to this day."
(More on this can be found by clicking on the link at the end of this Comment.)
As to the Sikh turban, after 9-11 (and the killing of a Sikh wearing a turban by an ignoramus at a gas station here in the US), I saw Sikhs recognizable by hair and beard never cut at such places as Wal Mart in baseball caps and with the hair in a topknot.
Apparently the turban can be removed without serious infringement on Sikh tradition. I may be wrong, however, and am ready to be corrected.
The point is that because a couple of Sikhs committed an act of terrorism (Air India Flight 182) they can be equated with the jihadists that are threatening our way of life. That Sikhs in some way are much like jihadists is a false premise.
As I mentioned before, Sikhs have been in the forefront of resistance against Islam and should not be disparaged.
About Sikh history as concerns Moslems and details of the beef they have with Indira Ghandi's actions against them, see
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/01/islam-in-punjab-of-india-moslem-mughals.html
I too, am unable to download the MP3.
As far as being searched in airport screening, I use a back brace and often a cervical collar due to injuries from operations in Iraq. I have no problem disrobing and removing my prothetics for the security. It is done in private and have never been treated with anything other than respect. In fact, they go out of thier way to be too nice. With thier being too nice, it takes even longer. I cannot imagine, with those TSA screeners knowing how much of an issue that it could have turned into, that they went OUT of thier way to be polite and respectful. Just my opinionn.
Robert, the mp3 appears to be unload-able.
I need to take my hat off whenever I travel and get searched, not a big deal. I think Sikhs will understand that the security takes the priority. Sikhs are the most natural enemy of Islam, lets not forget that. We should bring Sikhs into the camp, they can kick ass specifically of Muslims.
I got the file to work by right-clicking on it and saving it to the hard drive. Then I opened it in Windows Media Player.
I hope that might help those who haven't gotten it to work yet. It's one of those exceptional interviews where Robert 1.) gets to speak for more than 45 seconds and 2.) isn't constantly interrupted by the host or other guests.
Wearing the turban is not essential in Sikhism, but they are forbidden from cutting their hair and the turban is the way of layering their hair in an ordered fashion.
I can understand why the gentleman is annoyed, but I think that this is a necessary evil. As people say above, security and lives come first - not turbans.
Sikhism only really became a separate religion from Hinduism when the last guru organised a warrior sect to fight against the Islamic rulers. In a way, Sikhism was born as a particularly anti-Islamic form of Hinduism. It should be kept onside as much as possible, but I still agree with this rule. After all, what is there to prevent any other sort of terrorist pretending to be a Sikh and hiding a gun under a turban when entering an airport?
I also had trouble with the file. I will try what Marisol suggested.
Also, is it possible to have podcasts? I have been enjoying the ones over at www.foehammer.net
You just need iTunes to listen:you don't need an iPod.
I'll try to remember to go to that second link tomorrow and get the file. I will then place it on my web server where I have more available bandwidth. The more places that can host the file, the better as nobody gets inundated with overusage, and/or extra fees for having a timely file available.
Unless someone can get me it before then. I have a terabyte of BW available, so it should be pretty much available.
unicorn,
please, don't be silly. flight 182 was brought down by sikh terrorists. if my child was on a plane blown to bits by a sikh whose goal was to strike against indian authorities, my child would be just as dead as if the plane were blown up by mohammedan jihadists.
good grief, are you suggesting that the only terrorists worth stopping are jihadists? i believe it is stewart bell, a canadian terrorism expert, who has demonstrated that the sikh community in canada harbours some of canada's worst terrorist threats.
my point is that bloodthirsty members of the sikh community have deomonstrated very clearly, and with great relish i might add, that they are capable of the most heinous crimes against humanity, which is was flight 182 was. they slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians, apparently to "make a point". so, members of that community are incredibly hypocritical to suggest that they, unlike someones italian grandma, should be immune from having their rag hats checked before they get on planes.
if i have to take off my shoes and my belt, then mr. singh can take of his hat. period.
unicorn,
please, don't be silly. flight 182 was brought down by sikh terrorists. if my child was on a plane blown to bits by a sikh whose goal was to strike against indian authorities, my child would be just as dead as if the plane were blown up by mohammedan jihadists.
good grief, are you suggesting that the only terrorists worth stopping are jihadists? i believe it is stewart bell, a canadian terrorism expert, who has demonstrated that the sikh community in canada harbours some of canada's worst terrorist threats.
my point is that bloodthirsty members of the sikh community have deomonstrated very clearly, and with great relish i might add, that they are capable of the most heinous crimes against humanity, which is was flight 182 was. they slaughtered hundreds of innocent civilians, apparently to "make a point". so, members of that community are incredibly hypocritical to suggest that they, should be immune from having their rag hats checked before they get on planes.
if i have to take off my shoes and my belt, and turn over my shaving cream to the security apparatus, then mr. singh can take of his hat. and if mr. singh is unhappy about it, he can take a bus.
terribly sorry for the double post, above.
The Sikhs need to shut up -- they aren't being "singled out." If I have to take off a cowboy hat or a baseball cap for the very same reasons, then this subcultural BS being tossed in our face about turbans has no bearing whatsoever.
If that offends someone then I suggest that you are not doing enough as an American to assimilate to our ways. Frankly, I'm beyond sick of so many divisive elements in the USA.
Hats and Turbans
When I was in Berlin in 1994, hats had to be removed when entering several buildings, including synagogues and the community house. Apparently, someone disguised themselves as a religious Jew and tried to smuggle a grenade under a hat.
If a grenade can be smuggled under a hat, it can be smuggled under a turban, a fez or even a burqa.
chsw
Great bumper music - particularly the first one.
I agree with the above posters that the Sikhs should feel that they are being singled out, since anyone else who wears a comparable turban would be subject to the same scrutiny. However, I do agree with the Sikh spokesman that it is unfair that Sikhs get even more scrutiny in some cases than Muslims wearing skullcaps or head-coverings (like kafiyya). I also sympathize with his point that the sight of Sikhs being scrutinized at large in airports results in a perception that Sikh-looking people are suspect, but that doesn't justify their complaint that they are being singled out. The policy should be expanded to cover some other groups - particularly Muslims and their myriad costumes - but I disagree with him that it should be expanded to cover everybody.
On the above posts about Sikh terrorism, there are two points worth bearing, without rationalizing their actions:
Minority of One,
While all terrorist acts are to be deplored and condemned, as is all loss of innocent lives, the acts of the enemies of the United States and the rest of the non-Islamic world are what concerns us here.
IRA, ETA, Tamil Tigers, as well as the Sikhs mentioned by you, etc. all have taken a toll of innocent lives. As these acts were not devised with the goal of conquering, converting, dhimmifying or killing us who are not Moslem, they are not targeting us for being "the other," infidels, kafirs, whatever derogatory terms are used by Moslems to mark us as inferior, undesirable, fit only for conquest and conversion or death.
As far as that all "rag heads" are alike, may I remind you that the turban does not make the man friend or enemy. Rather than identifying our enemies by the head covering they wear, let us do so by their ideological bent. Islam with its jihad is our prime enemy.
. . . and do not be fooled by those who choose to wear a turban, sometimes you will find them to be on our side (as are the Sikhs).
Check out
http://islamic-danger.blogspot.com/2007/06/narendra-modi-chief-minister-of-indian.html
firefox download helper and iriver audio player. No file is ever inaccessible...
Religion as an excuse for not to being inconvenienced in regards to public safety should never be tolerated, surely our safety today out weighs religious sensibilities of tomorrow and beyond, as if God trivializes over such moronic detail. This playing the victim is becoming a contagious disease at a 'rabid' rate...
I just finished listening to the audio. Mr. Spencer, you mentioned in the interview some defensive responses we should be implementing to protect ourselves against Islamic jihad. But all your suggestions were government-level policies.
The fact is, our government is blissfully ignoring the threat of radical Islam in America. GW Bush is quoted as calling Islam "honest, just, and compassionate" (10/11/2002). To this day, our politicians avoid even the mere mention of Islamofascism or anything that singles out Islam as a threat.
In recent news, Howard Dean advised muslim groups on how to achieve their political goals in America by running for office.
What can we, as individual citizens, do to defend America against Islamofascism when our politicians refuse to do their job? It isn't just a matter of voting current politicians out of office - too many voters are apathetic and too many new candidates are untrustworthy or deceitful.
How do we defend our country from a threat our own government chooses to ignore?
Ok, here it is for those that want it. I don't have a problem leaving it there for all to download.
http://www.imnodhimmi.com/audio/Robert_Spencer_FoxNewsTalk_09_03_2007_2.mp3