Over the weekend, members of the Manurewa Cosmopolitan Club voted down a proposed amendment to their rules that would allow the wearing of headwear in the bar if it is worn for significant religious beliefs.
The Human Rights Commission had been asked to be involved in mediation after Karnail Singh was barred from entering the club in November for not removing his turban.
Verpal Singh, secretary of the Sikh Council of New Zealand describes the decision as “a wake up call to their community” about the need to educate the wider New Zealand society about the importance of the turban, saying the turban is one of the Sikh religion’s principal parts of its faith and that asking people to remove it “is like asking someone to strip down in public.”
I might be wrong, but I imagine that the original Cossie Club rule was put in place in the days when men wore hats and they were expected to remove them indoors.
One Cossie Club member justified their decision by saying that allowing turbans to be worn would mean they would have to let in people wearing hoodies and balaclavas. I think that’s stretching it a bit.
The world is changing and I know it’s challenging and difficult. I hope that there can be some more dialogue between the Sikh community and the Club to get a greater understanding each other’s views – and ultimately, an acceptance that we do have differences in religion and culture in New Zealand and that is a strength, not a threat.
Although the situation of the actions against this guy were not right – it was a public event and they should have expected member sof the public to dress in certain ways, I believe that the club has a right to pick and chose it’s membership and it’s attire as any private club should – if they chose to lease out their property to the public then it is a different matter but if they are a private club they should be entitled to allow their rules as paramount. Simply what this decision means for them is that they won’t be able to get any more public events at their premises..
I think they should just let dudes wear Turbans, they’re not doing any harm
New Zealand once had a door policy sort of like that, wasn’t head wear though, but in this case probably boils down to the same thing
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/immigration-regulation
Glad we don’t any more, may be the cossie club needs to get with the times.
Wondering – are private clubs permitted to effectively bar people from their premises using racial grounds, sexuality or gender as criteria?
I suppose since the amendment was proposed and discussed there must have been some level of support for it.
pretty much yeah, to allow for things like women’s only gyms and gentleman’s clubs they have to be able to bar people on gender…not sure about race or religion
What do you base your assumption that diversity is a strength on? Or is it just your opinion?
Since it is only your opinion, can’t the members of the cosmopolitan club have their own opinion?
Too bad of you’re a hermaphrodite
I think there was a boston legal episode on that…
Hmmm, this is a curious one… My best friend is Sikh and has informed me that carrying a ceremonial knife at all times is an important part of the religion but they understand that most people aren’t really comfortable with the idea of that happening on a plane… A turban is a bit different of course…
That member who said they voted against the amendment because they’d have to allow people with hoodies, etc. is talking out his arse, what religion requires the wearing of ceremonial hoodies..? The order of Tony Hawk..? The Jedi religion..?
‘One Cossie Club member justified their decision by saying that allowing turbans to be worn would mean they would have to let in people wearing hoodies and balaclavas. I think that’s stretching it a bit.’
So what a turban is meant to display yourself as a criminal or a burglar? hahaha if that’s the only excuse he could come up with he is obviously just being culturally insensitive. It’s a tough one though it’s racism but it’s protected by the impenetrable barrier of private ownership so we can’t really tell them who they can let in to their club and who they can’t
Sounds like a job for Denny Krane
@Margaret – yes, of course they can have their own opinion, but if diversity isn’t a strength, then then it’s a weakness, and that just doesn’t work for me. After all, we all came here from somewhere else – some longer ago than others – and if we don’t value diversity, I think we’re in for a hard time, given the on-going change to the demography of NZ.
@Darion – I see your point but disagree with your logic. I disagree that if something isn’t a strength it has to be a weakness.
Just because something doesn’t strengthen something, does not make it a weakness. I could follow your logic and say that because we value turbins, we devalue those who don’t wear them? would you agree?
BTW (sorry for misspelling your name Darien)
There is no fix it feature on this blog!
The principle (’diversity’) is what we value, not the ‘thing’ (turbans).
If we value ‘diversity’ then its natural for us to consider the ‘things’ in a new light.
Non-turban wearers are also valued because they bring ‘diversity’ and we like that
Simple answer if you want to hold a liquor license you don’t have silly rules like this.
In my view; if your not mature enough to discern between a hoodie and a Turban; then your obviously not mature enough to sell alcohol.
@Margaret I think J.S. Mill settled the argument as to whether diversity is a strength.
The Cossie Club are using a dress code to racially discriminate. The justification of having to let hoodies and balaclavas is evidence of their ignorance.
So that’s clear at the Manurewa Cossie then.
Jews wearing yarmulke are not welcome. Also banned are believers wearing zuchetto, biretta, straw hats and black felt hats.
@Margaret – I know there has been some very conclusive studies done that show that diversity in a workplace has economic benefits…
Diversity means different ways for different people. If you like diversity, do you not include diversity of opinion ?
You’re in a trap of your own making by going on about diversity.
Our culture respects difference and tolerates it (not like many other cultures).
It’s a truly wonderful sight, diversity-lovers arguing against it.
Question – why don’t you simply accept that the Cosmopolitan club don’t allow headgear, respect it.
That’s diversity folks !
Then ask yourself the question – why doesn’t the Sikh complainant respect the opinions and practises of the Cosmopolitan Club ? Isn’t he demonstrating a lack of respect for diversity, an intolerance of other’s views ?
Life is damned hard, there are so so many people in the world doing things we don’t like !
They should’ve called it The Conformity Club!
While I disagree with them not allowing turbans I support them in their right to do this as they’re (I’m assuming) a private club
People shouldn’t dictate to private clubs what they can and cant do (as long as its not illegal of course)
The flipside would be allowing men into contours gym for example
What the hell – I agree with you – This is definitely a first.
On the basis that the Turbans are worn freely by individuals (as opposed to the Bhurka which is about domination and control of women) then there should be no problem with them being worn anywhere.
On and on it goes. A private club has the right to admit whomever it likes, conversely, to also bar anyone it wants.
Their constitution may also bar entry if patrons are not ’suitably attired’ eg. wearing jandals. The arguement about hoodies and balaclavas is quite valid.
Imagine the uproar and probably fear if half a dozen balaclava clad males entered and did nothing but stood there.
Make no mistake, making a change to allow turbans would result in a flood of all sorts wanting to enter wearing their traditional or religious clothing.
I don’t know if the Cossie Club is behind the times, not much has changed since Helen Clark told Sir Ian McKellen about how deeply racist we are.
Anasazi said…
A private club has the right to admit whomever it likes, conversely, to also bar anyone it wants.
Amen to that. When people are going to realize that private properties mean exactly that? Some may say, but the law says that, blah, blah, blah, …, well the law is wrong. I have consistently argued here on this blog, that the only legitimate rights one has is his rights to what he owns (property rights – first principles) and any claims to other forms of rights is bogus.
On our way back to town, we stopped in Takapuna to go to R’toto bar for one or two, but I wasn’t allowed to get in because of my jandals. The others already dressed to go out, since all of them live over the shore, so they were allowed to get in. The driver who didn’t drink had a pair of dressed shoes in his car, which I grabbed and put on. I went in, but then after about 10 minutes in, the security guy came and asked me to leave, because he has been instructed by his boss. I asked him why, and he said, that his boss told him that my dress was inappropriate in his bar. We all left after that message was relayed to me and one of my mates was so angry & he was going to start a fight with the bouncers because he thought it was racist. I calmed them down outside and explained to them what property rights is and the bar owner has a right to kick me out or anyone else if he wishes. He doesn’t need to have a reason, be it racist, badly dress, or someone looks ugly, and so forth. The law shouldn’t overwrite his/her rights to enjoy his own properties if he/she wants to kick out anyone in his premises whenever he/she likes.
My post above, I was talking about coming back from a Tongan wedding in Glenfield about 3 years ago, which I was dressed fully in the traditional national costume.
Didn’t I hear that other Cosmopolitan clubs DO allow turban wearers inside?
Why can’t they just make an exception for turbans but still bar hoodies and the like??
As Budda would suggest -
Liberty means non-frustration of the exercise of legitimate property rights, you can be made perfectly free by being completely relieved of all property.
What is there frustration with Turban Wearers?
They need to chill.
FF said:
i.e. the argument of property owning societal class – primarily landlords and capitalists.
Shame that this class asserts then that those without property – ie. the majority of the world’s population – end up with no rights under their system. Not even rights to food and water.
What a coincidence.
lol Richard Shaw
richgraham said:
uh…maybe its because respect and acceptance of religious and devotional practices superceedes respect and acceptance of religious intolerance and ethinc prejudice.
What if the dude wore his turban and then put a wig over it?
A couple of points : The guy was invited to the club to receive an award for Community Services and then told he couldn’t go in. I understand there can be a judgment about discrimination by the Human Rights Tribunal, should the Sikh complain. Finally, as one of my Facebook friends said “where are the nuns when we need them?”
LOL
It’s disgraceful that he wasn’t allowed in to receive his own reward.
Now that shifts the perspective rather a lot. So it’s a whole lot more than just “we don’t serve (insert minority group here)”.
Further thought. Would I be welcomed into a Sikh temple wearing my street clothes sans turban.
Geeez Loota, how far left can ya go?
lol Anasazi I guess you’re right (pun intended), placing respect for others’ religious beliefs ahead of prejudices against specific cultures and ethnicities is “Left” then.
Or simply put, open minded/multinational.
It is a private club therefore the members should set the rules. New Zealanders don’t ”carry on” over other people’s traditions when they are overseas. Why is respect a one way street with these people?
”Diversity” is a political slogan not a strength.