Where did I say that?
I know who Sikhs are, and have no problem with 'em.
This has to do with a government document that confirms identity and grants privilege, you comply with the requirements or you don't get one. No special consideration, equality under the law.
(Equality, popular in France.)
> This has to do with a government document that confirms identity and grants privilege, you comply with the requirements or you don’t get one. No special consideration, equality under the law.
Asking a Sikh to comply with this particular “requirement” is silly: you will get a photo of a very long-haired Indian who won’t look much like the neatly-presented man behind the wheel wearing a turban and presenting his license. His turban does not conceal his facial features like a burqa would: however all that flowing long hair certainly might: along with the scowl on his face at being made to comply with this indignity.
Like I said, his turban contains all of his hair, which is uncut. As a matter of Respect, he is never seen in public without his hair covered: just like you are probably never seen in public without your butt covered.
It’s a silly, arbitrary “requirement” that, in this case, should be modified for the sake of pragmatim. Either that, or go all the way and insist that every pose for their drivers licences naked. As you say, no special consideration, equality under the law.