Replies

If the rationale here is that Shikh’s are good guys so let them wear turbans in the UK - then you have to be okay with letting them wear their Turbans in the US while on duty. As well as other non-uniform religious items. Like Burkas. Islamic Head Wraps, etc.

First, the military uniforms of the U.K. are up to the U.K.; the military uniforms of the U.S. are up to the U.S. If one expresses support for the U.K. military wearing kilts it does not follow that one is implicitly supporting kilt-wearing for the U.S. military.

Second, "good guys" or not is not the point in U.K. military regulations. Military regulations are military regulations. U.K. military regulations provide for various distinctive uniform elements: they allow Scots units to wear kilts and Australian units to wear Slouch hats, etc.

It's fairly obvious that these special uniforms are rooted in the tradition of the various Commonwealth nations, and some of the traditions go back hundreds of years, long before the present multiculturalism and globalism began. It was simple common sense to not attempt to dissolve defeated militaries, but to employ them. This meant allowing them to continue with expressions of their own traditions in order to facilitate their reliable integration into the British Empire's military.

There certainly was no "special treatment" outside of the rules: this guy's cover is exactly that which is specified by the unit he is in. This is not a case of him being granted a waiver to wear some religious headpiece.

You'll find the U.S. military (and every successful military) has the same general approach: soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen wear the uniform of their unit according to rules and regulations.

I am not sure you are correct
His outfit is NOT the uniform of his regiment.

“Traditionalists in the Scots Guard say the allowances made for Bhullar will make the whole company look ridiculous to tourists and onlookers. The regiment traces its origins back to 1642 and its soldiers have worn bearskins on parade since 1832.

The Mail on Sunday was initially approached by serving non-commissioned officers based at Wellington Barracks, who were angry that the MoD had compromised centuries of history for the sake of one soldier.

The argument presented by Bhullar’s colleagues was backed by senior members of the Scots Guards’ regimental association. Unlike serving personnel, these retired officers are allowed to speak publicly.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241656/Sikh-soldier-Jatinderpal-Singh-Bhullar-guard-Buckingham-Palace-bearskin.html#ixzz2ErNfzBQO
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Read that story carefully. He is being given an EXEMPTION to the regulation wear.

Btw, many in the UK are posting that this guy could wear the turban UNDER the regulation hat.
“

“First, the military uniforms of the U.K. are up to the U.K.; the military uniforms of the U.S. are up to the U.S. If one expresses support for the U.K. military wearing kilts it does not follow that one is implicitly supporting kilt-wearing for the U.S. military.”

Btw,You are also entirely missing the point.

The Shikh is being given an exemption to regulation wear.

If that is okay for you to accept, then you should also be willing to accept it for the US.

IF you are willing to accept the exemption for the “good guy” Shikhs, then you must also give the exemption for others. Such as women wearing a Hajib with their Navy uniform.

This article discusses the slippery slope

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/228589/beard-too-far/elaine-donnelly#

It’s all about the slippery slope.

So many of you applaud the exemption for the Shikh. But I absolutely guarantee many of you (but maybe not all of you) will NOT feel the same way about certain others that get exemptions based on Religious reasoning.