It caused a stink the length of the land this week.
A Sikh real estate agent Gurpreet Singh was denied entry to a function in his own honour at an Auckland cosmopolitan club because he wore a turban.
Mr Singh explain it was part of his faith but the club enforced it's no headwear policy.
The incident triggered heated radio talkback debate with the majority of callers siding with the club – rules are rules was the attitude.
The club denied racial discrimination.
Then the Prime Minister waded in. 'Disappointing” says Mr Key. 'I think we should try to be more inclusive.”
Former Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres says it was a simple case of recognising religious diversity. 'We have policemen who wear turbans.”
SunLive asked people in the community what their thoughts on the matter were.
Watch the video above to see what people said.
46 comments
this
Posted on 20-06-2015 13:15 | By Capt_Kaveman
is NZ some of these clubs have rules and no dif from night clubs, suck it up or go home
Rules.
Posted on 20-06-2015 13:15 | By space cadet
Rules are for the guidance of intelligent people - and the blind obedience of idiots! Nothing more to be said really!
Rules
Posted on 20-06-2015 14:06 | By Bruceb
Your country has rules and when we go there we have to abide by them so you abide by ours or go back where you come from simple as.
you are in NZ now
Posted on 20-06-2015 14:11 | By hapukafin
When in Rome do as the Romans do.There are many places around the world where we have to comply with their rules which are foreign to us and politely and quietly we comply.
Treat everybody the same
Posted on 20-06-2015 15:11 | By Uncle G
People like this use these situations to incite racism and sadly always will.
Stop It
Posted on 20-06-2015 16:07 | By Horch
stop with the 'when in Rome' buzz! It is a religious thing ! It is not a hat! It is a turban, the hair is wound tightly in this turban, it is a sign of their faith. I am disgusted in the comments above, shame on you for hiding behind your computers. I am ashamed to a kiwi right now :(
Not racist
Posted on 20-06-2015 17:54 | By Captain Sensible
This is not a racist rule....any race wearing a hat or whatever on their head is refused entry. Not just an Indian with a turban. It's also a private club and entitled to make their own rules.
@Stop It
Posted on 20-06-2015 22:35 | By laugeo
What happened to free speech or the right to a person's own opinion? For Kiwi's to avoid your sense of shame they must agree with you? This PC world drives me crazy - if we're not all completely tolerant of everyone and everything then we are wrong! Well, I don't think so. I don't want to go into any club that doesn't want me in it - I'll just go to another club, not moan about having the club rules changed. The real irony of course is the PC brigade are the ones who are easily identified because THEY are the most intolerant of other's intolerance? Funny eh?
laugeo
Posted on 21-06-2015 11:12 | By Capt_Kaveman
Good Post 10/10
Stop it leaugeo
Posted on 21-06-2015 13:13 | By robin bell
Your talking garbage,when you have the Kaveman on side your in too deep.There is NOTHING politically correct about exposing blatant discrimination. Most, if not all western countries removed this kind of intolerance years ago.If you think this is the way to a N.Z.as you want it,you need to study current events and recent history. Robin Bell.
Why do we have to be politically correct.
Posted on 21-06-2015 14:52 | By astex
Rules are rules. The eastern/asian countries have NOT changes their rules for us. Try going into a sikh temple without following the rules. As for discrimination, if a white man was wearing a hat HE would have been turned away too.
Wrong iknow
Posted on 21-06-2015 15:33 | By robin bell
The "white man" would have been asked to please remove your hat.A person of the Sikh religion ca''t do that for at least two reasons,1. it's against his religion, 2. he would trip over his hair. What happens in other countries is irrelevant.What we do in N.Z. is all "we" should be concerned with.There are lots of young Sikh's born and bred in N.Z.Their Turban is not a hat, Got it!!! Robin Bell.
@ robin bell
Posted on 22-06-2015 08:07 | By Captain Sensible
Why should some religion triumph over rules? What if a religious person refused to remove shoes and burkah before going into the marae meeting house? It has nothing to do with race yet you mischievously try to make it an issue.
Dog pooh! cap'n
Posted on 22-06-2015 13:06 | By robin bell
removing shoes is etiquette decorum,not a rule, it is not a matter of triumphing it is a matter of a rule no longer adequate. A Sikhs turban is not a hat,therefore should not be classified as such. Simple really, but clearly not for you,no surprise there. We will grow up one day,maybe after you've sailed off into the sunset. Robin Bell.
hair loss
Posted on 22-06-2015 14:21 | By Maria M
I lost my hair through medicine an at 1st it slowly thinned out leaving patches so i wore a barre. I was at a function an was told to take my hat off. I was so embarrassed los an paranoid I felt ugly an that everyone was looking at my hair. Id rather go home than put up with it. So step up clubs. that rule is so outdated. time to grow up clubs
Mr. Bell
Posted on 22-06-2015 15:17 | By laugeo
You call it discrimination, I believe it is the opposite. This club are not permitting ANYONE to wear anything they consider a hat - by definition, that is not discriminating, quite the contrary. If they were allowing some to wear a head covering and others not, based on race, creed or colour then of course that would be wrong and completely discriminatory. It is a simple club rule, nothing more, nothing less so stop trying to make anyone who agrees with this club seem like some crazed xenophobe. Funny really because they are probably trying hard to keep out the baseball cap wearing types and in an effort to NOT DISCRIMINATE they have ruled out any hats or head covering of any sort? Discriminating or simply discerning?
Robin Bell
Posted on 22-06-2015 15:29 | By laugeo
So, "western countries removed this kind of intolerance years ago" and yet you think I'm talking garbage? Well that's just plain funny! There are as many extreme right wing movements in Europe and the rest of the 'Western world' as there have ever been (in my opinion) and I credit that to people like you who want to tell the rest of us what we can think and what we can say. I don't like racism and I don't like bigotry but most of all I don't like the fact that something as simple as a club rule can be seized on and turned into an issue of race discrimination.
Thin skinned world.
Posted on 22-06-2015 16:11 | By laugeo
We are now securely ensconced in a world where so many have become determined to be offended and where so little can be said or done by anyone without one group or another crying foul. We have a culturally and ethnically diverse population but recognising the differences and celebrating these differences is often interpreted as racist. Add onto this the cultures, customs, beliefs and values that are attached to each and it is easy to see the massive menu that is on offer to each and any that wish to feast on an insult made from the often innocent intentions of another.
laugeo
Posted on 23-06-2015 10:11 | By robin bell
Cosmopolitan clubs by definition are,or should be "free from narrow provincial or national bias,prejudice or other limitations". That is what Cosmopolitan means.Many years ago I and many others were instrumental in reversing a similar ban practiced by a similar club in Tauranga,that BAN was on Women. I thank you for crediting me with the proliferation of extreme right wing (racist) groups but your wrong,when I talk of the removal of discrimination I refer to institutions not the individual who more often than not represents fear, ignorance, intolerance and good old selfishness. I don't tell you or any one else what to do,say or think I SIMPLY oppose that which I consider to be destructive. Robin Bell.
Thin skinned world, laugeo
Posted on 23-06-2015 10:45 | By robin bell
is actually the antithesis of "thick skinned world" perhaps you don't recall it. A world where Catholics were persecuted for being Catholic. Where only landowners could vote and then only the men. Where a starving person could be hanged for stealing bread. Where people were executed for political opposition. I could go on but I'm sure you get the message. Give me thin skinned any day. Robin Bell.
This is silly.
Posted on 23-06-2015 15:29 | By morepork
A PRIVATE club can make and enforce any rules they like. Don't like it, don't join. However, a SENSIBLE private club would recognize that there might need to be some extenuating circumstances in cases where, for instance, a person CANNOT easily comply with some rule, but that person may still be a valuable club member. It is entirely a matter for the Committee of the Club to decide what they want to do and it has nothing to do with racism or exclusion on any grounds at all. (At least, it shouldn't... if it does, then it is probably not a club you'd want to belong to anyway...) The Club (by means of the Committee) makes a decision and the rules are amended or they aren't. Turning this into an issue that has nothing to do with the right of the club to decide its rules is just silly.
morepork,
Posted on 23-06-2015 15:49 | By robin bell
It is not silly to debate peoples viewpoints.As I understand it the person in question was to attend a function in his honour. A function usually entails organisation of food drink and other expenses.Usually club "rules" are flexible enough to accommodate most events, for instance had it been a wedding would the bride have been similarly embarrassed? I doubt it. Club rules have to reflect race relations and other changing social needs particularly for casual events such as this. Robin Bell.
Robin Bell
Posted on 23-06-2015 17:37 | By laugeo
Yes, well spotted - my use of "thin skinned" was supposed to be noticed as the antipathy of 'thick skinned' that was rather my point - however it is a massive leap, a gargantuan stride even, to go from the aforementioned oversensitivity to the persecution of the Catholic faith and the emancipation of women! Like you, I think healthy debate is useful - but I am unable to keep up with your shifting logic. In one post you want to quote what you think the 'western world' is doing and in another 'what the rest of the world is doing is irrelevant'? In one post you call for some 'flexibility' in the club rules, in another you refer to their blatant discrimination? I am simply trying to point out to you that this club are NOT discriminating, they are treating all visitors the same - too hard to understand?
Finally!
Posted on 23-06-2015 17:51 | By laugeo
Relax Mr. Bell - I think I have discovered the true depths of the club's prejudice and blatant discrimination- I think the reality is that they didn't want him in because he is a Realty Agent and were simply using the hat / head covering as an excuse!:-)
laugeo,You must not quote
Posted on 24-06-2015 13:50 | By robin bell
out of context. In removing prejudice of any kind the impetus must come from "us" in that respect it is irrelevant what the rest of the world does or thinks. Equally, in many parts of the world this very debate was resolved many years ago. In the case of Birmingham City Corporation a number of Sikh drivers and conductors successfully sued and won the right to wear turbans rather than uniform hats. As a "baseball hat wearing type" I believe in freedom of expression,those who object have the freedom to look elsewhere. Robin Bell.
Ok, in context!
Posted on 24-06-2015 17:20 | By laugeo
You say "I believe in freedom of expression,those who object have the freedom to look elsewhere" BUT you object to the right of the committee members of the club to create their own rules and you do not see that if that does not suit any individual, then of course they have the freedom to look elsewhere? I think you just like to challenge the 'norm' whether it is justified or not and it has it's roots in you feeling important rather than anything more idealistic. So you managed to bully a local club into changing it's rules around women members - so what? I wouldn't have frequented such a club but neither would I have felt either threatened by their existence or a need to interfere. It's called tolerance. So, you keep your hat and I'll join the Cossie Club!
Tolerance? laugeo,
Posted on 25-06-2015 08:45 | By robin bell
You say you would not have frequented such a club. I'm talking 1965 there were no other clubs of the type we are discussing.It was a Working Mans club. The forerunner of the Cossie club.It was dying slowly but surely,allowing women to attend reversed the trend, call that bullying if you like,I call it progress and survival. You do not understand "context",freedom of expression does not give us the right to discriminate on ethnic or religious grounds. Let's see what Dame Susan says, my guess is she will ask the club to amend its rules. If she does of course you and others will accuse her of bullying. Robin Bell.
Feeling important? laugeo,
Posted on 25-06-2015 09:06 | By robin bell
On the contrary, sad to say my position is at times a lonely one. Its never popular to challenge entrenched prejudice and worse.The usual result is my adversaries resort to personal insult, at which point I often do the same, but my main aim remains to deny those such as you the opportunity to spread their prejudice without challenge. You may have noticed laugeo that no one else has expressed any concern for the feelings of Mr Singh. How sad is that? Robin Bell.
If the cap fits?
Posted on 25-06-2015 11:37 | By laugeo
wear it! Pardon the pun. Bullying is not just what I call it - it's what it is. You are the guy that stands out because he is the only one marching in step! You are convinced that others need to change because YOU are right. I simply accept human frailty, sometimes (like me) others are right and sometimes they are (in my opinion) wrong - I just don't feel the need to impose my values. That's tolerance. I won't change your mind and I don't wish to - you, likewise will not change mine but the FACT remains, the club rule was no hats and they ruled in this instance to interpret the turban as a hat. That is not and never will be a race or religious issue, except of course to self righteous zealots.I'm bored now I've explained it as simply as I can.
@Robin Bell
Posted on 25-06-2015 12:26 | By morepork
It IS silly (and pointless) to debate something which is none of your business unless you are a club member. If the function was in this man's honour why didn't they check the club rules before making the booking? If I attended a club for lunch, with friends, and one of us was barred (for ANY reason) then the whole group would take our business to a different establishment. It is simple common sense and no reason to inflame a situation or play an inappropriate race card. You seem to see racism everywhere; I don't. When I do see it, I am just as fervently opposed to it as you are.
@Robin Bell again
Posted on 25-06-2015 12:41 | By morepork
" had it been a wedding would the bride have been similarly embarrassed?" If she was wearing what they considered to be a "hat" she might have been asked to remove it. Compliance with the rules of a PRIVATE club is not offensive. You don't HAVE to go there. "Club rules have to reflect race relations and other changing social needs particularly for casual events such as this" No, they don't. You are so wound up about your own prejudices you fail to practise tolerance or the rights of others to disagree with you. A PRIVATE club can make and enforce any rules it likes (as long as they're within the Law), and it can admit or exclude anyone it wants to, whether YOU like it or not. That is right and proper in a democracy. You achieve little by seeing offence where none is intended. Get over it.
@laugeo
Posted on 25-06-2015 12:49 | By morepork
your "thin skinned world" post is accurate and succinct. Good job!
Morepork
Posted on 25-06-2015 12:53 | By laugeo
Absolutely! Great post and well put.
Mr. Singh's feelings
Posted on 25-06-2015 12:59 | By morepork
As we don't know Mr. Singh and I can't find any statement from him other than what was in the report, we could reasonably infer that he would not feel good about the exclusion, but neither was he angered by it, accepting the club's right to enforce the rules. The group should have supported him (maybe they did) and everyone should have gone elsewhere for lunch. (I hope they didn't all go in and leave Mr. Singh on the doorstep...) There is no real reason for anyone to be offended if they are denied access to a private club. You just don't support that club any more. The responsibility here is on the lunch organizer to make sure the club know who will be coming, to be aware of the club rules, and to clear the wearing of a turban before the booking is confirmed.
Extrapolation morepork
Posted on 25-06-2015 16:29 | By robin bell
you and luageo chide me for reading more into this than exists.No where does it say this was a lunch date, It clearly states this was a "function " in Mr Singhs honour. Private functions fall outside of normal club activity. If you take the time to watch the video you will see clear evidence that I do not walk alone in my opinions.Mr Singh was not applying to JOIN the club,It was a clear case of inflexible,pedantic discrimination. Robin Bell.
Of course
Posted on 25-06-2015 17:31 | By laugeo
you don't walk alone in your opinions. There are two expressions that come to mind - 'Great minds think alike' - and - 'Fools seldom differ'. Consensus is what is key in this wonderful democracy we are lucky enough to live in and I have taken the trouble to read back and gather the consensus of the posts on this matter. Democracy rules! You are not wrong, you are simply a small minority on this issue. If the club had barred Mr Singh's entry on the basis of his race or beliefs on the other hand, right minded people, me included, would have been outraged. This is not the case however and the only reason there is not more concern for Mr. Singh's feelings is that most people see this tedious debate with you, for what it is - NOT race or religion based.
For goodness sake!
Posted on 25-06-2015 17:52 | By laugeo
Inflexible? - yes. Pedantic? - possibly. Discrimination? NO!!!!!! A single rule applied to all, by definition is not discrimination. The proof is that you and I both know that even though I am not a Sikh, if I were to try to enter the same club, wearing a turban, they would not permit me in, ergo - it is not discriminatory. You are the pedant here - you want to split hairs over a lunch date or a function like it makes the slightest difference - either way it was taking place in the club and under the club rules. I do enjoy your hypocrisy though - look back at how you damned me for having the support of Capt Kaveman? I didn't court the support, I don't know the man from a bar of soap but your prejudice against him (for his views) tells me everything. Brilliant!
The Mad Hatters
Posted on 26-06-2015 12:35 | By robin bell
Lets do it your way luageo. You claim I am a pedant, in order to underline your pseudo Intellectual rant on our Politically Correct world. We can no longer use the "N" word to describe black people,we can no longer insult jewish people,we can no longer discriminate on the grounds of religion on and on and on. I have not accused the club of discrimination,but the rule is, by way of its inflexibility.If Mr Singh had been a doctor rushing in to administer care to in an emergency, do you think he would have been asked to remove his turban first? nah!!! You may well be frustrated at our changing world, but you cannot preserve your ivory tower by being inflexible, your boredom is your refuge. For the moment. Robin Bell.
Duplicitous@Robin Bell
Posted on 26-06-2015 17:06 | By laugeo
To now say that you have not accused the club of discrimination but that the rule that they have created and imposed - is, is duplicitous and another example of the pedantic nature of your argument. You are surely not calling for the rule to change itself? No - you require the club to change THEIR rule. Stop sidestepping and admit what everyone else seems to understand. The club is not discriminating.
Food for thought
Posted on 27-06-2015 09:09 | By dakota
Would you deny the Queen if she walks in with her crown on?...Thoughts
Nothing duplicitous at all.
Posted on 27-06-2015 10:31 | By robin bell
The rule was imposed at a time when it was improbable that any Sikh would seek entry. In any event the rule is inadequate now. In that sense the club is not to blame for this damaging misunderstanding, it simply needs to amend its rule. Our brave new world is slowly coming to terms with the injustices of our past, you luegeo wish to preserve them, at least in part. Remember, allowing Mr Singh to enter this club turban and all, "gives" far more than it "takes" away, that's progress. One more expression for your collection, The further back you look,the further forward you see. Robin Bell.
Ah - That's Differnet.
Posted on 27-06-2015 15:32 | By laugeo
Now we are discussing something different. I have no wish to see the club preserve this rule, I never have - but it is a matter for them, not you. My point was and is, that the club should have the right to create and maintain their own rules without any interference. The fact is, the rule was not created to discriminate (as you point out, it was unlikely to have Sikh's visiting) and was undoubtedly designed simply to ensure that patrons did not wear hats. A simple rule that may or may not still be suitable to apply - but it remains the right of the club. People who approve will go there, people who do not, will not - democracy in action. I still have no issue if this private club wish to maintain their rule or amend it but it MUST be up to them.
Consistency is key Mr. Bell
Posted on 27-06-2015 16:09 | By laugeo
There is a certain irony in assuming the politically correct position and campaigning for the rights of the group, the minority or the individual UNTIL it concerns the rights of the group or individual who's views or ideas you disagree with? A person's right to their own views, a private club's right to it's own rules - these for me, are the fundamental cornerstones of a free society and FORCING them to change is just wrong. If more people were more tolerant and less willing to scream racism or discrimination - we could cut off the fuel supply to the burgeoning industry of grievance. Despite the long list of things you state that we can no longer do Mr Bell, how many will die today because of their race, religion or beliefs? How well is YOUR plan for the 'new world' working out?
A Cosmopolitan club should not have a rule that discriminates
Posted on 27-06-2015 19:37 | By Peter Dey
The meaning of cosmopolitan includes "accepting all nations and cultures". Any club that has a rule that discriminates against the Sikh community by refusing them entry if they wear a turban needs to realise that their rule is an embarrassment to their name. They are making a mockery of and probably violating their own constitution. No doubt the club will soon catch up with the fact that they are out of touch with modern New Zealand. Quite possibly the club is dominated by people who preferred it when New Zealand was monocultural and they are trying to hold on to monoculturalism for as long as they possibly can. Their rule is certainly discrimination because it excludes people because of their beliefs.
At long last,
Posted on 28-06-2015 08:54 | By robin bell
laugeo your under skirts are showing. To conclude the club debate. The "rule" was not designed to discriminate but IT DID.Your English composition is excellent but sadly the content is far from it. Grievance is not an industry as you claim. It is the inevitable social reckoning for generations of theft and indifference. It exists because of its pre cursor, INJUSTICE. "The cornerstone of a free society" is undisputed, however if the freedom you desire delivers injustice to any minority, in my view that is immoral. You say this P.C.drives you "crazy" sad, but P.C. is simply a term describing compromise,why is that so difficult for you and your friends?.The brave new world I refer to is our part of the world New Zealand, where in spite of your opposition, Justice rules and always will.Robin Bell.
Peter
Posted on 28-06-2015 15:57 | By YOGI BEAR
Coreect, rules like that should not be allowed, hence why there is a very large problem with the Waitangi Tribunal, the criteria for applying is limited y cultural group, i.e. separatism
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.