The terrifying moment hundreds of Sikh protesters smashed their way into a community centre in protest at it selling meat and alcohol | Mail Online
A touchy subject for some, Immigration.
What stood out for me In this article Is that these Sikh protesters believed It was their hall and there-fore no meat or alcohol should be sold.
On one hand It can be argued that this Is a Sikh centre but then, the laws of this land allow sale of alcohol and meat and when In Rome.
Sikh protest turns violent..
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31840
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Sikh protest turns violent..
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Sikh protest turns violent..
oscar;1372338 wrote: The terrifying moment hundreds of Sikh protesters smashed their way into a community centre in protest at it selling meat and alcohol | Mail Online
A touchy subject for some, Immigration.
What stood out for me In this article Is that these Sikh protesters believed It was their hall and there-fore no meat or alcohol should be sold.
On one hand It can be argued that this Is a Sikh centre but then, the laws of this land allow sale of alcohol and meat and when In Rome.
The first comment that spring to mind is "what has immigration to do with this?" - the Sikh community in the West Midlands is well established and many of those involved will be third and fourth generation British.
Then, looking into it further, there turns out to be a huge amount more to this story than appears in the Daily Mail.
What prompted me to look further was the continual skirting round the issue of who owns the community centre? It turn out that it is owned by the Sikh community and that this incident it that final confrontation between the Sikh community at large and the committee that run the centre :-
Dudley Gurdwara Agrees To Implement Akal Takht Sandesh In Sikh Cultural Centre - The Voice of Sikhs
A touchy subject for some, Immigration.
What stood out for me In this article Is that these Sikh protesters believed It was their hall and there-fore no meat or alcohol should be sold.
On one hand It can be argued that this Is a Sikh centre but then, the laws of this land allow sale of alcohol and meat and when In Rome.
The first comment that spring to mind is "what has immigration to do with this?" - the Sikh community in the West Midlands is well established and many of those involved will be third and fourth generation British.
Then, looking into it further, there turns out to be a huge amount more to this story than appears in the Daily Mail.
What prompted me to look further was the continual skirting round the issue of who owns the community centre? It turn out that it is owned by the Sikh community and that this incident it that final confrontation between the Sikh community at large and the committee that run the centre :-
Dudley Gurdwara Agrees To Implement Akal Takht Sandesh In Sikh Cultural Centre - The Voice of Sikhs
Sikh protest turns violent..
Not so much immigration as religion.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Sikh protest turns violent..
I'm not understanding this . Is the first article the truth or the second?
and this hall can't be that sacred if they go in and smash it up
and this hall can't be that sacred if they go in and smash it up
Sikh protest turns violent..
fuzzywuzzy;1372381 wrote: I'm not understanding this . Is the first article the truth or the second?
and this hall can't be that sacred if they go in and smash it up
I don't know, what would you do if your Vicar allowed the local church hall to be used for a Satanist convention?
Maybe not quite that strong but for the local committee to hastily arrange another booze and meat party after the first group had agreed to move to another venue because they were going against every tenet of the faith does smack of deliberate provocation as part of an ongoing power struggle.
and this hall can't be that sacred if they go in and smash it up
I don't know, what would you do if your Vicar allowed the local church hall to be used for a Satanist convention?
Maybe not quite that strong but for the local committee to hastily arrange another booze and meat party after the first group had agreed to move to another venue because they were going against every tenet of the faith does smack of deliberate provocation as part of an ongoing power struggle.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Sikh protest turns violent..
Our local priest would probably be hosting it . I suppose you wouldnt have a bucks night in a convent hall.
So the riot was after the second party was booked and negotiations broke down? But I've been reading the comments after the articles and it says that only ritualistic killed meat is forbidden. So if the Sikhs themselves can't decide on whether they should eat meat or take in alcohol then how is everyone else supposed to know??? One hindu says that weddings are full of alcohol and meat. So what gives?
So the riot was after the second party was booked and negotiations broke down? But I've been reading the comments after the articles and it says that only ritualistic killed meat is forbidden. So if the Sikhs themselves can't decide on whether they should eat meat or take in alcohol then how is everyone else supposed to know??? One hindu says that weddings are full of alcohol and meat. So what gives?
Sikh protest turns violent..
fuzzywuzzy;1372392 wrote: Our local priest would probably be hosting it . I suppose you wouldnt have a bucks night in a convent hall.
So the riot was after the second party was booked and negotiations broke down? But I've been reading the comments after the articles and it says that only ritualistic killed meat is forbidden. So if the Sikhs themselves can't decide on whether they should eat meat or take in alcohol then how is everyone else supposed to know??? One hindu says that weddings are full of alcohol and meat. So what gives?
The Sikhs are not Hindu any more than they're Muslim - whist many Hindus abstain from meat it is not an article of faith for them
So the riot was after the second party was booked and negotiations broke down? But I've been reading the comments after the articles and it says that only ritualistic killed meat is forbidden. So if the Sikhs themselves can't decide on whether they should eat meat or take in alcohol then how is everyone else supposed to know??? One hindu says that weddings are full of alcohol and meat. So what gives?
The Sikhs are not Hindu any more than they're Muslim - whist many Hindus abstain from meat it is not an article of faith for them
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
Sikh protest turns violent..
Just been doing a search . And it's predominently only strict sikhs who adhere to never having alcohol and meat. Others eat and drink in moderation. But they can't eat ritualistic killed meat.
And I do find their behaviour as a cause for concern because it's intimidation against the Sikh community in that area. if it's so bad what the committee members did why hasn't it been brought up before?
And I do find their behaviour as a cause for concern because it's intimidation against the Sikh community in that area. if it's so bad what the committee members did why hasn't it been brought up before?
Sikh protest turns violent..
Looking out of my window now I can see an Off Licence ran by Sikhs.
As with most of these sort of turn outs, it is the hard liners, or extremists that cause it.
As with most of these sort of turn outs, it is the hard liners, or extremists that cause it.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Sikh protest turns violent..
fuzzywuzzy;1372401 wrote: Just been doing a search . And it's predominently only strict sikhs who adhere to never having alcohol and meat. Others eat and drink in moderation. But they can't eat ritualistic killed meat.
And I do find their behaviour as a cause for concern because it's intimidation against the Sikh community in that area. if it's so bad what the committee members did why hasn't it been brought up before?
I fully agree that the violence used was totally unacceptable but it does appear that this has been brought us before - indeed that it has been ongoing for months.
The main point I was trying to make though, was the biased and incomplete nature of the original article.
And I do find their behaviour as a cause for concern because it's intimidation against the Sikh community in that area. if it's so bad what the committee members did why hasn't it been brought up before?
I fully agree that the violence used was totally unacceptable but it does appear that this has been brought us before - indeed that it has been ongoing for months.
The main point I was trying to make though, was the biased and incomplete nature of the original article.