# Sikh Cultural Politics



## sukhsingh (Nov 14, 2016)

Do Sikhs still believe in religious freedom of all people? To the point where they would die defending it?


----------



## Original (Nov 15, 2016)

Good morning Sukh
The answer to your question is yes ; "freedom" not just religious, but in general is a "right" of every human being. Modern liberal societies construct everything around such fundamental freedoms and have institutions in place to ensure regulation, control, conformance, etc. is never violated. So whether you're a Sikh or a Christian your freedoms will be the same and protected.

Bye..


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 15, 2016)

Original said:


> Good morning Sukh
> The answer to your question is yes ; "freedom" not just religious, but in general is a "right" of every human being. Modern liberal societies construct everything around such fundamental freedoms and have institutions in place to ensure regulation, control, conformance, etc. is never violated. So whether you're a Sikh or a Christian your freedoms will be the same and protected.
> 
> Bye..


Apologies as it is probably a leading question. If the answer is yes should we be doing more to defend the right of any body to have access to anand karaj in a gurdwara.


----------



## Original (Nov 15, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Apologies as it is probably a leading question. If the answer is yes should we be doing more to defend the right of any body to have access to anand karaj in a gurdwara.


...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.

In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 15, 2016)

Original said:


> ...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.
> 
> In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?


Interesting however I'm thinking more of the role of Sangat as opposed to government. My own thoughts are that should someone wish to have anand karaj they should be welcomed


----------



## RD1 (Nov 15, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> If the answer is yes should we be doing more to defend the right of any body to have access to anand karaj in a gurdwara.



Ideally, one would hope that the individuals would have an understanding and respect for anand karaj, and not just mindlessly participate in it. Nonetheless, I have heard of issues erupting in Gurdwaras when a Sikh marries a non-Sikh, and concerns being put forward that the Sikh wedding ceremony should only be held for Sikhs. However, how would this be defined? Just because a person comes from a Sikh background and has a Sikh name, it does not mean they actually practice being a Sikh. 



sukhsingh said:


> To the point where they would die defending it?



One does not necessarily have to die defending it. It all depends on the context. If social activism, and peaceful demonstrations can make a difference, then so be it.


----------



## Original (Nov 16, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Interesting however I'm thinking more of the role of Sangat as opposed to government. My own thoughts are that should someone wish to have anand karaj they should be welcomed


....like you, I too feel if someone wants to have AK they should be allowed, but equally in a democratic society those who object should be listened to, don't you think ? And, since arguments will be academic there will have to be a proper forum with wider consultation, meaning, sangat.


----------



## Original (Nov 16, 2016)

RD1 said:


> Ideally, one would hope that the individuals would have an understanding and respect for anand karaj, and not just mindlessly participate in it. Nonetheless, I have heard of issues erupting in Gurdwaras when a Sikh marries a non-Sikh, and concerns being put forward that the Sikh wedding ceremony should only be held for Sikhs. However, how would this be defined? Just because a person comes from a Sikh background and has a Sikh name, it does not mean they actually practice being a Sikh.


...as I said to Sukh above, the issue around mix-marriages and the role of the Gurdwaras is something for the academic Sikh and not your ordinary Joe Bloggs. The kind of questions you're coming up with ought to be academically argued, for example, a practicing Sikh and a non-practicing Sikh, who is to make that call ? and what criteria is there to determine a practicing Sikh from a non-practicing Sikh and how might one justify the granting of a right, privilege or a concession to one and not to the other ?


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 16, 2016)

Original said:


> ....like you, I too feel if someone wants to have AK they should be allowed, but equally in a democratic society those who object should be listened to, don't you think ? And, since arguments will be academic there will have to be a proper forum with wider consultation, meaning, sangat.


They should be listened to I agree but I can't understand the logic to prevent them taking part. Should people also be excluded from ardas?


----------



## Original (Nov 16, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> They should be listened to I agree


..listen to them first and see what they're saying ! this 'll put you in a good stead to make sense, at the very least !


sukhsingh said:


> but I can't understand the logic to prevent them taking part.


...the topic in question is one where logic becomes "redundant" I'm afraid !


sukhsingh said:


> Should people also be excluded from ardas?


..when you weigh the two [ardas n AK] you'll find their intrinsic differences, which within institutional framework cannot be overridden.


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 16, 2016)

Original said:


> ...as I said to Sukh above, the issue around mix-marriages and the role of the Gurdwaras is something for the academic Sikh and not your ordinary Joe Bloggs. The kind of questions you're coming up with ought to be academically argued, for example, a practicing Sikh and a non-practicing Sikh, who is to make that call ? and what criteria is there to determine a practicing Sikh from a non-practicing Sikh and how might one justify the granting of a right, privilege or a concession to one and not to the other ?



Do you not think it is a discussion worth exploring on here as members of the Sangat?


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 16, 2016)

Original said:


> ..listen to them first and see what they're saying ! this 'll put you in a good stead to make sense, at the very least !
> 
> I have listened to the arguments against excluding some people from partaking in anand karaj and I can't find merit in the proposition.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure there are intrinsic differences.. The main argument forwarded by protesters is 'how can someone partake in AK when they don't believe in sikhi..' disregarding the presumption, if we are to say certain sikh liturgical practices are exclusive for "sikhs" then excluding "non-sikhs" from ardas makes sense. Especially since we explicitly articulate the verse "guru maneo granth"?


----------



## Original (Nov 16, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> I'm not sure there are intrinsic differences.. The main argument forwarded by protesters is 'how can someone partake in AK when they don't believe in sikhi..' disregarding the presumption, if we are to say certain sikh liturgical practices are exclusive for "sikhs" then excluding "non-sikhs" from ardas makes sense. Especially since we explicitly articulate the verse "guru maneo granth"?


Sukh, the best way to get your head around something like this is to imagine yourself as a Judge having to weigh the *"rights"* of two opposing parties:
[1] Gurdwara [G] is asking you to rule in its  favour the *right* to protect the tenets of its faith, and
[2] Individual is asking you to grant him/her *right* to practice his/her religion and have AK@G

And since Article 9 is qualified [meaning, you as a Judge can tailor make it to serve both institution v individual] how might you consider the following:

The Gurdwara's argument might go something like this:

(a) Allowing non Sikhs to have AK@G violates Sikh Rehat Maryada [constitution, it has legal effect]

(b) if an amendment was made today, who is to say future generations wont ask for further amendments, given social society is to evolve indefinitely, attitude n trends will change with the passage of time, is there a reasonable point at which to say "no" ?

Both (a) n (b) are off-cuff sketches, more serious ones I'm sure the Sikh Scholars will be safe keeping.

Food for thought anyway to get you started !

Goodnight


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 16, 2016)

Original said:


> Sukh, the best way to get your head around something like this is to imagine yourself as a Judge having to weigh the *"rights"* of two opposing parties:
> [1] Gurdwara [G] is asking you to rule in its  favour the *right* to protect the tenets of its faith, and
> [2] Individual is asking you to grant him/her *right* to practice his/her religion and have AK@G
> 
> ...


I believe that the argument is much more complicated than that. Many sikh believe it is against the tenets of sikhi exclude people on arbitrary labels.. I personally think all human beings are 'sikh'


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 20, 2016)

Original said:


> ...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.
> 
> In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?


To suggest the HRC could be applied to protect the protesters is disingenuous. I for one believe that Leamington gurdwara is preserving the tenets of sikhi


----------



## Original (Nov 20, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> To suggest the HRC could be applied to protect the protesters is disingenuous


...explain !


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 20, 2016)

Original said:


> ...explain !


A gurdwara or religion isn't a institution.. In the legal sense.. If one does not approve of the actions of a particular gurdwara they are free to practice their own religion elsewhere. In fact using the hra  the individuals who have had their wedding disrupted probably have a better case


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 20, 2016)

Original said:


> ....like you, I too feel if someone wants to have AK they should be allowed, but equally in a democratic society those who object should be listened to, don't you think ? And, since arguments will be academic there will have to be a proper forum with wider consultation, meaning, sangat.


Belief and faith is not a democracy.. I believe what I believe.. Sikhi asks us to question not be sheep


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 20, 2016)

RD1 said:


> Ideally, one would hope that the individuals would have an understanding and respect for anand karaj, and not just mindlessly participate in it. Nonetheless, I have heard of issues erupting in Gurdwaras when a Sikh marries a non-Sikh, and concerns being put forward that the Sikh wedding ceremony should only be held for Sikhs. However, how would this be defined? Just because a person comes from a Sikh background and has a Sikh name, it does not mean they actually practice being a Sikh.
> 
> 
> 
> One does not necessarily have to die defending it. It all depends on the context. If social activism, and peaceful demonstrations can make a difference, then so be it.


Mindlessly participate? Mmm a interesting presumption


----------



## RD1 (Nov 21, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Mindlessly participate? Mmm a interesting presumption


Don't know what this comment is supposed to mean....

Mindlessly - I mean without understanding, without thought - just ritualistically following the procedure.


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 21, 2016)

RD1 said:


> Don't know what this comment is supposed to mean....
> 
> Mindlessly - I mean without understanding, without thought - just ritualistically following the procedure.


Its very presumptive as a opinion,  as there no possible test one could do to test how engaged or mindlessly they were engaged in a act. And as I said before if we are going to start testing then apply it across the board. Let's take peoples temperature before starting ardas. Will we have a sincerity police to check if people have there eyes closed or hands folded in a appropriate manner before beginning ardas. And will these rules be applied without discrimination, you the bearded gyani and mona alike. Ironically it's this very type of thing that empties the meaning and  makes it ritualistic.


----------



## RD1 (Nov 21, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Its very presumptive as a opinion, as there no possible test one could do to test how engaged or mindlessly they were engaged in a act. And as I said before if we are going to start testing then apply it across the board. Let's take peoples temperature before starting ardas. Will we have a sincerity police to check if people have there eyes closed or hands folded in a appropriate manner before beginning ardas. And will these rules be applied without discrimination, you the bearded gyani and mona alike. Ironically it's this very type of thing that empties the meaning and makes it ritualistic.



I said that I ideally hoped that people would not be participating in it mindlessly - not that everyone does participate in it mindlessly. Its not up to me to control how other people act, and how engaged others are. I only can control myself. Our Gurus did ask us to not participate in things just ritualistically, but to try and understand. That is all I meant.


----------



## Original (Nov 21, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> A gurdwara or religion isn't a institution


Sukh,..if you recall, I did say an "academic" debate, remember ! And, who said a religion is an institution ?


sukhsingh said:


> If one does not approve of the actions of a particular gurdwara they are free to practice their own religion elsewhere.


..the correct test would be to ask whether marriage is divine or an institution, that would put you on a good stead to move on to the second limb, meaning, your quote above !


sukhsingh said:


> In fact using the hra the individuals who have had their wedding disrupted probably have a better case


I'd go along with that and also, wider debate and discussion could pave way for revisiting SRM to meet evolutionary changes !


----------



## Original (Nov 21, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Belief and faith is not a democracy


..who said it was ?


sukhsingh said:


> I believe what I believe


..that Sir, is your "natural right" ! Gurdwara's are not saying mix-marriages cannot be had, no, not at all, what they're saying is that AK cannot be had between a Sikh and a Non Sikh. Why ? Because by constitution [SRM], which is legally binding, they cannot. As I said before, the correct approach would be to have the "house of Sikh representatives" [from amongst the cream of Sikh scholars, leaders, etc] debate n discuss the issue with a view to relax constitutional practices.



sukhsingh said:


> Sikhi asks us to question not be sheep


..agree wholly solely, and what you're doing is questioning ! kool yourself down, have a milkshake ! I'm with you Sir!


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 21, 2016)

Original said:


> ..who said it was ?
> 
> ..that Sir, is your "natural right" ! Gurdwara's are not saying mix-marriages cannot be had, no, not at all, what they're saying is that AK cannot be had between a Sikh and a Non Sikh. Why ? Because by constitution [SRM], which is legally binding, they cannot. As I said before, the correct approach would be to have the "house of Sikh representatives" [from amongst the cream of Sikh scholars, leaders, etc] debate n discuss the issue with a view to relax constitutional practices.
> 
> ...


Srm is not legally binding why do you think it is


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 21, 2016)

Original said:


> ...the right to practice religion is a qualified right and not an absolute right, meaning, it is limited in scope and not an absolute. This means the courts can limit its use to protect the interests of others [wide]. The others can include the Gurdwara, for example. Under article 9 of the HRA 1998 the courts will do all they can to allow the individual to practice his/her right provided there are no overriding considerations [OC]. In this case there are OC because the Gurdwara, seen as an institution, is protesting to protect the tenets of its faith, namely, Anand Karaj [AK]. That is to say, it can only be performed by two Sikhs [SRM, definition]. The courts are obliged under limb 2 of article 9 to exercise caution, necessary in a democratic society. They will curtail the right of the individual to strike the right balance between the two. This would mean a marriage can be had at a Gurdwara, but not AK if Gurdwara objects.
> 
> In seeking an answer the right question to ask would be, what is the role and responsibility of the institution [Gurdwara], is it to protect n preserve the tenets of its faith or the welfare of its members ?


just to clarify are you suggesting religious freedom or the freedom to practice my religion is not a inalienable right?


----------



## Original (Nov 21, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Srm is not legally binding why do you think it is


..may I suggest you seek legal advice in constitutional and administrative affairs !



sukhsingh said:


> just to clarify are you suggesting religious freedom or the freedom to practice my religion is not a inalienable right?


..Sukh, if you speak up and tell me exactly what you want maybe I can show you the way. There is what we call the "due process", meaning, if you have a complaint how might you go about getting it sorted or at the very least, an opportunity to be heard fairly n squarely in an appropriate forum [court].


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 21, 2016)

Original said:


> ..may I suggest you seek legal advice in constitutional and administrative affairs !
> 
> 
> ..Sukh, if you speak up and tell me exactly what you want maybe I can show you the way. There is what we call the "due process", meaning, if you have a complaint how might you go about getting it sorted or at the very least, an opportunity to be heard fairly n squarely in an appropriate forum [court].



I'm trying to ascertain whether you think that the sikh rahit maryada is a legal document recognised by the British law courts.. Seriously?


----------



## Original (Nov 21, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> I'm trying to ascertain whether you think that the sikh rahit maryada is a legal document recognised by the British law courts.. Seriously?


..look, do bit of research to find out more. For example, start with the preliminary enquiry; what is a Gurdwara ? is it recognised by law in England ? If so why is it recognised at law ? you will end up with it being an institution of the faith Sikh and the Charity Commission [UK] recognises it and regulates it. For the Charity Commision to recognise it as an unincorporated association it must first look to establish its legal personality. In short, it will go to look for the source of the Gurdwaras, meaning, who are the parents of these so called Gurdwaras. And, the trail will lead you to Amritsar, home of the Sikh Faith.

Once again, may I suggest you seek professional legal advice because my knowledge on constitutional and administrative law is bit rusty !

Goodnight -


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 21, 2016)

Original said:


> ..look, do bit of research to find out more. For example, start with the preliminary enquiry; what is a Gurdwara ? is it recognised by law in England ? If so why is it recognised at law ? you will end up with it being an institution of the faith Sikh and the Charity Commission [UK] recognises it and regulates it. For the Charity Commision to recognise it as an unincorporated association it must first look to establish its legal personality. In short, it will go to look for the source of the Gurdwaras, meaning, who are the parents of these so called Gurdwaras. And, the trail will lead you to Amritsar, home of the Sikh Faith.
> 
> Once again, may I suggest you seek professional legal advice because my knowledge on constitutional and administrative law is bit rusty !
> 
> Goodnight -



I'm sorry but I think you have a overly simplistic understanding. Would be laughed out of court. The courts would say don't go to the gurdwara which practices against your interpretation. No one for instance is forcing you to attend Leamington gurdwara. Visit Coventry Instead and let people practice their religion according to their interpretation. It's really quite simple.


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 22, 2016)

Original said:


> ..Sukh, if you speak up and tell me exactly what you want maybe I can show you the way.



It would be nice if we could debate as equals, who knows, he may show you the way..

If you feel you know the way Originalji, wonderful for you, but the rest of us are here to learn and share, not instruct.


----------



## Original (Nov 22, 2016)

Harry Haller said:


> It would be nice if we could debate as equals, who knows, he may show you the way..
> 
> If you feel you know the way Originalji, wonderful for you, but the rest of us are here to learn and share, not instruct.


Sir - you've taken it out of context ! kindly re read the thread from the beginning and then reconsider. Indeed, you have found post #29 somewhat standalone and pompous to have formed such an opinion, but I can assure you of the contrary, the goodwill and meaningful exchange therein. Perhaps it's this reading in part, which may have caused obscurity to the completeness of the toptic to hand.

If the host is of the view that miscarriage of justice has occasioned, then I add no further a voice.

Much obliged


----------



## Harry Haller (Nov 22, 2016)

Original said:


> Sir - you've taken it out of context ! kindly re read the thread from the beginning and then reconsider. Indeed, you have found post #29 somewhat standalone and pompous to have formed such an opinion, but I can assure you of the contrary, the goodwill and meaningful exchange therein. Perhaps it's this reading in part, which may have caused obscurity to the completeness of the toptic to hand.
> 
> If the host is of the view that miscarriage of justice has occasioned, then I add no further a voice.
> 
> Much obliged



your voice is always pleasant and informative to be around, there is no dispute on that point, you also contribute much to this forum, you are learned, and your own personal litmus test I find to be  par excellence, however, all I am asking, once again, is to participate not teach.

It would be a huge shame if you decided to add no further a voice, rather than accept a point which is close to my heart, namely, that we are all students here, all of us, without exception, no one knows the answers, no one has a monopoly on the truth, we are all fools together.

What has prompted this is a quick review of other forums, which seem to be full of people all claiming to know the truth, all arguing like children. Let me show you how I do it, seems to me, to be a better attitude than Let me show you how its done.

kind regards


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 22, 2016)

Original said:


> Sir - you've taken it out of context ! kindly re read the thread from the beginning and then reconsider. Indeed, you have found post #29 somewhat standalone and pompous to have formed such an opinion, but I can assure you of the contrary, the goodwill and meaningful exchange therein. Perhaps it's this reading in part, which may have caused obscurity to the completeness of the toptic to hand.
> 
> If the host is of the view that miscarriage of justice has occasioned, then I add no further a voice.
> 
> Much obliged


I have felt no injustice. But maybe patronising in tone on occasion. However I have my big boy pants on and it's all good. It's good to talk


----------



## Original (Nov 22, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> But maybe patronising in tone on occasion.


Sukh, I'm sorry if my stance was somewhat austere and unorthodox, but I was leading you to take control and explore further. The intention was to allow you to apply your findings to careful and critical reasoning, resulting as it were, to a resolution of valued information. Moreover, it would've given you significant degree of intellectual independence with which you could've / can make an informed decision.

I couldn't for very many reasons divulge any further because the subject matter is controversial with which I'm presently engaged. Feel free to explore more with sangat at SPN.

Goodnight


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 22, 2016)

Original said:


> Sukh, I'm sorry if my stance was somewhat austere and unorthodox, but I was leading you to take control and explore further. The intention was to allow you to apply your findings to careful and critical reasoning, resulting as it were, to a resolution of valued information. Moreover, it would've given you significant degree of intellectual independence with which you could've / can make an informed decision.
> 
> I couldn't for very many reasons divulge any further because the subject matter is controversial with which I'm presently engaged. Feel free to explore more with sangat at SPN.
> 
> Goodnight


I don't think it was austere or unorthodox in fact quite the opposite. It is a subject with which I to am engaged and exploring hence the original post


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 22, 2016)

Original said:


> Sukh, I'm sorry if my stance was somewhat austere and unorthodox, but I was leading you to take control and explore further. The intention was to allow you to apply your findings to careful and critical reasoning, resulting as it were, to a resolution of valued information. Moreover, it would've given you significant degree of intellectual independence with which you could've / can make an informed decision.
> 
> I couldn't for very many reasons divulge any further because the subject matter is controversial with which I'm presently engaged. Feel free to explore more with sangat at SPN.
> 
> Goodnight


Why do you assume and presume that I do not have "intellectual independence" and do not have a informed opinion? 

Its really quite dismissive. It is a argument and position I could reverse and say of you. If anything I have asked specific questions which you have not answered.


----------



## Original (Nov 23, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> Why do you assume and presume that I do not have "intellectual independence" and do not have a informed opinion?


I'm sorry, it wasn't said in that regard, but in admiralty of courage and commitment. If anything, I'd like to offer assistance when n where possible.

I'm proud of young Sikhs taking up contemporary issues and trying to resolve. Back in 1976 we founded Southall Youth Movement to counter racial disharmony, which ment we were on the streets fighting come what may. And I for one believe, no pain no gain - good luck !

TC


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 23, 2016)

Original said:


> I'm sorry, it wasn't said in that regard, but in admiralty of courage and commitment. If anything, I'd like to offer assistance when n where possible.
> 
> I'm proud of young Sikhs taking up contemporary issues and trying to resolve. Back in 1976 we founded Southall Youth Movement to counter racial disharmony, which ment we were on the streets fighting come what may. And I for one believe, no pain no gain - good luck !
> 
> TC


It would be of assistance if you explained more of your rationale. 
Thx


----------



## Original (Nov 23, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> It would be of assistance if you explained more of your rationale.
> Thx


.. I think the whole mix-marriage palaver need centre stage and wider consultation. It's an agenda item for organisations like the Sikh Council UK to debate and discuss with a view to relax the rigidity of the clause [Sikh marry Sikh]. The Council's decision is likely to be persuasive on part SPGC [The Gurdwaras Act 1925] to trigger constitutional review of SRM.

..this is my take on it Sukh, but please seek professional legal advice should you be contemplating recourse !

Much obliged


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 23, 2016)

Original said:


> .. I think the whole mix-marriage palaver need centre stage and wider consultation. It's an agenda item for organisations like the Sikh Council UK to debate and discuss with a view to relax the rigidity of the clause [Sikh marry Sikh]. The Council's decision is likely to be persuasive on part SPGC [The Gurdwaras Act 1925] to trigger constitutional review of SRM.
> 
> ..this is my take on it Sukh, but please seek professional legal advice should you be contemplating recourse !
> 
> Much obliged



I'm really confused as to what or why you think I am seeking legal recourse? The sikh council Oh yeah those self-appointed citizen singh... Community leaders.  No jurisdiction over anyone.


----------



## Original (Nov 23, 2016)

sukhsingh said:


> I'm really confused as to what or why you think I am seeking legal recourse? The sikh council Oh yeah those self-appointed citizen singh... Community leaders.  No jurisdiction over anyone.


..well look Sukh, if you really want to do something about changing the way things are at present then you'll have to take'em on and be proactive. Think of things like peaceful demonstrations, rallying the masses to protest against Gurdwaras, successful social/ political media campaigns and more. This will pave way for debate n discussion to seek resolution. 

Thank you !


----------



## sukhsingh (Nov 23, 2016)

Original said:


> ..well look Sukh, if you really want to do something about changing the way things are at present then you'll have to take'em on and be proactive. Think of things like peaceful demonstrations, rallying the masses to protest against Gurdwaras, successful social/ political media campaigns and more. This will pave way for debate n discussion to seek resolution.
> 
> Thank you !


Yeah I'll organise my boys, find my ski mask and go have a "peaceful" protest. Against whom I don't know. Since I have no problem with the actions of Leamington gurdwara. In fact I happen to think they are demonstrating immense strength in not being bullied.


----------

