Turbans vs helmets: The conflict between the mandatory wearing of protective head-gear and the freedom of religious expression

ABSTRACT

A number of religions mandate that members of that faith cover their hair and head. Depending on its nature, this head covering can interfere with the design and efficacy of protective head gear such as helmets. This is exacerbated in situations where religious mandates prevent the cutting of head hair, such as among Sikhs, as this adds to the volume to be covered by protective head gear. This paper provides an overview of the cultural mandate to wear turbans and how this meshes with the legal requirements to wear protective head gear during work and recreational pursuits.

KEYWORDS:

• Khalsa Sikhs
• turbans
• religious expression
• work and safety
• helmets

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 An earlier version of this paper was initially produced as a background document to the course ‘Social Psychology of Risk’ taught as part of the author’s teaching obligations at Charles Sturt University (Albury, Australia).

2 It should be noted that in many instances the act of a Sikh removing the turban and cutting his hair, while a deliberate act of assimilation, was not one of choice but one forced upon the individual by an aggressive and intolerant host community (Gallo 2012; Gill 2016).

3 Not all such cases, however, end in the favour of the applicant. When the Gothenburg tram driver Inderjit Singh Parmar insisted on wearing a turban while on duty, he was reassigned to the maintenance department, which he refused, resulting in his dismissal. The Swedish Labour Court confirmed that the dismissal was legally valid (Sundkvist 2010, 18f; Sprangers 2004). The difference here was that according to the collective workplace agreement with the unions such reassignments were generally possible and that Parmar was not denied the right to wear the turban while at work. – In 2007 the company allowed tram drivers to wear turbans while on duty (Löfström 2007).

4 Although they reputedly had to forgo their pension (in case of fatal injury) in order to wear turban in battle during WWI (Rahi 2005).

5 No photos of the especially designed helmet seem to have survived. – It should be noted that the so-called ‘turban helmets’ are named after their shape and have nothing today with the question at hand (Alexander 1983).

6 It should be noted that some motorcycle organisations also opposed exemptions for the helmet rule and pushed for a universal application (Lindemann 2013).

7 Case law files: Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg, case n° 6 K 2929/14, decision of 29 October 2015; Verwaltungsgerichtshof Mannheim, case n° 10 S 30/16, decision of 29c August 2017; Bundesverwaltungsgericht case n° 3 C 24.17 decision 04 July2019.

8 At least the language of the text (‘should not be worn’ instead of ‘must not’) allows for some latitude in interpretation (NSW Department of Education n.d.-b).

9 The study mentioned in the item could not be sourced despite repeated requests.