Actually gerry, I take very little you say on forum personally - but when you make sweeping comments about the general 'stance' on a discussion and I'm one with that stance, it then follows that you're including me in those comments.
Regardless, for some reason I've gotten way over invested in this issue - and it's certainly not worth it to me to rough up a friendship. I'll agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Has anybody actually *seen* a kirpan? They're purely symbolic and ceremonial, not even as dangerous as the jackknife I carry in my right front pocket with my keys pretty much all the time, a good ol' Swiss Army knife. Never know when you might need a blade, or a bottle opener, or a can opener, or a toothpick, or a screwdriver... A kirpan can't do any of those things, I doubt you could even cut up an orange with one, they're functionally useless, about as dangerous as wearing a crucifix.
They were instructed by a religious leader to wear them for defense. That was a practical reason for 1700 Pakistan, not a religious reason. Times have changed.
SirJosephPorter, there are two ways in which the notwithstanding clause can be used. First, the Parliament of Canada invokes s. 33 when it passes the legislation to start with. Second, Parliament reacts to a court decision and makes a later amendment to invoke s. 33 for that same Act.
A lot of bedding needs to be shed to get to and use a kirpan.
There is no danger other than the xenophobia that brings crap like this up.
Sikh gang and community violence has been well documented in BC. They aren't more or less prone to violence than other people.
No. Ban weapons or change the law for everyone, or change your religion. Some religious sects see it fit to carry improvised explosive devices. I don't support that either and don't feel it requires keeping away reading materials simply to keep IED's out.
Handguns and rifles are not religious icons and as such, deserve no consideration.
Yes, I fully understand that in order to get special societal privileges one must join a religious group.
Why is a religious tradition more important than a tradition of a non-religious family? Perhaps I will start a new thread on the topic?
Because we have freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution, we donít have freedom for non religious things enshrined in a similar manner. That is why even though we have a weapons ban, if weapon (in this instance a kirpan) happens to be somebodyís religious icon, it is a matter for discussion, for negotiations, and for seeing if we can come up with some accommodation, and not a matter to tell the religious group to get lost (except as a last resort).