Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events

[SirJosephPorter]

Interesting points you bring up damngrumpy. The Airplane or Greyhound scenario.
Here in Regina, If you have to go to provincial court (or even into the building to pay
a speeding ticket, etc...) you have to empty your pockets & remove your belt to pass
through a metal detector....and you can't take a pocket knife (tiny) of fingernail clippers
into the court house.

Where would the Kirpan fit into these situations?

I think these things are decided on a case by case basis, Ron. It is clearly a safety issue. So provided proper safety precautions can be taken, they may be permitted kirpan in some places, not in others. Ultimately it will be for the courts to decide if they are allowed to carry a kirpan to a particular place.

If somebody does not like the decision about Olympics, he has the option of going to the courts to stop it (although I haven’t heard of anybody doing so).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

hmmm is a kirpan less lethal than a boxcutter... or that tube of toothpaste they nabbed from me last time I flew?

I seriously doubt that they let the Sikhs take the kirpan onto the airplanes, Zan.

 

[Outta here]

I seriously doubt that they let the Sikhs take the kirpan onto the airplanes, Zan.

.... but a jam packed Olympic event is ok? Of course. I don't know why the difference wasn't obvious to me until you pointed that out. Thanks, I guess I'm ok with it then. :roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

.... but a jam packed Olympic event is ok? Of course. I don't know why the difference wasn't obvious to me until you pointed that out. Thanks, I guess I'm ok with it then. :roll:

The two are totally different. A plane full of passengers in the sky and a crowded stadium have nothing in common. Indeed, if the 9/11 terrorists had tried their stunt with box cutters at a crowded stadium, they would have inflicted minimal damage (precisely why they didn’t try it at a crowded stadium). Probably no fatalities, police would very likely have come in before they injured anybody. In a crowded place, how do you swing a box cutter, before the person behind you grabs you?

As I said, these things are considered on a case by case basis. While it would be crazy to let them carry the kirpan aboard an airplane, I don’t see any problem with letting them carry a kirpan provided sufficient safety precautions are taken.

 

[AnnaG]

So what was the deal here, Goober? He presumably attacked them with a hairpin, that much is obvious (although how one boy can threaten two boys with a hairpin is beyond me).

But what was the deal with kirpan? Did the victims claim that he tried to stab them with the kirpan when it was wrapped in cloth?

Anyway, the judge seemed to take a dim view about the whole thing, he thought the boy was charged just because he was a Sikh.

That's close to the way I read it.

Is this the incidence you were referring to, Ron? Anyway, to my knowledge, there has not been a single incidence of a kirpan being involved in violence.

There have been a few, but none in Canada except the above mention of a sheathed one. There has been a few in India and a couple other countries. At least according to google results.

Among google's results is an article by wiki that pretty much sums up what I had understood about kirpans. Perhaps if some people here read it ....

Kirpan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[AnnaG]

If a Sikh had been on "that" Greyhound way back when, he might have
prevented that NutJob from beheading that young man with his Kirpan,
but then if Colpy was on that same Greyhound with his HighPower, or a
busload of Colpy's....the outcome could have been better for that young
man too. :-|

Exactly. The daft bugger on the bus likely would have been skewered himself.

 

[Ron in Regina]

I've carried a pocket knife everyday since the age of five. I actually found my
first knife (and old rusty thing, that my Father replaced with a new pocket
knife as long as I discarded that old thing before I ended up with Tetanus and
Lock-Jaw). For the last 1/2 of my life, I've actually carried two knives (as tools)
daily....a small locking pocket knife and a larger lock-folding belt knife.

I've an older Brother that, as a diesel mechanic working alone in a shop, had a
motor turn over pinning his hand between a belt and a pulley with his feet dangling
about three feet above the floor. It took him about three hours, but he eventually
managed to saw through that belt with the edge of a screwdriver to free himself.
This Brother of mine also carries at least one knife at all times. When this
happened to my Brother is the time where I began carrying a second larger
lock-folding belt knife.

Over the coarse of our lives, we've both managed to not only not stick a knife
into any of our fellow men, but to never so much as threaten another with a knife.
They're a tool that every person should carry that can save your life, or the life of
another.

Personally, I have no issue with a Sikh carrying a Kirpan at all times, as I do
something similar myself (though for different reasons) following my own belief
system. My issue comes from one segment of society (be it based on race or
religion or what have you) being granted privileges that are not only excluded
from the rest of the population....but makes the rest of society criminals if they
exercise the same right granted to a few.

I'm sure the argument can be made (strawman style) using some other item
that a few members of society would carry that the rest wouldn't be interested
in bothering with and plugging it into the place of a useful item like a knife that
we all should carry...but this is my position on this issue.

 

[AnnaG]

Basically what I see is objections to the kirpan as a result of misunderstanding or ignorance of what they are and what they are for. And please remember that Sikhs take their religion a lot more seriously than Christians seem to. They stick to their religious tenets like bubblegum to hair, as opposed to Christians sticking to theirs when it's convenient. Generally speaking.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Basically what I see is objections to the kirpan as a result of misunderstanding or ignorance of what they are and what they are for. And please remember that Sikhs take their religion a lot more seriously than Christians seem to. They stick to their religious tenets like bubblegum to hair, as opposed to Christians sticking to theirs when it's convenient. Generally speaking.

So they should be afforded different rights because they are more devout in their cult?

 

[AnnaG]

So they should be afforded different rights because they are more devout in their cult?

Stop being obtuse. It's about their religious "rights" as afforded to them by the gov't of Canada.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Stop being obtuse. It's about their religious "rights" as afforded to them by the gov't of Canada.

Yeah, illegal for the rest of the population unless you happen to be a Sikh. That's seems fair.

 

[AnnaG]

Yeah, illegal for the rest of the population unless you happen to be a Sikh. That's seems fair.

I didn't write the rules, I only stick to them. As I keep pointing out, people in Canada are not equal by any means.
Having said that, though, I'd feel just as comfortable with a Sikh and kirpan at my back as I would Colpy and his Hi-power or RCMP + Glock (not the ones with tasers, though. Especially if I was carrying a stapler).
As I told Colpy, develop a religion which required the carrying of a sidearm and the Charter would be there for him, too.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I didn't write the rules, I only stick to them. As I keep pointing out, people in Canada are not equal by any means.
Having said that, though, I'd feel just as comfortable with a Sikh and kirpan at my back as I would Colpy and his Hi-power or RCMP + Glock (not the ones with tasers, though. Especially if I was carrying a stapler).
As I told Colpy, develop a religion which required the carrying of a sidearm and the Charter would be there for him, too.

Couldn't the federal government use the notwithstanding clause to settle this matter?

 

[Outta here]

The two are totally different. A plane full of passengers in the sky and a crowded stadium have nothing in common. Indeed, if the 9/11 terrorists had tried their stunt with box cutters at a crowded stadium, they would have inflicted minimal damage (precisely why they didn’t try it at a crowded stadium). Probably no fatalities, police would very likely have come in before they injured anybody. In a crowded place, how do you swing a box cutter, before the person behind you grabs you?

As I said, these things are considered on a case by case basis. While it would be crazy to let them carry the kirpan aboard an airplane, I don’t see any problem with letting them carry a kirpan provided sufficient safety precautions are taken.

I'm sure you really believe that, but imo, public is public. What I'm getting from that post is that if only a few people are injured in a kirpan scuffle, that's an acceptable risk. So where exactly is the line then SJP? What's the magic number of people that we can have at risk before we disallow weaponry? ...but beyond your convoluted logic, the issue is also about reverse discrimination.

So they should be afforded different rights because they are more devout in their cult?

why are people having such a hard time grasping that point?

Stop being obtuse. It's about their religious "rights" as afforded to them by the gov't of Canada.

As much as I believe religious rights should be protected, I don't think it should be done in a way that elevates the rights of ONE particular segment of society above all others. It then becomes reverse discrimination. It's just as loathsome a path to find ourselves on as discrimination - just at the other end of the continuum.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Couldn't the federal government use the notwithstanding clause to settle this matter?

It doesn’t work that way, Durka. The matter is settled. I am sure Harper has learnt his lesson (that the Notwithstanding Clause is radioactive) after he was forced to promise in an election campaign that he won’t use NW Clause to try to stop gay marriage.

NW Clause is only for emergencies (at least that is how it should be used) and should not be used unless there is a broad consensus in the country that it should be used. Also in my opinion, two or three parties in the Parliament must support its use in any particular instance.

NW Clause is not to be used as a political weapon, to be used any time the courts disagree with the government. And in this case there hasn’t even been a court case, nobody has gone to court over kirpan use in the Olympics. So NW Clause doesn’t apply anyway. But even if it did, it must not be used in this case.

 

[AnnaG]

Couldn't the federal government use the notwithstanding clause to settle this matter?

I'm not sure. Perhaps 5P would know.

 

[Outta here]

I didn't write the rules, I only stick to them.....

That would be fine if we could trust those enacting the rules to do so consistently for the greater good. Since we know that's not the case, blindly following rules isn't always the best route to take... this is how we blunt our critical thinking skills.

Besides, somehow I just don't see you as the 'following the rules at all costs' kinda gal.;-)

... just sayin'. :lol:

 

[AnnaG]

I'm sure you really believe that, but imo, public is public. What I'm getting from that post is that if only a few people are injured in a kirpan scuffle, that's an acceptable risk. So where exactly is the line then SJP? What's the magic number of people that we can have at risk before we disallow weaponry? ...but beyond your convoluted logic, the issue is also about reverse discrimination.

Like I said, I'd sooner have a Sikh behind me with a kirpan than a RCMP with a taser. Simply because per capita, Sikhs have harmed a lot fewer people (exactly 0, as a matter of fact) by mistake than the cops have.

why are people having such a hard time grasping that point?

Because it wasn't the point? Durka missed my point.

As much as I believe religious rights should be protected, I don't think it should be done in a way that elevates the rights of ONE particular segment of society above all others. It then becomes reverse discrimination. It's just as loathsome a path to find ourselves on as discrimination - just at the other end of the continuum.

Did you expect politicians to come up with RATIONAL rules? Now there's a concept that's worth a giggle or two; rational pols. lmao

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm sure you really believe that, but imo, public is public. What I'm getting from that post is that if only a few people are injured in a kirpan scuffle, that's an acceptable risk. So where exactly is the line then SJP? What's the magic number of people that we can have at risk before we disallow weaponry? ...but beyond your convoluted logic, the issue is also about reverse discrimination.

But that is just the point, so far nobody has been injured by a kirpan. If there have been a few instances of kirpan attacks then your point would be valid. But you can’t restrict religious freedoms by assuming a hypothetical, small risk to somebody.

Can kirpan injure somebody, someday? Absolutely. But it is a religious symbol of the Sikhs, their religion mandates that they carry it all the time, there have not been any instances involving the kirpan, they have used it responsibly so far.

So as far as I am concerned, they get the benefit of the doubt. But my opinion will change if they abuse the prerogative granted to them.

 

[DurkaDurka]

It doesn’t work that way, Durka. The matter is settled. I am sure Harper has learnt his lesson (that the Notwithstanding Clause is radioactive) after he was forced to promise in an election campaign that he won’t use NW Clause to try to stop gay marriage.

I'm not saying they should, but it is possible. A provincial legislature could also use the clause, like Quebec did to enforce their draconian language laws.