Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Ironsides, this is a classic example of how these problems should be worked out. There was no need to go to courts, both sides were willing to compromise, both sides were reasonable. There was no adversarial relationship between the two sides.

The school board did not cling to their zero tolerance policy in a doctrinaire manner. At the same time, Sikhs agreed to reasonable restrictions on the kirpan for the sake of safety, so the non Sikh majority can feel safe.

In a pluralistic society, every attempt should be made to preserve the freedom of religion.

And that they did , both sides agreed that a purely symbolic (non functional) kirpan would suffice.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
It's a matter of principle that I take issue with it. Just once I'd like to see one of these religious groups show some tolerance in return.

And it is an important matter of principle.

Take an action that we all take for granted to be extremely nutty: carrying a knife onto a plane. Why is it that we no longer consider it to be nutty when there are a ton of nuts? If we do not consider it to be nutty for those nuts, why not for the rest of us nuts?

For instance the veil worn by muslims. You go into a courtroom to testify, you should have to identify yourself to the accused and to all the witnesses. There are very important reasons for this related to cross examination. If we say that it is not so nutty for a religion to dictate that they are allowed to not show their face, then why wouldn't we let someone like Michael Jackson get away with it?

Either it is just plain nutty to allow an exception, or the rule shouldn't be there in the first place. Otherwise, the rule is just discriminatory: it clearly denies rights to certain individuals on the basis of their religion.
 

missile

House Member
Dec 1, 2004
4,846
17
38
Saint John N.B.
Wii the knives carry the official Olympic Logo? { And, will they,too, be available for sale at the local Zellers?} Religion has no place in any Olympic event, unless there are some new ones I haven't heard about:lol:
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Either it is just plain nutty to allow an exception, or the rule shouldn't be there in the first place. Otherwise, the rule is just discriminatory: it clearly denies rights to certain individuals on the basis of their religion.
Yes, the more religious one is the more rights one has.

Just once I'd like to see a religion step up to the plate and take ownership of an issue.

In the 80's or 90's they kicked up a media fuss in Surrey/Newton over the Royal Canadian Legion. They insisted it was their religious right to drink beer at Legions while wearing turbans, yet the guys who fought for Canada had to remove their headwear. Obviously the war heros weren't religious enough in their beer drinking.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Yes, the more religious one is the more rights one has.

Just once I'd like to see a religion step up to the plate and take ownership of an issue.

In the 80's or 90's they kicked up a media fuss in Surrey/Newton over the Royal Canadian Legion. They insisted it was their religious right to drink beer at Legions while wearing turbans, yet the guys who fought for Canada had to remove their headwear. Obviously the war heros weren't religious enough in their beer drinking.


Do some research..... the Sihks died in WWI and WWII by the thousands fighting along side Canadians and our other allies, from Flanders to the ME in WWI and from Europe(Italy) to SE Asia in WWII. It's IGNORANCE like this that is the problem, NOT the fact that baptised Sihks want to wear their Kirpans to the Olympics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Yes, the more religious one is the more rights one has.

Just once I'd like to see a religion step up to the plate and take ownership of an issue.

In the 80's or 90's they kicked up a media fuss in Surrey/Newton over the Royal Canadian Legion. They insisted it was their religious right to drink beer at Legions while wearing turbans, yet the guys who fought for Canada had to remove their headwear. Obviously the war heros weren't religious enough in their beer drinking.

They wear their turbans alongside our hatless vets on remembrance days in our legion and no one has a problem.Dressed in full military uniform they get the same respect as our boys who they fought alongside with.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island
Unfortunately for that little plan, a very large majority (72%) of Canadians definitely are NOT atheists.

CBC News - Canada - Almost a quarter of Canadians don't believe in any god, new poll says

Canadians do not attend church (Only 33% according to this poll - others put it between 17 - 25% according to actual in-pews numbers). Yet 72%, with a 3% margin of error, say they are believers. The poll does not interpret what a "Yes" means. It could mean, "I am not going to say 'No' to some telephone pollster"- whatever their reason.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
They wear their turbans alongside our hatless vets on remembrance days in our legion and no one has a problem.Dressed in full military uniform they get the same respect as our boys who they fought alongside with.

Sure the vets, but what about the religious drunks.
 

Outta here

Senate Member
Jul 8, 2005
6,778
158
63
Edmonton AB
Screw you...it's VERY obvious, the Sihks were good enough to die for our way of life, but screw them if they think that means we give them any kind of dipensation for their religious beliefs.

You can choose to display your own intolerance by refusing to acknowledge the the dispensations they HAVE been accorded - but that won't wash with me. They've received plenty of acknowledgment of their right to practice their religion.... and I for one have never once advocated any less for any religious group.

But when anyone expects a certain privilege to be granted OVER AND ABOVE the rights of all others, I draw the line right there - and if you want to be ridiculous and claim that makes me intolerant of religions, then look again - because I'd make a hue and cry over anyone ever getting differential treatment over any other person in my country - whether it's an issue of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender, I'd have the same response for everyone.... and that *is* an equal application of rights for everyone - quite the opposite of discrimination. I'm an agnostic, straight, white female - and I've gone to the mat advocating for equal rights for religious practice (in spite of my abhorance for religion in general), sexual orientation and lifestyles, race equality, and gender equality - not just for womens' rights, but for mens' rights too. So take that label of intolerance and take a good look at who you're throwing it at.

Your stance is in fact the epitome of discrimination... and if you take that to a place it doesn't belong and start labeling people who you KNOW are passionate advocates for equal rights for all... then imo you're the one who's got a screwed up perspective on this... and will you say the same thing when the precedent set here is used to justify according a privilege or right YOU value being awarded to one segment of the populace, but not to yourself?
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
You can choose to display your own intolerance by refusing to acknowledge the the dispensations they HAVE been accorded - but that won't wash with me. They've received plenty of acknowledgment of their right to practice their religion.... and I for one have never once advocated any less for any religious group.

But when anyone expects a certain privilege to be granted OVER AND ABOVE the rights of all others, I draw the line right there - and if you want to be ridiculous and claim that makes me intolerant of religions, then look again - because I'd make a hue and cry over anyone ever getting differential treatment over any other person in my country - whether it's an issue of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender, I'd have the same response for everyone.... and that *is* an equal application of rights for everyone - quite the opposite of discrimination. I'm an agnostic, straight, white female - and I've gone to the mat advocating for equal rights for religious practice (in spite of my abhorance for religion in general), sexual orientation and lifestyles, race equality, and gender equality - not just for womens' rights, but for mens' rights too. So take that label of intolerance and take a good look at who you're throwing it at.

Your stance is in fact the epitome of discrimination... and if you take that to a place it doesn't belong and start labeling people who you KNOW are passionate advocates for equal rights for all... then imo you're the one who's got a screwed up perspective on this... and will you say the same thing when the precedent set here is used to justify according a privilege or right YOU value being awarded to one segment of the populace, but not to yourself?


Not gonna go there with you....and if you take everything I say as a personal commentary on you then I am shutting my mouth right now.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
It's a matter of principle that I take issue with it. Just once I'd like to see one of these religious groups show some tolerance in return.
Buddhism. There are no requirements to enter Buddhism so anyone can be Buddhist. Same with Taoism.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
And as far as discrimination goes, why should Christians and Buddhists be allowed to carry their garottes around and Sikh's can't carry their kirpans?
Banning this and banning that is just kneejerk reactions that only fit nicely into terrorist's agendas.
As I pointed out, Sikhs are protective not aggressive, and are a heck of a lot less aggressive than our own police.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Sikh gang and community violence has been well documented in BC. They aren't more or less prone to violence than other people. I don't have a problem with, for example, a Sikh member not cutting his hair in the military. What I have a problem with is not affording the same right to agnostic John Smith who doesn't want his hair cut either. Why aren't Sikhs calling for Mr Smith's rights to be protected too? Why just their belief's, why not everyone's? These religious groups are all about themselves.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
848
113
70
Saint John, N.B.
Canadians do not attend church (Only 33% according to this poll - others put it between 17 - 25% according to actual in-pews numbers). Yet 72%, with a 3% margin of error, say they are believers. The poll does not interpret what a "Yes" means. It could mean, "I am not going to say 'No' to some telephone pollster"- whatever their reason.

Nooooooo....it means they believe in God but do not attend religious ceremonies....like myself, and the vast majority of other non-atheists.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Sikh gang and community violence has been well documented in BC. They aren't more or less prone to violence than other people. I don't have a problem with, for example, a Sikh member not cutting his hair in the military. What I have a problem with is not affording the same right to agnostic John Smith who doesn't want his hair cut either. Why aren't Sikhs calling for Mr Smith's rights to be protected too? Why just their belief's, why not everyone's? These religious groups are all about themselves.
Ban ANY religious artifact, then. While they are at it, they should ban prayers spoken aloud and any indication of any religious affair. Sounds fine by me. Try telling Christiand they can't bring their garottes or bibles, though. Or tell a Muslim they can't pray. I think the Olys would be a pretty poorly populated event.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
I wouldn't want to offend the religious in their quest for critically important ceremonial rituals while a Sikh athlete goes for Gold in ski jumping, but if it involves carrying weapons and others can't then I have a problem.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Ban one thing religious, ban it all or else you are diving nose deep into bias.
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
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.