Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

And which one of these would apply here, FP? Neither of them, I would imagine. There has been no court case. Parliament did not pass any law pertaining to this recently, so obviously Parliament did not invoke the Notwithstanding Clause when they passed the original legislation.

So I think I am right in stating that Notwithstanding clause does not apply here.

 

[Kreskin]

Like I said, one's degree of rights depends on how religious one is. What next, an exception to seat belt laws because the seat belt covers the kirpan?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

People are always afraid of the unknown, Petros. A blood curdling yell in the dark is much more frightening that the monster in the broad daylight.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Kakato, didn't they have to go to courts to earn that right? Or am I thinking of the RCMP?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sikh gang and community violence has been well documented in BC. They aren't more or less prone to violence than other people.

Kreskin, have there been any instances of a kirpan being used in that violence? If not, doesn’t that tell you that Sikhs regard the kirpan strictly as a religious symbol, and are not likely to use it for offence, for defense, for anything?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

Kreskin, I assume weapons are banned for everyone; I would be very surprised if anybody is allowed to take a weapon to the Olympic venue. However, when a religious icon happens to be a weapon, then we have the conflict of two rights, the right to religious freedom and the right to safety.

It is the question of deciding whether freedom of religion can be respected while preserving the right to safety. If not, safety must trump freedom of religion (as it does on airplanes). As it happens, in this case it was decided that reasonable accommodation with a religious minority does not involve any risk to safety. I am OK with that.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But that's the same argument gun owners make. Should we allow handguns and rifles into the games just because Anna's violent bible-carrying Mum is there?

Handguns and rifles are not religious icons and as such, deserve no consideration.

 

[Kreskin]

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?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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 don’t 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 somebody’s 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).

 

[Kreskin]

Because we have freedom of religion enshrined in the constitution, we don’t 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 somebody’s 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).

Yes, I'm aware than religious things are enshrined with higher rights. That still doesn't answer why religious family traditions are more important than the traditions of a non-religious family.

 

[Cannuck]

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.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Kirpans come in all different shapes and sizes.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the proponents of kirpans "claim" Sikhs can't remove them for religious reasons and yet they do, in fact, remove them all the time to fly.

 

[AnnaG]

People are always afraid of the unknown, Petros. A blood curdling yell in the dark is much more frightening that the monster in the broad daylight.

lmao You've obviously never encountered a ling cod while swimming or diving. Or a wolf eel.
A scream in the dark usually means someone is in trouble (barked a shin, stubbed a toe, ran into someone else, etc). Or they may have found something crawling around on them.

 

[AnnaG]

Kreskin, have there been any instances of a kirpan being used in that violence? If not, doesn’t that tell you that Sikhs regard the kirpan strictly as a religious symbol, and are not likely to use it for offence, for defense, for anything?

There have been incidents. Just because there may not have been one in BC that anyone remembers, does not mean that BC is immune from incidents. What a funny little world you live in.
My point is that Canada is fickle and should either allow everything or disallow everything and that I would fear a RCMP with a taser before I would fear a Sikh with a kirpan of any size.

 

[TenPenny]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

What if my conscience won't let me attend Olympic events without a handgun?

 

[AnnaG]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

What if my conscience won't let me attend Olympic events without a handgun?

I bet I could get in with my bo (6' longstaff), too.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Yeah, I guess I don't. :-? All the kirpans I've seen being worn--about a dozen I'd guess, there's not a big Sikh community here--were tiny little things, nothing at all like what you pictured.

 

[Cannuck]

Yeah, I guess I don't. :-? All the kirpans I've seen being worn--about a dozen I'd guess--were tiny little things, nothing at all like what you pictured.

How could you "see them being worn" when they are supposed to be wrapped up and worn under the clothing. I guess they aren't as "secure" as some like to pretend.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

People who know you well enough will talk about them, and show them to you. If they were anything like the size of the things you pictured, they'd certainly be visible under standard western-style dress.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Yes, I'm aware than religious things are enshrined with higher rights. That still doesn't answer why religious family traditions are more important than the traditions of a non-religious family.

It is not so much the traditions, but the religious symbols themselves that carry more importance, because of the constitution and the Charter.

Veil is a classic example. Veil is tradition, not religion (Islam tells women to dress modestly, it doesn’t tell them specifically to wear a veil). So a veil wouldn’t have the protection of the religious freedom that kirpan does.

An organization may still try to come to some accommodation with Muslims regarding the veil, but that is because they respect the tradition, not because they have to. Muslims wouldn’t have any recourse in the courts if the veil is banned.

However, if kirpan (which is a religious symbol) is banned, Sikhs could go to courts and have a very good chance of success.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

(d) freedom of association.

What if my conscience won't let me attend Olympic events without a handgun?

Then you won’t attend the Olympics. The Charter provides for freedom of religion, it does not say that consciences of individuals must be catered for.