Ban kirpan from Parliament: Bloc
- Thread starter Sparrow
- Start date
Funny, in local newspapers they talk of the Indo-Canadian vote all the time. They don't seem to talk of white/English blocs. Of course it's not about race, its about multiracialism, sorry, multiculturalism. They still live together and are united in ways many whites are not. Time to reduce immigration 70% and let them assimilate.
I'm not moving anywhere. I don't want the govt making one law for one group and another law for someone else.
What has multiculturalism ever accomplished for Canadians? It is political conflict and new laws most of us do not want.
I hope you realize those freaky immigrants first came to Canada in 1848 with their kirpans and turbans as soldiers of the Queen's Army and have more than every right to wear whatever the hell they want while sitting in our democratic Parliament.
Need a link to state that Sihks came to Canada in 1848.
In India, in previous centuries, Sikhs needed weapons because they were not treated equally and had to fight and kill, for their rights, so wearing a kirpan was needed. It is not needed in Canada. Sorry, these traditions need to stay in Asia and should not be transported to Canada.
BC Gold rush has Indian soldiers when it was still a handful of tents.
The first Sikhs to ever enter British Columbia were actually on an official trip as part of the Hong Kong army regiments who were travelling through Canada in commemoration of the Queen Victoria of England’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897
The first Sikhs to ever enter British Columbia were actually on an official trip as part of the Hong Kong army regiments who were travelling through Canada in commemoration of the Queen Victoria of England’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897
The Kirpan is a basic tenet of the Baptized Sihk's religion. So, yes they do have the right to carry it.
As for when they first came to Canada, the earliest I can find is:
Sikhism - The Canadian Encyclopedia
As for when they first came to Canada, the earliest I can find is:
Sikhism - The Canadian Encyclopedia
Another practice based on a useless Asiatic religion. Doesn't fly with me.
If you have noticed, over the past few centuries in western countries, religion was not a leading force in equal rights etc. Slavery was justified against Africans because they had the "mark of Ham". Ludicrious. The less religion in Canada the better.
There were Indians aboard naval vessels before that too during the 54-40 disputes. I saw it in the BC archieves in Victoria years ago.
Oh so it was the Jews? When did your line get here and were they serving for Queen and Empire?
Unlikely that any Indians came for the 54-40 dispute. I have never read anything referring to that. Anyway, a few people cannot come from thousands of miles away and change Canada the way they want. We can't give minorities that much power because it is not democratic.
East India Company and HBC did plenty of trade on the Pacific with Indian and Chinese working on the ships. How did you think they go here? Swam?
Well? They sit in ****ing Parliament. How do you get anymore powerful? Boink the Queen?
Perhaps a few employees of a company made it to Canada, big whoop. Why are some people so eager to rapidly give political rights to foreigners in Canada? Let them adjust to us.
Once people are citizens, they're citizens. You might have missed that part, but that gives them the same rights as other citizens.
So why is a "religious ceremonial" dagger not a dagger when If I carry a dagger it becomes a dangerous weapon? This is unequal, unjust and undemocratic. It is all about ethnic politics and NOT treating everyone equally. Throughout history, treating people equally really never happened, now we do it, and some groups are unhappy. I say they can stuff it, religion is to be practiced privately, not publicly. Religion should never be a public policy issue.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Seeing as money from the U.S.of A. has 'in god we trust' printed on it and the second amendment is part of that countries constitution then carrying a handgun is their god-given right no matter where they go. Doesn't that mean Canada is discriminating against people immigrating from the U.S.A. to Canada by not letting them carry a weapon and freely practicing their 'god given rights' in this country? What?, a handgun is used to hurt and is illegal to carry in Canada? What if the bullets were left at home and the firing pin removed? It can't possibly be used to hurt anyone when it can't shoot so it would be for there only for deceration, uhh, cerimonial purposes. Would Canada say it's o.k., you can practice your 'god given right' and break the law in Canada or tell the person from the U.S.A. if you want to carry a gun you have to move back to your own country or be charged with an offence while in this country?
Even moreso.......there is an ancient right to bear arms recognized in the Bill of Rights of 1689, part of Canada's constitutional framework, but, as I pointed out below, I am not permitted to carry arms for my defense.
The English common law right to bear arms dates back to Canute.......1,000 years........while Sikhism was founded in about 1500.......so I am denied a right 1,000 years old that is granted as a religious right to a religion that is 500 years old?
Outrageous.
Yes Sikhs should be allowed to carry kirpans.....when all of our rights are restored, and I'm packing a .357 Magnum.
Until then, piss off.
You wanna carry a .357, move south. Then you can be with the rest of your brainless redneck buddies. Make Canada safer.