Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

[Doryman]

If the Kirpan is carried only for symbolic purposes, or to ward off spirits, would the Sikhs object to carrying Kirpans with wooden or plastic blades?

The problem I have with this is not really that the kids have small knives ( as a teenager, I almost always had a small pocketknife on me) but the fact that only Sikhs will be allowed to do this. It's a case of everyone being equal, but some being more equal than others. Can they honestly tell me that no Christian/Jewish/Hindu teenagers will have their 4 inch swiss army knives seized under "No Tolerance" policies??

 

[Curiosity]

Doryman

Exactly - the precedent has now been made into law - Pandora's Box has been opened.

 

[Freethinker]

Reo Sikhs fly?

Why are people so upset about the Kirpan, but don't care about scissors, bats, kitchen utensils (all of which are allowed in school)? This is the part I don't get. I took a cooking class in high school and we were able to use big kitchen knives without killing eachother. I don't remember anyone suggesting they shouldn't be allowed in school because they were unsafe for the majority of the students who weren't in our class.

Ummm, just try taking a bat to all your classes and wander the hallways with it. The same for kitchen knives.

Odd that the same people who most vociferously were against showing possibly inflamatory cartoons, are the same ones who are all for carrying a weapon in school because it is a religious symbol.

They seem to be in favor of religion over-riding law. When religion and secular society or laws collide, it seems that they prefer that religion trump law.

 

[Kreskin]

Before you know it they'll allow pens, pencils, scissors, compasses, and rulers too.

 

[cyberclark]

Kids around town are making nun-chucks and batons on the lathe at school for a wood work class. I think the Canadian Tolerance is more about who is looking than what it is.

 

[I think not]

But wait, intolerance shows it ugly head, why can't a white person have the same deal.

Answer, because it is not apart of your religion and as Five as rightly pointed, religious practices are protected under the charter of rights and freedoms.

Really Jersay, you're getting to be monotonous lately. This isn't about white, black or brown. It is about a group having rights and you can't have any of it, get it?

YOU are not being seen as EQUAL under the eyes of your Charter, simply because you do not belong to that group. Can you not see the inherent divisions taking place here? Every positive perception breeds a negative, you haven't gained a dam thing with this law, you have LOST a right.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think not, I would disagree; religious protections are offered for all citizens of Canada, not only Sikhs. As per Section 2(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982, every citizen has the freedom of religion; Sikhs and non-Sikhs alike. Christians have the right to freedom of religion, which was the driving force behind the incorporation of Sections 3 and 3.1 into the Civil Marriage Act — that was, again, an assertion of religious freedom in Canada.

 

[tracy]

Reo Sikhs fly?

Why are people so upset about the Kirpan, but don't care about scissors, bats, kitchen utensils (all of which are allowed in school)? This is the part I don't get. I took a cooking class in high school and we were able to use big kitchen knives without killing eachother. I don't remember anyone suggesting they shouldn't be allowed in school because they were unsafe for the majority of the students who weren't in our class.

Ummm, just try taking a bat to all your classes and wander the hallways with it. The same for kitchen knives.

Odd that the same people who most vociferously were against showing possibly inflamatory cartoons, are the same ones who are all for carrying a weapon in school because it is a religious symbol.

They seem to be in favor of religion over-riding law. When religion and secular society or laws collide, it seems that they prefer that religion trump law.

I don't know if you're refering to me specifically, but I was never in favor of banning those cartoons or anything. I'm not in favor of religion trumping anything, I just believe in a live and let live kind of philosophy. A Sikh student has never in the history of our country attacked anyone at school with their kirpan. So to me, I don't see why this has suddenly become a safety issue. I also don't see why so many people get offended that a religious rule that hurts no one should be allowed. I don't care that I'm not allowed to carry a big ol' knife under my clothes because I have no need to do so.

It would have been very easy to walk out of the cooking class with a knife or around the halls with a bat after gym, but even if you don't believe that what about scissors? Those are sharp, can be used as a weapon and can be carried by teenagers in high schools across the nation. Aren't they as dangerous as a kirpan?

 

[I think not]

Yes FiveParadox I agree, and you've missed the point.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think not, I think I have the point; you would assert that Sikhs are being given some "unfair advantage" over their fellow non-Sikh Canadian citizens, would I be correct in that assumption? If so, I must again disagree; we must keep in mind that not all religions are the same and, therefore, we must acknowledge that strategies to accomodate freedom of religion in relation to Canada are going to differ depending on the religion.

 

[tracy]

I don't see why people think that being equal under the law means we will all be treated exactly the same in every situation. That has never been the case.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

I think not, I think I have the point; you would assert that Sikhs are being given some "unfair advantage" over their fellow non-Sikh Canadian citizens, would I be correct in that assumption? If so, I must again disagree; we must keep in mind that not all religions are the same and, therefore, we must acknowledge that strategies to accomodate freedom of religion in relation to Canada are going to differ depending on the religion.

Yes you would be partially correct, it isn't solely about religion, it is about groups in general whether they are religious, cultural or racial in nature. Groups are afforded rights while the individual receives none of it. That does not, in my perceptions, constitute equality under the law. Why you and others see it this way, is quite honestly beyond me. You are either equal or you are not. It's a very simple concept.

The excercise of religion is a fundamental right, I could not agree more, so is the security of the person and the rights of an individual. Today it was a dagger, tomorrow it will be a spear, the next day it will be something else, and since the precedent has been set, you cannot deny anything to any group.

The Supreme Court did not even make an attempt to balance the issue. Just because their hasn't been an incident does not mean there won't be.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

I don't see why people think that being equal under the law means we will all be treated exactly the same in every situation. That has never been the case.

Elaborate please, because I don't know what you mean.

 

[FiveParadox]

I think not, while I would agree with you in part that sometimes it is prudent to legislate based on predictions of future needs, sometimes it's unwarranted to sacrifice the present for the future. If there is an incident in the future of violence committed with a kirpan, then I would naturally be open to discussing this topic again, in the interest of finding some sort of compromise. However, at present, I see no reason to legislate in violation of Section 2(a).

That's my personal opinion, though.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

However, at present, I see no reason to legislate in violation of Section 2(a).

That's my personal opinion, though.

And while doing that you have violated section 15 (a):

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


Good job.

 

[the caracal kid]

"If there is an incident in the future of violence committed with a kirpan, then I would naturally be open to discussing this topic again, in the interest of finding some sort of compromise."

There is an inherent difficulty with this stance. What is the threshold when one group should be stripped of its "rights"(privilages) because of some?

ITN,
since you wish to quote law, notice that stripping Sikhs of the "right" to wear a kirpan is discriminating against them.

 

[FiveParadox]

Sections 2(a) and 15(1)

I think not, I have no doubt that the Supreme Court of Canada gave consideration to Section 15(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (I believe that's a provision of the Constitution — right?); nonetheless, for a moment, allow me to give my own interpretation of how one should accomodate religious freedom, given a balance between these two integral components of the Constitution Acts.

:arrow: In Relation to Section 2(a)

First and foremost, I would like to make it clear that in my opinion, the rights and freedoms set forth in Section 2 should take precedence over those in subsequent sections; however, that is an entirely subjective point-of-view and, therefore, let's say for a moment that I would be entirely incorrect on that assertion.

If Sections 2(a) and 15(1) are to be applied equally, then one must consider the provisions of each; Section 2(a) guarantees the freedom of religion and conscience, and Section 15(a) guarantees equality before the law. Now, I would assert that a certain balance must be stricken between the two.

Section 2(a), as a guarantor of fundamental freedoms (subject to Section 1, but perhaps that is an issue for another discussion), must be weighed particularly carefully when considering a case. Freedom of religion should be accomodated in Canada wherever possible, and where it is not possible but the religion is reasonable, it should be made possible.

In relation to the wearing of kirpans, I would assert that this would be an area where we are quite capable of accomodating Section 2(a), in its entirety. Now, of course, this would not grant Sikh citizens the right to use the kirpan in any capacity whatsoever, but rather to hold it in their possession as a tenet of their religious freedom and expression.

:arrow: Section 15(1)

I would assert that while we should accomodate the possession of the kirpan in public, it must be made perfectly clear that outside the scope of its sole possession, any other use of the kirpan in contradiction of the Criminal Code of Canada whatsoever should be deemed entirely illegal.

We could perhaps define certain guidelines to be followed in relation to the recognition of the right of Sikh citizens to possess the kirpan in public; these could include restrictions on the handling of the ceremonial dagger, restrictions on publicly displaying or performing the kirpan, and establish the right of the Government of Canada, perhaps under the authority of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, to place restrictions on the possession of the kirpan under exigent circumstances.

For example, we could determine that Sikhs are to be quite staunchly restricted from unsheathing their kirpans under any circumstances in a public location whatsoever and that, furthermore, if such a ceremonial dagger were unsheathed then Criminal Code of Canada provisions in relation to the unlawful possession of a weapon could be immediately invoked.

 

[the caracal kid]

unsheathing laws?

interesting, and not entirely new. Of course, merely unsheathing a kirpan is not an indication of an act against another person. Intent needs to be addressed. When it comes right down to it, the sheathed kirpan could still kill someone.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am aware that such a policy would be a bit awkward, the caracal kid, but I am trying to find some kind of suggestion that could possibly be found acceptable to the parties involved — trying to be creative and reasonable, lol.

 

[the caracal kid]

I think it is a good effort, Five.

I am just throwing out potential complications. We need a Sikh in this thread to help fit "practices" with "practicalities".