Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
unfortunately, jersay, this thread demonstrates exactly what level of tolerance is found in many that occupy canada.
Holy mackeral Caracal Kid, you're really LOOKING GOOD these days. Holy cowabungalooey @!
Ayyyye carrrrrumba.
You're like something out of New Orleans.
Ayyyye carrrrrumba.
You're like something out of New Orleans.
Jersay said:
Tolerance? So in the future when the news reports a teenager killed in a school by the kirpan that was taken off of a sikh who was wearing it observing the fight only not doing the fighting, that's ok for you.
Oh the sikh didn't use the kirpan, he got his kirpan taken from him in the heat of the fight by other teenagers.
So if your child is stabbed, not by a sikh but by the bully that stole the kirpan off the sikh, will your position stay the same? Tolerant.
The decision is wrong, no weapons means no weapons.
Teenager fights these days usually end in deaths, we all know that.
But is that ok for you? As Canadians we would rather have our tolerance, our open minds to all people?
Just as long as no gets hurts...right? Or doesn't that matter any more.
I would not place blame on the Sikh student-in-question; rather, I would place blame on the student who had committed the crime. As for teenage fights "usually ending in deaths," no, certainly not; I don't know what kind of teenagers you've come across, but at my high school, we have had a fair share of fights — no deaths yet, lol.ashley_rb said:
[quote="FiveParadox]I would not place blame on the Sikh student-in-question; rather, I would place blame on the student who had committed the crime.[/quote]
So your saying, even though a person knowingly brings an item that can be used as a weapon, like a kirpan, or what we none sikh's call a knife, even though they brought the weapon that resulted in a death or injury they are not responsible?
So I could bring a gun, have it taken by force from me, someone gets shot, and I have no responibility at all? Even though if I didn't bring the gun in the first place, the crime used by my gun would have never happened.
You bring a weapon that results in a death or injury even though you didn't do the killing or inflict the injury, you are still at blame. Its just a matter of time before some sikh gets their kirpan taken and someone will get hurt.
Its a school. You bring a weapon, knife, kirpan anything that's a weapon to a school, there is the potential for someone to get hurt. No weapons should mean no weapons, not whats a right and what's not.
So your saying, even though a person knowingly brings an item that can be used as a weapon, like a kirpan, or what we none sikh's call a knife, even though they brought the weapon that resulted in a death or injury they are not responsible?
So I could bring a gun, have it taken by force from me, someone gets shot, and I have no responibility at all? Even though if I didn't bring the gun in the first place, the crime used by my gun would have never happened.
You bring a weapon that results in a death or injury even though you didn't do the killing or inflict the injury, you are still at blame. Its just a matter of time before some sikh gets their kirpan taken and someone will get hurt.
Its a school. You bring a weapon, knife, kirpan anything that's a weapon to a school, there is the potential for someone to get hurt. No weapons should mean no weapons, not whats a right and what's not.
You are incorrect, ashley_rb.
Anything can be used as a weapon; there have been more injuries at my school with fists than there have been with kirpans (let's say somewhere in the area of a few dozen this year, versus zero). Statistics would seem to dictate that we should not be bringing our hands to school, then.
The fact remains that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in a unanimous decision that a Montréal School District cannot prevent its students from wearing the kirpan to school if their religious convictions so require; I see no problem with this. Even before this ruling, a majority of schools in Canada permitted the practice. This does not change much.
Anything can be used as a weapon; there have been more injuries at my school with fists than there have been with kirpans (let's say somewhere in the area of a few dozen this year, versus zero). Statistics would seem to dictate that we should not be bringing our hands to school, then.
The fact remains that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in a unanimous decision that a Montréal School District cannot prevent its students from wearing the kirpan to school if their religious convictions so require; I see no problem with this. Even before this ruling, a majority of schools in Canada permitted the practice. This does not change much.
Well I see a problem with it. Especially as it was an 8-0 decision. It shows the uniform ultra liberalism of the court.
It also recognizes the voting power of this particular minority. A minority of 25 meatheads wanting to bring their blunted meat cleavers to school would get short shrift, probably jail time.
Not every person is sane. (Forgive me Haggis!). But if a Sikh goes bananas for some reason he is armed. If it just a symbol why not make it a dagger crest stitched on his jacket?
Radical Wahhabism is a religion. Explosives are their symbols.
It also recognizes the voting power of this particular minority. A minority of 25 meatheads wanting to bring their blunted meat cleavers to school would get short shrift, probably jail time.
Not every person is sane. (Forgive me Haggis!). But if a Sikh goes bananas for some reason he is armed. If it just a symbol why not make it a dagger crest stitched on his jacket?
Radical Wahhabism is a religion. Explosives are their symbols.
Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says
Well way to go Canada. First it was a court decision to allow gay marriage, dismantling the foundation of marriage between a man and woman. According to the courts, 2 men make for great parents to raise children: that is a dress wearing - makeup made - lip gossed guy who gets off on another guy with a lisp - 2 men who's sexual pervertion we all get to witness at the Gay Pride Parade - a leather thonged man riding on a float rubbing his crotch up against another man dressed with only a ball cup, a wink and a wee bit of blush. According to the courts, this makes for a great Canadian parent.
Please! Cut back on the details! This ain't a porn site!
Well way to go Canada. First it was a court decision to allow gay marriage, dismantling the foundation of marriage between a man and woman. According to the courts, 2 men make for great parents to raise children: that is a dress wearing - makeup made - lip gossed guy who gets off on another guy with a lisp - 2 men who's sexual pervertion we all get to witness at the Gay Pride Parade - a leather thonged man riding on a float rubbing his crotch up against another man dressed with only a ball cup, a wink and a wee bit of blush. According to the courts, this makes for a great Canadian parent.
Please! Cut back on the details! This ain't a porn site!
zoofer said:
I wouldn't call it a radical liberal view. I call it one which is trying to ensure that all religions are treated fairly and equally. I'd prefer the French seculer ruling to this. Where all religous sysmbols, crosses and what not should not be worn to school. In the ban you are allowed to wear disgreet symbols though.
I think a single death is one too many. When I have kids I don't want them to go to a school where people might be armed with daggers or whatnot and allowed to putting my child in a disadvantage. Remember teenagers do stupid things and are often controled by emotions. When I was a Teenager I had converted for a short time to Wicca but I would never have brought an Atheme to school which is a ritual dagger. Because it can be used as a weapion.
In Canada we live in a seculer society. There's a time and place for your religion and it shouldn't be at school, xp when it involves sharp pointy things.
Also this type of thinking can go into the realm of stupity. Does this mean if there's christian snake handlers who have to pray all the time can bring there snake to school too?
Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says
Oh, thank god, for a moment I was worried there. There is a policy or rule in place that will ensure that it isn't used as a weapon.
So what happens when someone breaks this rule and the the blade is sticking in someone's chest? Will they get detention?
FiveParadox said:
Oh, thank god, for a moment I was worried there. There is a policy or rule in place that will ensure that it isn't used as a weapon.
So what happens when someone breaks this rule and the the blade is sticking in someone's chest? Will they get detention?
Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says
You're exactly right, DasFX. Sure it hasn't happened yet, but who knows how many schools would have ever allowed blades inside the school property. Most schools have a zero tolerance policy and I even remember schools disallowing people to bring plastic knives for their lunch. I like France's stand on religion in schools.
If one can't even bring a plastic knife to school, why should one be allowed to carry a dangerous blade with them? Completely absurd. Canada is starting to scare me.
DasFX said:
You're exactly right, DasFX. Sure it hasn't happened yet, but who knows how many schools would have ever allowed blades inside the school property. Most schools have a zero tolerance policy and I even remember schools disallowing people to bring plastic knives for their lunch. I like France's stand on religion in schools.
If one can't even bring a plastic knife to school, why should one be allowed to carry a dangerous blade with them? Completely absurd. Canada is starting to scare me.
I dislike mixing religious laws with civil law...for this very reason....
Canada was under an influential law of a major religion for many years - and their Family Laws especially were greatly affected, influenced and restricted by religious teaching.
Religion should be apart from governmental law.
Regarding the Kirpan - they are 5-10 inches I believe (or vary in size and in meters)....yet knives of 3 inches or more are banned in schools.
The conflict for me here is: What is to deter a Kirpan being brought to a school by one who is not religious but avails himself of the law allowing them???? Who will challenge the subject that he does not practice the religion allowing him to carry a symbol of that belief - an aggressive and defensive symbol too of violent activity. It is not used for pacific or domestic purpose.
If people are going to start making religious "exceptions", they will also have to begin making minority "exceptions" too... thus the separation of the children (and adults) of Canada begins its ever slippery slope.
Above all children and their parents must learn to be united rather than separated even by religious symbolism. They are all Canadians.
Only one law, for ALL people - in equal measure will ever test the time of a cohesive society - one which uses the name "Canadian" without hyphenation or linked to previous ancestry.
Canada was under an influential law of a major religion for many years - and their Family Laws especially were greatly affected, influenced and restricted by religious teaching.
Religion should be apart from governmental law.
Regarding the Kirpan - they are 5-10 inches I believe (or vary in size and in meters)....yet knives of 3 inches or more are banned in schools.
The conflict for me here is: What is to deter a Kirpan being brought to a school by one who is not religious but avails himself of the law allowing them???? Who will challenge the subject that he does not practice the religion allowing him to carry a symbol of that belief - an aggressive and defensive symbol too of violent activity. It is not used for pacific or domestic purpose.
If people are going to start making religious "exceptions", they will also have to begin making minority "exceptions" too... thus the separation of the children (and adults) of Canada begins its ever slippery slope.
Above all children and their parents must learn to be united rather than separated even by religious symbolism. They are all Canadians.
Only one law, for ALL people - in equal measure will ever test the time of a cohesive society - one which uses the name "Canadian" without hyphenation or linked to previous ancestry.
Wednesday's Child said:
A great point! Can everyone at school bring in a knife and call it a kirpan? This is supposed to be a secular nation, our laws should not be dictated by religion.
Just like Muslims have argued that there are limits to the freedom of expression, there must be limits on the freedom of religion. Weapons don't belong in school. I don't care if Jesus Christ, Allah and Khrisna themselves came to you personally and told you to arm yourselves for school, it shouldn't be allowed.
The arguement that there is no history of violence with the kirpan is stupid. Must we wait for tragedy before acting?
Besides what kind of religion arms themselves? If you want to arm yourself and be a warrior, go to a Star Trek convention and dress up as a Klingon!
According to the teen-in-question at a press conference broadcast on CPAC yesterday, the kirpan is a symbol of freedom and justice, and is supposed to be worn by those who have been baptised as a Sikh. To deny Sikh students the right to exercise their beliefs in school would be a violation of Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a violation of an ordinance from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says
I'm more interested in
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I think this should trump the freedom of religion:
LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
So I would encourage other students to fight this on the basis of having armed students violates their sercurity of the person and could deprive them of life.
FiveParadox said:
I'm more interested in
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I think this should trump the freedom of religion:
LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF PERSON.
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
So I would encourage other students to fight this on the basis of having armed students violates their sercurity of the person and could deprive them of life.
DasFX, as a student, I can say with confidence that I think you will find that students have no problem with this — it is parents and other adults who seem to be making an issue out of this; they seem to be somewhat detached from reality.
Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says
I'm not a parent, I'm not that far removed from student life and my wife is a high school teacher. Students are fine with a lot of things which they end of not being fine with when they grow up.
I'm sure student will be fine with it, until somebody is stabbed. If you think weapons in school are fine, that okay by me. I'm done so I won't be the one with the kirpan in my chest.
FiveParadox said:
I'm not a parent, I'm not that far removed from student life and my wife is a high school teacher. Students are fine with a lot of things which they end of not being fine with when they grow up.
I'm sure student will be fine with it, until somebody is stabbed. If you think weapons in school are fine, that okay by me. I'm done so I won't be the one with the kirpan in my chest.