Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

[FiveParadox]

Mogz, nobody is "bending the Criminal Code" to their liking; hate propaganda laws are a fact, and are enforced by the Supreme Court of Canada. No citizen of Canada can incite hatred toward a minority, nor promote genocide, nor attempt to cause widespread offense on the basis of religion.

Section 2(a), according to the interpretation of the Supreme Court of Canada (and thereby given force into law), ensures that citizens cannot be impeded from practicing their religion in public.

 

[FiveParadox]

Jay, guess what; I pay taxes, too. If my opinion is invalid, then it is only invalid insofar as too is yours.

 

[the caracal kid]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

Are you saying that a child may not know what a kirpan could do to a body? (all symbolism aside)

Nope. I'm saying a child is not sufficiently aware of long term consequences to be given a weapon at school. I don't know how things were when you went to school, but I got in my share of fist fights. Nobody carried guns or knives back then, thankfully, so it all ended up without serious injury. I can't imagine that human nature has changed so dramatically that there are no fights now. If people had carried weapons back in "my day", there would have been a lot more trouble. (Instead we just bashed each other with our stone tablets! )

Teens in particular are in a precarious emotional position as they try to find their way into adulthood. Giving them weapons is a bad idea. Any weapon. All symbolism aside.

Even adults can fail when it comes to being aware of the long term consequences of their actions.

There is a difference between somebody that recieved a kirpan as a part of their religion and somebody that just went out and bought a knife. Banning kirpans would not make schools any safer. It is in the minds of people that we need to bring tolorance and understanding. A ban does nothing to increase tolorance or understanding. It facilitates further segrigation and blindly provides justification for deep rooted prejudices. Bans do not solve problems, they create problems. If this was really about school security, all those against kirpans would be calling for manditory searches of students as they enter school to ensure there is nothing that is a potential weapon on school grounds, but they are not, because this is not about security, but insecurity. The insecurity brought on by cultural ignorance.

 

[Jay]

Some of the pigs are more equal then the other animals down on the farm...it apears they have support too.

 

[Jay]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

Jay, guess what; I pay taxes, too. If my opinion is invalid, then it is only invalid insofar as too is yours.

It isn't really an issue if your over 18 and able to vote, Paradox....you know as well as I do you have every right to an opinion on this, even if your wrong.

But as far a school taxes, I probably have you beat cause I probably paid more in property taxes last year than you....ever have paid in taxes.

Now I'm just having fun with you.

 

[I think not]

Ah, the dagger thingy. Amazing. The Supreme Court apparently never even considered striking a balance between the students right to excerise his religion and all other students' rights to safety and the individual right of security of the person, as is evidenced by the 8-0 ruling.

Once again the Supreme Court of Canada upholds rights of a group by diminishing rights of the individual in favor of that group.

And the slippery slope begins in school. Wait till an African student decides to bring in a spear because it is part of their "culture".

Sikhs can wear small versions of the Kirpan aroound their necks, like I said, no balance. Pitty.

 

[the caracal kid]

"slippery slope" :lol:

there is balance, now.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

"slippery slope" :lol:

there is balance, now.

No there isn't any balance. Allowing a weapon into school opens up unforeseeable risks associated with it.

And yeah, what will stop someone from brining in other religious or cultural items that are considered dangerous? Nothing if the Supreme Court of Canada has anything to say about it.

Sometimes I really do not understand people, you advocate freedom of responsible speech because words can seem hurtful, yet a weapon in school is deemed safe for everyone.

 

[Jersay]

Show me evidence that a Sikh child has ever used the Kirpan in an attack. Show me evidence.

Yes it is a weapon, but if you don't have any insight into how their culture operates how the emotional connection to their objects are then you can't say that the Kirpan is bad. I have seen how they handle their 'weapons' as well and they do it very professionally.

Now what the Supreme Court should have said in their ruling was,

We will allow the Kirpan as a religious object, until a violent incident occurs, then we will review our decision. And also, they should have put that all other dangerous religious objects have to be brought on a case to case basis.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: Dagger Ban unconstitutional Supreme Court says

ah the ugly face of religious intolerance. Do you suppose, perhaps that Rights and Freedoms are imbedded in the Constitution to protect minorities from the tyrany of the majority?

And what does that tell you about individual rights over group (the majority in the instance) rights? It sounds more like political correctness gone out of control. I'm wondering where the line will be drawn. :roll:

 

[tracy]

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.

 

[Jersay]

It is because of intolerance. Plan and simple.

Oh, if the school has stuff like that the kids can use it. But oh wait, some Sikh kid wants to carry around his ceremonial dagger (no history of violence in it) and we can't allow that.

It has been going on in all the schools except for this Quebec place. Live with it. People on this forum and in Canada didn't complain then, so why are you complaining now?

 

[Mogz]

As far as I knew, not bringing certain items to school was just school policy, not a matter of law.

Two places this falls under law tracy. Concealed weapons. Look that up in the Criminal Code of Canada. With the kirpan, some wear it on their belt, but many schools force the students to wrap them in cloth and hide them under their clothes. That, tracy, is a concealed weapon and against the law. The last time I checked, the law applied to everyone, not just certain groups of citizens. Further still, carrying a blade over a certain length is illegal in Canada, many of you on these forums may not realize that. In Canada it is illegal to carry on your person a blade over 3 inches in length (some communites bend this to 4 inches, but the law states 3). The minimum length for a kirpan is 4 inches (by "religious law"). Right there they're breaking the CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA. Why can a sikh carry a kirpan that can reach up to 6 or 7 inches long, while I, a white person, cannot carry a blade in my city over 3? Double standard. Don't offend the minority.

Mogz, nobody is "bending the Criminal Code" to their liking;

Read what I posted above Five. The law IS being bent in this nation.

 

[Mogz]

FYI

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/polls/poll_result.html

 

[Jay]

Sure, they can have their little daggers, i want to carry a concealed han gun for prtection, not because of my religion. The laws need to be changed.

 

[I think not]

People on this forum and in Canada didn't complain then, so why are you complaining now?

Perhaps because until now it wasn't legal to carry a weapon to school, despite turning a blind eye or dealing with the issue locally and on a case by case basis.

And perhaps parents are rightfully concerned about the well being of their children. Why are you being so intolerant of opinion Jersay? Does it only work one way? Just because the Supreme Court made a decision does everybody have to "live with it"? They can voice their opinions and even protest to overturn the decision.

Tell me Jersay, where will you draw the line? A dagger? A spear? A crossbow? Where?

 

[Jersay]

Simple. Have the schools stop having the Sikh children 'concealing' their weapons as you call them, so that part is done. And if some communities have a 4" minimum, fine, allow a 4 inch Kirpan.

Problem solved.

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.

 

[Jersay]

Perhaps because until now it wasn't legal to carry a weapon to school, despite turning a blind eye or dealing with the issue locally and on a case by case basis.

And perhaps parents are rightfully concerned about the well being of their children. Why are you being so intolerant of opinion Jersay? Does it only work one way? Just because the Supreme Court made a decision does everybody have to "live with it"? They can voice their opinions and even protest to overturn the decision.

Tell me Jersay, where will you draw the line? A dagger? A spear? A crossbow? Where?

On a case to case basis. If and if a Kirpan is used in a violent incident, they are done in my belief. Can't have them, but there has never been an incident of Kirpan violence.

You can't overturn a Supreme COurt decision. Its final, it can be declared obsolete if another trial reaches the Supreme court and they go against the first one, or if they write a second decision like in Marshal.

This has nothing to do with a weapon, this is a ceremonial object. And if other people want objects that are religious to them or their religion they should prove it to the Supreme Court. Until then no.

Why weren't these parents concerned before. It has been happening all across the country, except this one area. Why hasn't there been protest before.

 

[sanch]

We need to remember that many of Canada’s visible minorities live in ethnic enclaves where religion is a very dominant force. So even if an immigrant saw Canada as a haven to escape traditional strictures that promoted inequality, he or she would likely find themselves back under control of those same forces upon arrival in Canada. We have to ask whose rights are being protected if customs such as polygamy which reinforce patriarchy and the oppression of women are recognized? In certain communities women are excluded from public discourse. So if we recognize the customs that perpetuate this exclusion are we not trampling on the individual rights of women trapped in polygamous marriages? This is the quandary Canada faces as it prioritizes groups rights over individual rights.

I am waiting for the Supreme Court of Canada to make their ruling in favour of female circumcision which is central to the religious practice of many Somalis and Ethiopians in Toronto. And we need to remember that in Ethiopia it is largely Christians who practice female circumcision. The Tamils practice bride stealing. The Iranians using religious law put homosexuals and adulterous women to death. There is no shortage of customs for them to approve.

And in the end Canada will have an almost exact replica of a caste system.

 

[sanch]

And on the Kirpan if its significance is symbolic than it could easily be a rubber knife. That would have been a compromise.