Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events

[Kakato]

I remember in grade 9 our librarian who allways wore his kirpan was following behind our school bus,I was in the back seat and flipped him the bird.
Well he came on the bus at one of the stops and grabbed me by the throat and allmost lifted me out of my seat.
He never pulled his Kirpan though and I earned a new found respect for him.:lol:

 

[AnnaG]

It doesn’t work that way, Durka. The matter is settled. I am sure Harper has learnt his lesson (that the Notwithstanding Clause is radioactive) after he was forced to promise in an election campaign that he won’t use NW Clause to try to stop gay marriage.

NW Clause is only for emergencies (at least that is how it should be used) and should not be used unless there is a broad consensus in the country that it should be used. Also in my opinion, two or three parties in the Parliament must support its use in any particular instance.

NW Clause is not to be used as a political weapon, to be used any time the courts disagree with the government. And in this case there hasn’t even been a court case, nobody has gone to court over kirpan use in the Olympics. So NW Clause doesn’t apply anyway. But even if it did, it must not be used in this case.

I'd still prefer 5P's opinion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In this regard it is interesting to know that Indian military makes an exception for the Sikhs. Besides the kirpan, their religion mandates that Sikhs must grow a beard and must grow their hair.

So while it is forbidden in the Indian military to keep beard, they let the Sikhs keep their beard, they are not required to shave. Also, while everybody else wears berets, Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans.

It is a reasonable accommodation with a religious minority.

 

[DurkaDurka]

But that is just the point, so far nobody has been injured by a kirpan. If there have been a few instances of kirpan attacks then your point would be valid. But you can’t restrict religious freedoms by assuming a hypothetical, small risk to somebody.

Can kirpan injure somebody, someday? Absolutely. But it is a religious symbol of the Sikhs, their religion mandates that they carry it all the time, there have not been any instances involving the kirpan, they have used it responsibly so far.

So as far as I am concerned, they get the benefit of the doubt. But my opinion will change if they abuse the prerogative granted to them.

The fact that no one has been injured by a kirpan is irrelevant. The fact is they are allowed to brandish weapons due to their "religion" while this right is not afforded to everyone else.

Equal rights for everyone, correct? Or do we live in a society where religion can dictate exemptions for them selves?

 

[Colpy]

But that is just the point, so far nobody has been injured by a kirpan. If there have been a few instances of kirpan attacks then your point would be valid. But you can’t restrict religious freedoms by assuming a hypothetical, small risk to somebody.

Can kirpan injure somebody, someday? Absolutely. But it is a religious symbol of the Sikhs, their religion mandates that they carry it all the time, there have not been any instances involving the kirpan, they have used it responsibly so far.

So as far as I am concerned, they get the benefit of the doubt. But my opinion will change if they abuse the prerogative granted to them.

SJP really doesn't get it.

I agree, give them the benefit of the doubt.....and all the rest of us.

Issue us permits to go armed, give us the benefit of the doubt. It has worked in the USA.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt is not what is offensive here.....what is offensive is allowing one cult to exercise an ancient right, while denying that right to the rest of us.

 

[AnnaG]

That would be fine if we could trust those enacting the rules to do so consistently for the greater good. Since we know that's not the case, blindly following rules isn't always the best route to take... this is how we blunt our critical thinking skills.

Besides, somehow I just don't see you as the 'following the rules at all costs' kinda gal.;-)

... just sayin'. :lol:

lol I follow them when they are convenient or when they make sense.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I'm not saying they should, but it is possible. A provincial legislature could also use the clause, like Quebec did to enforce their draconian language laws.

I don’t think it can be used, in this case. NW Clause is only to override the rulings of a court. In the case of the Olympics, there has been no court case.

If somebody goes to the courts, the courts say that Sikhs must be allowed to carry the kirpan, then the question of NW Clause would arise, but not until then. Then I assume federal or the BC government could use it (but as I said before, the likelihood of its use is negligible).

 

[DurkaDurka]

In this regard it is interesting to know that Indian military makes an exception for the Sikhs. Besides the kirpan, their religion mandates that Sikhs must grow a beard and must grow their hair.

So while it is forbidden in the Indian military to keep beard, they let the Sikhs keep their beard, they are not required to shave. Also, while everybody else wears berets, Sikhs are allowed to wear turbans.

It is a reasonable accommodation with a religious minority.

Who cares what their religion dictates to them? Our laws should supersede any customs their religion carries.

As it is, Canada is far too PC to make a stand and tell them to leave their daggers at home.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The fact that no one has been injured by a kirpan is irrelevant. The fact is they are allowed to brandish weapons due to their "religion" while this right is not afforded to everyone else.

Equal rights for everyone, correct? Or do we live in a society where religion can dictate exemptions for them selves?

They are not allowed to ‘brandish’ the 'weapon', don’t use inflammatory language. They are allowed to carry the kirpan, a religious symbol, well concealed, not easy to reach and well wrapped up in a cloth.

 

[AnnaG]

The fact that no one has been injured by a kirpan is irrelevant. The fact is they are allowed to brandish weapons due to their "religion" while this right is not afforded to everyone else.

Equal rights for everyone, correct? Or do we live in a society where religion can dictate exemptions for them selves?

They AREN'T going to be allowed to brandish their kirpans. They are supposed to have them sheathed under their clothes.
Equal? lmao As I said, Canada will have equal citizens, when ALL its people have homes. There are some people here that think criminals should have equal rights, and yet some are whining about law-abiding citizens the right to their religious stuff. That's equal for you..

 

[DurkaDurka]

They are not allowed to ‘brandish’ the 'weapon', don’t use inflammatory language. They are allowed to carry the kirpan, a religious symbol, well concealed, not easy to reach and well wrapped up in a cloth.

and that somehow makes it ok?

Would you approve of me carrying a tazer in my pants if all of a sudden I declared it part of my religion? it's only decorative you know...

 

[DurkaDurka]

They AREN'T going to be allowed to brandish their kirpans. They are supposed to have them sheathed under their clothes.
Equal? lmao As I said, Canada will have equal citizens, when ALL its people have homes. There are some people here that think criminals should have equal rights, and yet some are whining about law-abiding citizens the right to their religious stuff. That's equal for you..

Brandished, concealed, whatever. The fact is I cannot do this legally therefore neither should they.

Have you thought that some people choose to be homeless?

Criminals don't have equal rights and for good reasons. Religious mumbo jumbo is not a valid reason to carry a dagger.

 

[AnnaG]

They are not allowed to ‘brandish’ the 'weapon', don’t use inflammatory language.

lmao Whatever you say Mr. Black Pot.

They are allowed to carry the kirpan, a religious symbol, well concealed, not easy to reach and well wrapped up in a cloth.

Technically, it is sheathed and inside the Gatra (belt).
As wiki says, the kirpan is rarely used as a weapin and is inderneath clothes. That indicates that the doodads are more symbolic than anything.

 

[AnnaG]

and that somehow makes it ok?

Would you approve of me carrying a tazer in my pants if all of a sudden I declared it part of my religion? it's only decorative you know...

Is there a recognized religion that requires tasers to be carried? No.
Next red herring, please.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Is there a recognized religion that requires tasers to be carried? No.
Next red herring, please.

There very well could be, carrying a tazer is just as absurd as carrying a dagger in the name of "religion". Who's to judge, right Anna?

 

[AnnaG]

Brandished, concealed, whatever. The fact is I cannot do this legally therefore neither should they.

Only because you aren't a member of a religion that requires you to carry a kirpan (or taser, or Browning).

Have you thought that some people choose to be homeless?

Yup. But that's besides the point. If they had a home to go to they would have a choice. Lots do not have the luxury of a choice.

Criminals don't have equal rights and for good reasons. Religious mumbo jumbo is not a valid reason to carry a dagger.

lmao You wouldn't call it mumbo jumbo if you were Sikh. At this point in time, the things are regarded as religious artifacts the same as Christian crosses or Buddhist Mala Prayer beads (those would make lovely garottes, by the way).

 

[AnnaG]

There very well could be,

There isn't.

carrying a tazer is just as absurd as carrying a dagger in the name of "religion".

Perhaps. It would depend on the intended use of them.

Who's to judge, right Anna?

Politicians. They're the ones that make the rules, remember?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

and that somehow makes it ok?

Would you approve of me carrying a tazer in my pants if all of a sudden I declared it part of my religion? it's only decorative you know...

Certainly not, I have said it before, safety considerations trump religious freedom. Taser can do somebody serious damage. However, you may be permitted to carry something similar.

Let us say you approach the courts with a well developed religion. You have a Holy Book, you have your God, your Commandments, creed etc. One of the creeds of your religion is that you must carry a taser at all times. Only one of them mind you, not the only creed. You cannot fool the justices, they are no dummies, they know when somebody is trying to take undue advantage of the freedoms.

But let us say you have several requirements for your religion, and carrying a taser happens to be one of them. Carrying a real taser would still be out of the question, the danger involved is too high. However, if you can design a smaller, micro version of the taser, which would give a shock of say 1 or 2 millivolts, then you may be able to carry it to a public place. That will have to be decided by the courts.

 

[AnnaG]

Certainly not, I have said it before, safety considerations trump religious freedom. Taser can do somebody serious damage. However, you may be permitted to carry something similar.

So you think a 3.5 to 4 inch blade can't do serious damage? You say you are the husband of a MD, how long are scalpel blades? lmao "Whatta maroon" - Bugs Bunny.

Let us say you approach the courts with a well developed religion. You have a Holy Book, you have your God, your Commandments, creed etc. One of the creeds of your religion is that you must carry a taser at all times. Only one of them mind you, not the only creed. You cannot fool the justices, they are no dummies, they know when somebody is trying to take undue advantage of the freedoms.

But let us say you have several requirements for your religion, and carrying a taser happens to be one of them. Carrying a real taser would still be out of the question, the danger involved is too high. However, if you can design a smaller, micro version of the taser, which would give a shock of say 1 or 2 millivolts, then you may be able to carry it to a public place. That will have to be decided by the courts.

How old are you again? 12?

 

[DurkaDurka]

I wonder if there is a single politician in this country with the balls to tackle a controversial issue like this?