Sikhs Allowed To Carry Kirpan (knives) To Olympic Events
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
and by demanding that they forgo the Kirpan, you are asking them to forgo an integral part of their faith.
Yes, the notwithstanding clause would apply.
The only rights that s. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot override are:
- the right to vote;
- the maximum term of the Parliament of Canada or a provincial or territorial legislative assembly (except for during real war);
- the obligation of Parliament to meet at least once every twelve months;
- and, the rights of Canadians to move between the provinces, and to enter and leave Canada.
Not only that it would be foolish, where everyone in the lawless hills of 2009 Pakistan packs a Kalashnikov. 8O
This is the issue that isn't being addressed by proponents of allowing the kirpan. Since they do take them off to fly, they obviously do not need to have them on their person at all times and therefore Gerryh's suggestion that "you are asking them to forgo an integral part of their faith" is utter nonsense.
Indeed. But it is interesting that even with their policy of zero tolerance; they still did make allowances for a religious symbol. They did not automatically ban the kirpan because it is supposedly a weapon (or were they mandated by a court?).
That is a reasonable assumption, Goober. Are you saying that Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpan on airplanes? If so, I think that is outrageous.
I would have no problem with that, Goober. It is for the courts to set up these guidelines.
I don’t know, did we have the Notwithstanding Clause at that time (or indeed, the Charter)? I thought that is what we were discussing.
Quite so, Johnnny. I am an atheist, but I have no problem if somebody says Merry Christmas to me. I don’t even have a problem saying Merry Christmas to others, I do that routinely. One has to be sensible about these things (Christmas is pretty much a secular festival these days anyway).
Which priest would that be, Johnnny? Catholic? Presbyterian? Mormon? Lutheran? Would you be Ok with a Jehovah’s Witness priest? How about an Imam if there is a Muslim player?
These things are decided on a case by case basis, Kreskin, argument from one usually does not carry over to the other. In this instance, the powers that be have decided that this is one instance where reasonable effort to accommodate a religious group is possible.
I personally wouldn’t have had a problem if they had decided the other way. As I said, each case is different. But now that they have decided that it is OK to wear the kirpan, the only recourse is to challenge it in the courts.
I disagree. My understanding is that Notwithstanding Clause is used to override decision of a court. Since there has been no court case here, I don’t see how the NW Clause comes into the picture. Who can it be used against? Against the Olympic Committee? That doesn’t make sense.
My understanding is that if somebody challenges the decision to let Sikhs wear the kirpan in a court, the court says it is OK for Sikhs to wear the kirpan, then (and only then) the NW Clause may be used (to override the court), but not until then.
But that is just the point; kirpan is not to attack somebody or even to defend oneself (these days, it won’t be much use against a bullet). I am sure Sikhs have been subject to violence in Canada (who hasn’t?), but they have never used kirpan to defend themselves (at least none that has been reported). So kirpan is not really to defend themselves.
Kirpan is a religious symbol to be carried at all times (unless government prohibits it for safety reasons, as on an airplane).