View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:58 am Post subject: Kirpans: Banned from airplanes but okay for schools. WTF? |
|
|
This has been a long-running and highly publicized issue in Canada.
There was a thread on this but it is way too old for me to bother to dig up.
This latest decision really bugs me.
Canada high court allows Sikh daggers in school
Thu Mar 2, 2006
By Randall Palmer
OTTAWA (Reuters) - Multiculturalism and religious freedom trumped safety concerns in a Canadian Supreme Court decision on Thursday that will allow orthodox Sikh students to carry concealed traditional daggers to school.
In its decision, the court noted that Sikh orthodoxy requires the wearing of the daggers, known as kirpans, even though they are banned from airplanes and some courtrooms.
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in reasons for the decision after a court case that involved 12-year-old Gurbaj Singh Multani who was prevented from carrying his kirpan at a Montreal school.
"If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is...at the very foundation of our democracy."
Kirpans are already allowed in Ontario after a lower court order. Thursday's ruling now opens the door to the practice, with possible restrictions, across the country.
Canada banned them on airplanes after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. Some courts ban them as well, although Sikhs attending the Supreme Court hearing were allowed to wear them.
Charron said aircraft were unique environments, but schools had the ability to better control different situations.
Multani's school had originally allowed him to carry his kirpan in a wooden sheath sewn inside a cloth envelope inside his clothing. But the school board overturned this, and the boy's father turned to the courts.
The Quebec government argued unsuccessfully for zero tolerance for weapons in school, and some parents also opposed the idea.
Charron said the boy had no history of violence, and rejected the idea that kirpans are inherently dangerous. She also noted that schools had other objects which could also be used for violence, such as scissors and baseball bats.
Orthodox Sikhs have been been required to carry kirpans since the 1600s. Some say the original purpose was for defense but many insist it is not a weapon.
Sikhs also struggled for the right to wear turbans while in uniform with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That episode was decided by the federal government in 1990.
Around 250,000 Sikhs live in Canada, and about 10 percent of them are considered orthodox.
In the United States, a federal appeals court allowed kirpans in California, but the U.S. Supreme Court has not decreed a national policy. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Goddam muzlims...!! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Cthulhu

Joined: 02 Feb 2003
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's our activist Supreme Court again. Too often Canadian laws and values are not shaped by politicians or--gawd forbid--the people, but are constantly being decreed by the top judges of the country. If the notwithstanding clause ever goes they'll be nothing to stop them, but since its not exactly overused the point seems moot. The judges don't care what the people think; they simply interpret the Charter as liberally as they can and give a middle finger to the wishes of the majority. And it won't change anytime soon.
Of course, no one ever considers that possibility that the Great Canadian Sacred Cow, i.e,. multiculturalism, could ever go too far or be interpreted too broadly. No, that would be heresy.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Compunction Junction
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Assuming Sihk violence in schools doesn't skyrocket with stabbing incidents abounding, would it make that big of a differencE?
Quote: |
Kirpans are already allowed in Ontario after a lower court order. |
I haven't heard of any kirpan related stabbings in ontario.
Quote: |
In the United States, a federal appeals court allowed kirpans in California |
ditto in california. And i'd like to think the media would prolly rustle up a few stories.
I mean, we allow redneck hillbillies access to baseball bats at any given time of the day.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Bulsajo

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khyber wrote: |
Assuming Sihk violence in schools doesn't skyrocket with stabbing incidents abounding, would it make that big of a differencE?
|
It's not the individual case here I'm upset about.
It's the precedent of the Supreme Court.
I guess I shouldn't be second-guessing Supreme Court Justices, but putting religion before safety (potentially) doesn't sit right with me.
And yes, I know there are no incidents involving kirpans, but now we have a precedent for "my religion requires me to carry this weapon".
Victory for religious freedom?
Perhaps.
Maybe I'll just leave it at that rather than launch into a rant on the evils of organized religion...
Last edited by Bulsajo on Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:45 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
marlow
Joined: 06 Feb 2005
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shouldn't everyone now be allowed to carry a knife to school? I mean, why should belief in an organized religion permit things that personal secular beliefs do not. If a person's secular belief is that they should carry a knife, why not let them? Why persecute the non-religious? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chiaa
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
khyber wrote: |
Assuming Sihk violence in schools doesn't skyrocket with stabbing incidents abounding, would it make that big of a differencE? |
You going to *beep* with a guy you know has a dagger under his belt when all you have is your Scooby Doo lunchbox? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OiGirl

Joined: 23 Jan 2003 Location: Hoke-y-gun
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
At the time of Columbine, my sister was working at a high school in rural Colorado. She tells me that of course all her students had knives on them that they used to do chores before coming to school. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jinglejangle

Joined: 19 Feb 2005 Location: Far far far away.
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chiaa wrote: |
khyber wrote: |
Assuming Sihk violence in schools doesn't skyrocket with stabbing incidents abounding, would it make that big of a differencE? |
You going to *beep* with a guy you know has a dagger under his belt when all you have is your Scooby Doo lunchbox? |
And in most US schools thses days, that lunch box can't even be made out of metal. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Goddam muzlims...!! |
Sikhs are not Muslims.
I believe the work around has always been the kids can carry their kirpans if the blades are soldered to the scarabs. That is, a kid can't actually remove the knife. That's usually been cool with the Sikh community. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
jinglejangle

Joined: 19 Feb 2005 Location: Far far far away.
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not to deny the validity of arguements against. (I certainly think multi culturalism has gone too far in the US at least.)
From the article, it sounds as though in the one case they mentioned, the dagger was sealed up, so that you could not draw it in a fight. Does anyone know if this is the case, or a stipulation of the new rule? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
khyber
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Compunction Junction
|
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
I guess I shouldn't be second-guessing Supreme Court Justices, but putting religion before safety (potentially) doesn't sit right with me.
|
But to an extent, that was what I was taking issue with.
It doesn't really seem as though these kirpans ARE a safety issue.
I imagine that the justices weighed the safety issue pretty DAMN heavily. After all, why would there be any issue? If safety were not an issue, it would be as permissible as a yalmuka: It certainly wouldn't have needed to have a Supreme court case made.
For now, i'm going to have to gives the sihks the benefit of the doubt as i don't know if i have heard of a story (in north america in the last 100yrs) where they have drawn it for any reason; let alone on the offensive. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Real Reality
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Location: Seoul
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
On the other hand wrote:
Goddam muzlims...!!
Sikhs are not Muslims.
|
What?!! Next yer gonna tell me that "Muzlim" isn't spelled with a "z". |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
What of the "separation" religion & state? Hmmmm ...
Can teens also now smoke "holy weed" ganja on school grounds on the basis of their religious views & practices? Must be.
khyber wrote: |
Assuming Sihk violence in schools doesn't skyrocket with stabbing incidents abounding, would it make that big of a differencE? |
One would hope all that's needed would be ONE instance of a Sihk student using their "ceremonial" dagger as an instrument of violence in order to institute a legislative ban.
Then again this would likely make too much sense. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|