Page 3 | We cannot board a flight with 100ml+ liquid and a rub down - despite being innocent. Sikhs should not be allowed to carry knives for the same reason.

Ndd1356387 · 2026-06-02T17:48:37+00:00

We are all generally good - right?. And yet we all have to go through security checks at the airport. Despite the fact we are all generally good. But we cannot carry 150ml liquid on a flight. I get that and appreciate it and respect it. Sikhs now must respect that they all cannot carry knives. Surely ? Edited

Arlanymor · 06/06/2026 18:07

prh47bridge · 03/06/2026 08:44

Just to be clear, there is no specific exemption for kirpans. The exemption is for knives worn for religious reasons or as part of a national costume, hence why Scotsmen wearing traditional Highland dress can have a dagger (a sgian-dubh) in their stocking. Note that most Sikhs wear a small knife hidden from view. Some are members of an order called the Nihang who traditionally wear a second knife that is fully visible. Digwa, Nowak's killer, observed that tradition, but his father and brother did not.

The amount of knife crime committed by Sikhs is vanishingly small. Knife crime by any ethnic group using knives worn for religious purposes or as part of a national costume is pretty much non-existent, which is, perhaps, part of the reason we have heard so much about this case. The vast majority of murders in the UK get little or no coverage in the national press.

We will never know if banning knives would have made any difference in this case. Given Digwa's obsession with weapons, he may have carried a knife anyway, even if it was illegal. Almost all knife crime is committed using hidden knives being carried illegally. Maybe we should stop knives being worn for religious reasons or as part of national costumes, but I would be wary of a knee jerk reaction to this particular case.

Also, I'm not sure why OP is comparing what she is allowed to take onto a flight with what people are allowed to carry in public generally. There is no restriction on the amount of liquid you can carry in public. Indeed, at Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham, Bristol and Edinburgh airports you can board a flight with a container carrying up to 2 litres of liquid. You are not allowed to take any knife onto a flight at any airport for any reason.

Yes you can take knives on planes, I mean I put a link on the first page of the thread - here it is again: https://www.worldsikh.org/flyingwithyourkirpan unless your’re not considering a kirpan to be a knife?

Arlanymor · 06/06/2026 18:13

Ndd1356387 · 03/06/2026 11:21

My point is.

We all have to go through certain things despite being completely innocent. So I don’t mind being searched at an airport and not carrying 100ml+ of liquid because I know that it is there for the safety of all.

I think the Sikh community in this country now needs to reflect on the same. Carrying knives around is not acceptable. And I would also argue that the Scottish tradition should also be looked at.

Knife crime in this country is rife.

Show quote history

The Sikh community needs to reflect on it?

Why?

I’m Welsh. There was a murder in Caldicot two days ago. Allegedly by a Welsh man. Do I need reflect on it? Because we’re both Welsh?

I’ve read some nonsense and cultural insensitivity on here in the past, but goodness me…

OwlBeThere · 06/06/2026 20:00

Emilesgran · 05/06/2026 17:13

This is disingenuous. Sikkhism is exactly why he was allowed to be armed.

Show quote history

he wasn’t allowed to be armed with the weapon he used, because the weapon he used is not a kirpan.

OwlBeThere · 06/06/2026 20:08

Emilesgran · 05/06/2026 17:20

So the judge was wrong to say that it was a ceremonial blade then?

I know it wasn't a kirpan, but I don't think that makes it much better. It could easily be argued that even if he wasn't allowed those other weapons (which is unclear because the sect that he belonged to did carry those weapons) he believed that he was allowed to, on the grounds of it being his religion;

It's not about other Sikhs being responsible for him - it's about Sikhs wanting ALL Sikhs to have these exemptions automatically, with no consideration if whether any of them pose a risk to the public.

Show quote history

A ceremonial blade that wasn’t a kirpan, so no he wasn’t incorrect, but it wasn’t allowed as you keep saying. Using something that is a symbol from your religion as a weapon is not the fault of the people of that religion. If a catholic strangled me with some rosary beads, would we expect all catholics to reflect on their practise of carrying rosary beads? if a jew walloped me on the head with a menorah are we suggesting the jewish community should take the blame?

Emilesgran · 06/06/2026 21:37

OwlBeThere · 06/06/2026 20:08

A ceremonial blade that wasn’t a kirpan, so no he wasn’t incorrect, but it wasn’t allowed as you keep saying. Using something that is a symbol from your religion as a weapon is not the fault of the people of that religion. If a catholic strangled me with some rosary beads, would we expect all catholics to reflect on their practise of carrying rosary beads? if a jew walloped me on the head with a menorah are we suggesting the jewish community should take the blame?

Show quote history

Completely different: The judge said that the reason he was allowed to carry a blade was because he was a Sikh: the blade, kirpan or not, was legal until he unsheathed it. So it couldn't legally be taken off him up to that point.

Digwa: Judge's final sentencing remarks

The second thing is that even if someone had reason to believe that that blade did not come under the "religious" criterion, who would have challenged him?

As the judge says, he's allowed to carry a knife - and how would the average non Sikh passer by know if it was too long (although it wasn't) or not curved (although that isn't actually in the legal criteria, whatever about the religious traditions)? They wouldn't know, and so he felt entitled to carry it.

So he was a violent, dangerous man, allowed to carry deadly weapons in public only because he was a Sikh.

It's disingenuous to compare that situation to strangling someone with rosary beads or hitting them over the head with a menorah.

And I'm sure you know that really.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Digwa-Final-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf

Emilesgran · 06/06/2026 22:52

OwlBeThere · 06/06/2026 20:08

A ceremonial blade that wasn’t a kirpan, so no he wasn’t incorrect, but it wasn’t allowed as you keep saying. Using something that is a symbol from your religion as a weapon is not the fault of the people of that religion. If a catholic strangled me with some rosary beads, would we expect all catholics to reflect on their practise of carrying rosary beads? if a jew walloped me on the head with a menorah are we suggesting the jewish community should take the blame?

Show quote history

The law doesn't say they can carry a kirpan - the law says they can carry a blade below a certain length (9 inches). It was below that length, so he was allowed to carry it. He wasn't allowed to unsheath it - but it was too late then. Moreover, according to the judge, because he had a kirpan as well, he wasn't "obliged" to carry the other blade - but that did not make that other blade, which was also "religious", automatically illegal.

That's all in the judgment I linked to.

Pretending that anyone else would have been allowed to carry a blade if they weren't Sikh is just fooling yourself.