Could not being able to carry a dagger ever be seen as discrimination?

[Rantagonist]

The first Sikh judge Sir Mota Singh, believes it is discrimination that some Sikhs have been denied entry into certain venues, and a schoolboy from going to school, with their Kirpans, which is a ceremonial dagger.

He said he's carried his for 35/40 years, into places which include Buckingham Palace, and that it is a requirement of the Sikh religion.

But shouldn't this be a case of one rule for all? Why should schools and the police for example, who are trying to do everything they can to keep knives and violence out of schools, make an exception for a dagger, even if it could be argued to be a requirement of a religion.

This to me is counterproductive to the laws we try to enforce in this country. I don't expect anyone to be carrying a blade of any kind unless they have a legitimate reason because of the trade they're in. And why should one group of people believe an exception to that law should be made for them on such an important issue?

Is this discrimination? Or one group being apart from the rest of society by wanting the laws that apply to everyone else to be set aside for them?

The dagger is usually blunt. It is part of their religion and needs to be carried.

yes, imo it would be religious discrimination and as such has no place in liberal Britain.

I agree with Rant.

Religion should not be used as a reason to be let off the laws of the land.

google them....they dont look blunt to me!!!

My friend carries on, it's about 3 inches long and not sharp enough to skin a tomato.

My nail file is sharper.

I think they should be allowed only blunt, ornamental, wouldn't-cut-melted-butter token knives. I think religious observation needs to comply with the law of the land, whether that be visible faces at passport control, no real blades on daggers, or no discriminatory employment practice in faith organisations.

i havent seen one ever

BUUT i am sorry - you come to ENgland and you obey the laws.

Are all blades illegal here? I carry a swiss army knife that has a small blade on it, very useful piece of kit to have on your key ring I find.

I know they are illegal in Australia but I still have it on then as well (though obviously not on the plane between the two).

They were discussing on the Wright Stuff this morning and I was quite surprised that the consensus was that they viewed it acceptable for kirpans to be brought into school.

I disagree. I cannot see how it is considered acceptable for something which could be used as an offensive weapon to be allowed into school. The pupil carrying the kirpan may not have any intention of using it as a weapon but it just takes one moron to wrestle him to the ground and remove it from him and you then have a health and safety problem.

We should respect an indivuduals right to practice their religion and allow them to observe customs and rituals associated with their religious beliefs but not when this jeopardises their own safety or that of others.

What is the situation at airports? I can't imagine that people are allowed to board a plane carrying a kirpan.

oh yes
youd be done fro that morloth

"Unfortunately for Sikhs, people who are not in the Sikh community view the kirpan as a potentially dangerous weapon. Sikhs are asked to remove their kirpans before boarding aircraft, for example, and they are sometimes banned in schools and other public locations, despite protest from the Sikh community. In a desire to accommodate the religious imperative to wear the kirpan, some communities have specifically permitted the use of blunted kirpans, allowing Sikhs to retain this religious symbol while also satisfying local laws in regards to weapons".

Still sitting on the fence, but did wonder how far it extends to other ceremonial knives - the Scottish Sgian Dubh springs to mind.

"you come to England you obey the laws"

British Sikhs wear them too. I'm sure you didn't mean that as racist as it sounded.

They are a fundamental part of the religion.

They wear them inside their garments, they are tied tightly. They are blunt and not accessible as a weapon.

I have never heard of anyone being attacked by a Sikh with a kirpan in Britain.

But I've heard of plenty of British knife crime.

After some jewlery not being allowed, even because of its religious significance, I'm surprised such an influencial person would try to argue the daggers should be OK to be carried by a select few.

Not just because it is a weapon, ceremonial or otherwise, but because it sets up the group as apart from the law, and therefore seen by others as apart from society. Why would he do that?

Can't see anything wrong with it at all, live and let live IMO, we should be more tolerant of other religeons not less and that extends to the law - and laws are not of the LAND FFS - this is the 20 something bloody century!

Wouldn't bother me as long as they are blunt and not heavy enough to clunk someone over the head with

open to abuse though,dont you think?

Well laws are of the land in that they have geographical domain - no?

Big lols at the Jedi consideration

I recon it goes beyond tolerance of other peoples religions MadameC. I'm a christian, and I can't believe the shit kicked up by people wearing their crucifixes at work or school. But this is a weapon. I don't care whether it's supposed to be blunt or not, you try arguing there should be exceptions made to the law to a mum whos DC has been stabbed to death... It kind of gives the impression that carrying a knife is not always wrong.

Bloody hell. Other than on an aircraft where even breastmilk isn't above suspicion, it would be crazy to confiscate kirpans or get judgey about them as an offensive weapon. This seems like the kind of issue that is just trotted out as an excuse to air racism.

Sikh pupils could probably do more harm with their protractors. Christians could use a crucifix with deadly intent.

In most places, knife carrying in itself is not illegal -- only carrying one with the intention of using it as a weapon (or some such distinction). So Sikhs are not being 'let off' any law.

I am pretty sure that in law it is fine to wear ceremonial daggers like the kirpan, it's not knife crime. Scotsmen wear sgian dubhs in kilt socks, they look quite similar to me.

I think it would be discrimination if the same venues allowed the Scottish version but not the Sikh version.

However, my understanding is that this isn't what's happening, just that various venues have rules which are a bit stricter than the law and would exclude both kirpans and sgian dubhs. So I think it probably is not discrimination on that basis.

"To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind".

All from wikipedia btw.

"Sikhs often protest the characterisation of the kirpan as a weapon. Traditionally, a Sikh should never use the kirpan in anger or for a malicious attack. However, a Sikh may use it in self-defence or to protect a person in need. Some Sikhs choose to learn the art of Gatka. This is a martial art devised by the Sikh Gurus that uses circular movements to effectively swing a kirpan.

The requirement that baptised Sikhs wear the kirpan has caused problems for believers in many areas, especially where the custom clashes with local laws against carrying weapons. In cases where weapons regulations conflict with wearing the kirpan, such as boarding an airplane or entering a prison, Sikhs reluctantly comply with authorities. Some regulations allow the kirpan under certain restrictions; for example, rules in some Californian schools require that the kirpan be blunted and riveted into a sheath. This prevents any possible use of the kirpan as a weapon, but still allows it as a physical symbol of faith".

On the Today programme the interviewer made some good points about potential compromise. The kirpan could be short bladed or sealed in to the sheath making it unusable but still religiously apporpriate.

I'm sure there are ways that this could be accomodated with a bit of common sense on both sides. This sounds a bit like the usual frenzy that gets whipped up everytime a religious or cultural group try to suggest that 'the rules' are renegotiaited.

I've not seen one, but if it is banned now it will be because it qualifies as a weapon whereas say a nail file does not.

As for it being blunt would you be able to tell right away if you were threatened with it? I believe it is illegal to carry a replica gun which is itself totally harmless.

There was a time when most people carried a knife (for cutting things not just for fighting) but we all gave up that right because it was necessary to prevent the few from misusing it. That is now the law and someone's religion is irrelevant to that.

That Californian school rule seems like a fair enough compromise.

Thinking some more about the Scottish / Sikh comparison, it's not quite the same as there is no religious requirement to wear the sgian dubh so if there is a religious requirement to wear the kirpan at all times then it probably is religious discrimination not to allow a Sikh to wear it.