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?

There are several if not mor types or kirpan peoplecarry-from blunt tiny things that are symbolic to fullweaponry.

I think people should accept the first and not the second.

I understand the reasoning for the Kirpan in Sikh history and completely that members of the Khalsa need tocarry one but I dothink prominent Sikhs could help by encoursging teh ineffectuallittle symblic ones when no war is imminent: we are not living in the Punjab of 1699 anymore.

"everytime a religious or cultural group try to suggest that 'the rules' are renegotiaited" there SHOULD be outrage.

Anyone can run to become an elected official and guide this countries laws, but we don't need agreement from any group within this country to enforce our own laws.

"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. "

Carrying a blade is not restricted by a person's trade, otherwise how would people going camping take knives with them.

Rather by law you must have "good reason", which is perfectly sensible.

This issue isn't about wearing them out and about on the streets so that's actually not connected with what this judge has said.

"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."

There have been cases recently, the BA one for example, where religious jewellery has not been allowed to be on show. If it had been concealed there would not have been issues.

In this case the dagger is carried concealed, so the recent cases about jewellery not being allowed are not the same thing.

As to the actual issue itself....

Well I think it's up to the school and the item itself.

If it is sharp then I can see a case to say that it's barred.

If it's blunt and purely decorative then I can't see why the school would object.

well i have googled them and they dont look blunt at all.

I would be worried about other people getting hold of the knife (especially in a school).

Yes, for sure. It's a shame but that's the way it is. Shouldn't really be allowed. I like the idea of having it sealed but you know, if you're being threatened with a knife, you'd still be afraid if it was in a sheath if it was shown to you, and you'd not know it was blunt. I don't get it. Don't any Sikhs commit knife crime? So a Sikh knife criminal can use this as his excuse/reason/whatever. Definitely should be banned.

I think it's a bit silly that this is even a debate. But silly in a nice way.

Still, shouldn't be allowed.

thats what i meant probono,about it being open to abuse
they look fierce too

Badgers, does it really make a difference if it's blunt? That's saying that they shouldn't be banned because they're not to stab someone with. But what about the idea that the law and the rules we expect to be abided by in this country should apply to everyone? Letting one group exempt themselves leaves it open for others to argue they should also be exempt. Why should that be the case when there are so many children as well as adults being stabbed on our streets?

But there are tiny littlet hings, size of keyrings and entirely ornamental about. I've held one.

The kirpan shouldn't be banned; anything suitable for use as a weapon should.

There can be a middle road there. It just takes a bit of imagination and inter faith dialogue.

"I believe it is illegal to carry a replica gun which is itself totally harmless."

No it's not illegal, as with knives it's about use and intent.

Running around waving it is obviously going to land you in a lot of trouble.

However just carrying it if it's concealed isn't a problem, as long as you have good cause.

For example you could be a historical reenactor or an actor off to appear in a play.

It's the same with knives.

So Sikh's do have the right to carry a knife, religion being seen as a justifiable reason too.

The question is whether schools and other places can deny them entry because of it.

They'd have to undress a Sikh to get to the kirpan. My Sikh friends boy has just started wearing one (think he's 12? 13?) and it is tied in all manner of leather strapping on the inside of his belt - it would take him an age to get it out.

Obviously he goes to a school with plenty of other Sikh boys so its not an issue.

Shouldn't we be concerned about actual knife crime carried out by criminals - you know stuff that actually happens?

rather than tiny ceremonial 'daggers' that have not been used in anger in this country. They've been carrying them in this country for 70 years and people are not routinely getting attacked by peace-loving Sikhs?

I think what I'm trying to say is it's all about power.

Power derived from the dagger itself, that a person could make another person do what they want by flashing a blade so to speak.

And also the power of one group to set itself above the law and the rest of society.

How can it actually be totally illegal tocarry a knife?

I mean,when we g ocamping we carry a range of assorted sharp knives,there's no police car sat on the site gates arresting people is there?

So tehre is room for manoevre there.

Lauriefairycake, you don't know that all Sikhs are peaceloving, you can't generalise racially like that.

I have no idea if one's ever been used. But why ban a crucifix when you can't ban a knife?

"Badgers, does it really make a difference if it's blunt? That's saying that they shouldn't be banned because they're not to stab someone with."

Well if something is obviously not dangerous then I can't see a problem with it.

"But what about the idea that the law and the rules we expect to be abided by in this country should apply to everyone?"

I agree with that entirely.

The same law that allows me to carry a knife if I have good cause is exactly the same one that allows Sikhs to usually carry them too.

Should a school be able to block objects that are not illegal?

I think that they should have that power.

However they should also be open to reasonable discourse giving the parents the chance to show that an object is blunt/harmless/somehow useless.

Obviously letting in a "proper" blade should be out of the question.

I agree probono, I'm sure Sikhs are the same as any other group of people and have good and bad people.

That'snot the history of teh Sikhs as I understand it.

It was selfprotection,fear of a very realand genuine threat that caused the formation of the Khalsa.

Not power but self defence, {{http://www.religioustolerance.org/sikhism.htm i've pulled this]] site up for anyone wanting to learn a bit more simply becuase it was considered verifiable enough for Uni to use a lot.

'why ban a crucifix

Acrucifix isn;t banned,I amwearing one right now

Some companies (BA springing tomind) don'tlike thembut its is not illegal to wear one at home,or out and about,indeed theya re allowed at our school.

why ban a crucifix?

The argument is because they are displayed, the Sikh kirpan is not meant to be waved around.

I'm a Christian btw. But I'm tolerant too

The peace-loving comment is because of what Sikhs say about the symbolism of the kirpan and the fact that people don't get attacked by them (unklike knife-crime). I'm not generalising on the whole religious group of Sikhs (I'm sure there are plenty of criminals who happen to be Sikhs)- it was poorly worded by me.

here oyu are - read nad enjoy - the povey refs are a case that went to court of appeal

Any nightclub etc could ban a kirpan, a crucifix, gang colours, hooded tops, etc if these were being exploited by a few to cause trouble. None of those items is illegal, but none of those bans would be discriminatory, I think.

No one is being exempted from any law, no poor christian is being less favourably treated than any sikh. This is a non-issue raised so that a few people can take their dogma out for a walk.

So YG what happens when peoplegoaway and need to takecutlery, orwhatever then?

When the cubs go out with their leasders and the elader takes a knife forcutting tinder?

I was always taught that tehre should be common sense applied in law.

Er excuse me I'm very tolerant of most things but not of knives being carried around willy nilly.

I think sikhs should be tolerant of the law and attendant public insitituion regulations.

Doesn't make much difference to me: were I to be attacked by a Sikh he'd be carrying a knife whether he showed it to me or not. Unless someone is planning to poke me to death with an silver crucifix I really can't see why a knife would be considered less dangerous.

I can't see the problem, if it's not on display and it's a ceremonial, non dangerous item.

It's not like we're talking a crocodile dundee style dagger stuck in the top of their snake belts

From what I heard on the Wright Stuff there is no incidence of any sikh using the kirpan in any kind of criminal way, so really, what is the issue?

It's not against the law of our land, it's not illegal.