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?

Not to be inflamatory, but Sikhs are as capable of extremism and violence as any other group of people. I have a huge amount of repect for them, but to argue they should have special rules because it is a universally peaceful religion, can't be allowed to pass by unchallenged.

I think we'veall said that there can be a bad egg in any box- but thie peaceable history in the UK does deserve to be acknowledged in this debate.

Onager- there are huge variants about, gert massivecermemonialones but equally there are tiny things but as theya rento worthy of AIBU space oreitherdebate or religious pictures you won't find much mention of them. I would like to see their wider ownership encouraged is all.

They aren't having 'special rules'.

And yes it says on the Sikh website that it's easy to tell a Sikh and know if it's ok for them to carry a knife as Sikh's wear turbans.

I'm planning to do a bank robbery wearing a burkha to foil the CCTV and a turban so they will only search afterwards for people called Singh. That will work.

I don't think that because they are all nice - I didn't say that. I'm sure there are as many arsehole Sikhs as there are anything else.

What I did say is that because no one has been attacked in 70 years in Britain and because it is a concealed cermonial artifact that we don't have much to worry about.

I'd rather be worried about actual knife crime if I fancied something to worry about.

I don't see the problem

Why would anyone bother worrying about something that has been common practise in a religion that has never harmed anyone?

It can be a big sword or it could be a tiny little 1inch long blunt piece of metal and the whole range in between.

My friends have the little 1 inch one which doesn't do anything. Some men (in the temples - the priests??) have the whole big sword.

So you can't just blindy allow it anyway.

i would be very uneasy should any child at my dc's school have these things hidden in their clothing!

Special rules in that they would be able to argue they are being discriminated against if they are being denied access to places where blades/weapons are banned such as schools or airports. I could see it causing trouble with organisations being held to ransom with the threat of being taken to court if they refuse entry.

Rantagonist those casesof Sikh Extremism (and I amnot justififying them in anyw ay I willsay, I amanti xtremismfullstop) are cases of what certain Sikhs see as the ongoing battlethat the Khalsa was set up to defend against, abattle which has seen some realatrocities within the Sikh community over a relatively short history comapred to other world faiths.

They are not things that would beliekly to manifest in a schoolin the UK.

not that I am argiung for the right to carry a dagger usable kirpan in a schoolanyway, that woudl seemwrong to me. But is is worth ntoing the histopry of Sikhism becuase it is what it alloriginates fromand becuase wearelooking at 1699 as opposed to the 12th century BCE, 570 for Islam, or whenever it was the Indus Valley Civilisation was founded (although there's enough debate there whether its Hinduism or Jainism or another one again represented in there).

laurie....how do you know there has been no reported crimes with sikhs and kirpans???

do you have any idea how much crime goes unreported??

Sweetgrapes,thank you- Iwasbeginning tot hink I was imagining thelittleones.

I would blindly allow the little ones,and the others forcertain ceremonial purposes only. given that people have swordsfor fencing and all sorts in certain settings I can'tsee how that would be a problem.

A blanket ban on the Kirpan would be wrong though IMO. A blanket ban on dangerous weaponry not so much (although there has to be leway or you would get Scouters arrested and campers etc)

ILoveTIFFANY would you have any objection to the little ceremonial blunt symbols of the kirpan being carried?

"ILoveTIFFANY would you have any objection to the little ceremonial blunt symbols of the kirpan being carried? "

Because they look sharp on Google.

wubbly....i have googled them,using the word blunt.they still look horrific to be honest

SD some do

But as a few of us have said now, you an get 1 inch blunt ones also

What I would suggest is we work towards those being encouraged,and i htink thats what wubbloy isasking.

I have held one of those in the palm of my hand,it categorically was not sharp

Yes I know how much crime goes unreported. I used to work as a police civilian.

But there still hasn't been one reported kirpan linked crime in Britain. You can check this on Sikh websites/the bbc etc.

or perhaps your friend Google?

Oh, I know. I was under the impression that the ones carried every day were small symbolic ones, not the whacking great ones which are, I assume, for more ceremonial purposes.

but do they have to be blunt?? if not,then its open to abuse...

no problem at all if they are nothing like a 'knife'...

And just because they 'look horrific' to you doesn't make them actually horrific.

Do you read the Daily Mail, ILoveTiffany?

ILoveTIFFANY, they might look horrific, but so do those big bloody rubbery spiders, snakes and cockroaches, but I know they'll do me no harm!

If you were reassured that they were small, ceremonial, blunt and harmless, would you have a problem with them?

nope soupdragon

'Do you read the Daily Mail, ILoveTiffany?' Now, there's no reason to get abusive SD

" so do those big bloody rubbery spiders, snakes and cockroaches, but I know they'll do me no harm!"

Well some spiders and snakes can kill you so that just goes to show we need to define exactly what it is we are banning/allowing.

Laurie, not sure if you deliberately focussed on the wrong issue there: I didn't mean in lessontime -- of course? Do you think if a child set u a little pulpit or soapbox in the corner of the playground and evangelised with the words of Revelations that he would be allowed to do so?

Maybe he would, I don't know, but I doubt it.

Reading the rest now.