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?

This debate is all wrong. The question is, should Sikhs be allowed to carry a dagger.

Contained in that is the assumption that it's dangerous: otherwise, why debate it.

So now it seems (I didn't know) that a keyring sized blunt piece of metal which can't ever be used as a weapon will fulfil the religious requirement.

So I don't see how there's a debate any more.

I mean, why don't we give a blanket amnesty to keyring sized blunt pieces of metal and leave the rest to the judgement of schools and colleges, with full rights to ban if they want to?

It's quite hard to justify carrying around a dangerous weapon for religious purposes if a keyring sized thing will do instead.

"This debate is all wrong. The question is, should Sikhs be allowed to carry a dagger."

Well presuming that you mean in general rather than just in schools that would mean changing the law, and the law would then have to say something like "you must have reasonable cause to be carrying a blade, being a Sikh is not reasonable cause", which is really is just a little bit discriminatory.

"I mean, why don't we give a blanket amnesty to keyring sized blunt pieces of metal and leave the rest to the judgement of schools and colleges, with full rights to ban if they want to?"

That's pretty much the law as it stands. Blunt objects are legal and schools can ban legal objects from their premises.

"It's quite hard to justify carrying around a dangerous weapon for religious purposes if a keyring sized thing will do instead."

It might be quite hard for you but to a Sikh perhaps it's not so hard to justify.

It might be quite hard for you to justify carrying an imitation or replica firearm. However to an amateur dramatics actor off to rehearsals for some play it's really rather reasonable.

The law at the moment seems reasonable enough, you can carry certain things but better have good cause to be doing so.

Once again this Judge is not asking for any change in the law, only that places such as schools and colleges consider Sikhs when it comes to banning otherwise legitimate and legal objects. That's not even a rule change, he's just asking for awareness.

That said I'm still not sure that I agree with him.

Probono it's not against the law to carry a knife, so long as you have a valid reason for doing so.

So I think it's a bit questionable to amend the current law in order to specifcially deny sikhs the right to carry a kirban, without any logical reason for doing so.

It smacks very much of 'we've just noticed you've got brown skin, so we no longer trust you' That's how it sounds to me.

But if a small blunt thing fulfils the religious requirement what's the problem Badgers? Then the question of discrimination doesn't arise.

There are no firm lines in this debate: for example, there are two kinds of discrimination being alleged: discrimination against Sikhs, and discrimination against other people who aren't allowed to carry a dagger. To use "discrimination" as a catch all will fail, as there's something to be said for either side.

But if you can do your religious duty without carrying a weapon that could harm someone, why carry something that would harm someone when it's usually against the rules and is offensive to a lot of people? There's no need.

I'm sure a Sikh would be confident in justifying it, but then I'd have a good religious basis for standing on a soapbox and decrying homosexuality (don't get sidetracked have no desire to do so). It doesn't mean it's publicly acceptable or to be condoned. We're talking about degrees of acceptability. Carrying a weapon in public that could harm someone crosses the line, just like a lot of other religious doings cross the line. But if you don't have to cross the line well, surely everything's ok? Just carry the little blunt thing.

"Once again this Judge is not asking for any change in the law, only that places such as schools and colleges consider Sikhs when it comes to banning otherwise legitimate and legal objects. That's not even a rule change, he's just asking for awareness."

He's not though: he's saying it's wrong to stop Sikhs carrying the kirpan. That's not just asking for awareness. It's saying don't do it.

Eh? What's the brown skin got to do with it? Do you think this is a colour issue?

"I'm sure a Sikh would be confident in justifying it, but then I'd have a good religious basis for standing on a soapbox and decrying homosexuality (don't get sidetracked have no desire to do so). It doesn't mean it's publicly acceptable or to be condoned. We're talking about degrees of acceptability. Carrying a weapon in public that could harm someone crosses the line, just like a lot of other religious doings cross the line. But if you don't have to cross the line well, surely everything's ok? Just carry the little blunt thing."

But the law doesn't say what is legal, it says what is illegal.

So the law as it stands is that you can carry a knife if you have a good reason to.

So historical reenactors, actors, collectors, hobbyists, campers, boy scout leaders can all carry a "weapon in public that could harm someone".

On what basis are you now going to say that Sikh's shouldn't?

Should the law be amended to state that religion is not a good reason to be carrying a knife? That really does sound like discrimination.

Or is it really best to leave it to the discretion of the police to decide if someone has good cause or not?

"why carry something that would harm someone when it's usually against the rules and is offensive to a lot of people? There's no need."

The law allows the historical reenactor to "carry something that would harm someone" when an "lot of people" would say there's "no need".

The law can't just go banning things just because "a lot of people" would say that there's "no need", that's not how this society works. Personally I see no need for the X-Facts, can I ban that too? Is there some number of people who say that there's "no need" for something when we can get it banned?

If historical reenactors, actors, collectors, hobbyists, campers, boy scout leaders and Sikhs carrying knifes is a problem then the law can look at it. As it it's not, so the default position remains, which is for it to be legal.

"He's not though: he's saying it's wrong to stop Sikhs carrying the kirpan. That's not just asking for awareness. It's saying don't do it."

Well he's saying that they should be allowed to carry them but at no point does he actually ask for any law, regulation or guideline to actually be changed.

The only actual course of action is from another Sikh: "We're actually working with the government to introduce a code of practice which would then be used to educate people in the security industry so they are aware of the different articles of faith,"

And that just seems to be to educate people that the dagger is not a weapon and isn't saying that the law should be changed or some special exception introduced.

But you haven't addressed the real point which is they don't need to carry a useable weapon to fulfil their religious duty.

So it's not religious discrimination at all, no one's saying they can't fulfil their religious duty.

There is no "good reason" because they don't fail in their religious duty if they don't carry it.

I've said my bit, and I don't think you've addressed it. I can't keep repeating myself!

Why are you comparing Sikhs to religious reenactors? That's stretching it a bit.

There appears to be some debate as to if a usable weapon is a true substitute, the Judge himself said on this subject: "It's a little more than ceremonial. It's a requirement of the religion."

It doesn't appear to be a black and white absolute issue.

However if we are going to allow a reenactor to carry a full size blunted sword to a club meeting just because they want to I can't see why on earth we should stop a Sikh carrying a blunted full size dagger as a part of their understanding of their faith.

I can however fully understand schools saying in both cases "not in here you don't".

The comparison isn't "stretching it" but just showing that to the police "good reason" is actually a pretty wide ranging explanation yet still gives them the power to confiscate whenever they set fit.

"the law would then have to say something like "you must have reasonable cause to be carrying a blade, being a Sikh is not reasonable cause"

No it wouldn't. There is no need to mention Sikhs in the law. You wouldn't for example have to add that "wanting to look cool" was not a reasonable cause" would you? or that being unusually tall for your age was not a reason.

As probono says it's not essential to their religion to carry an actual knife.

So are we debating whether Sikhs should be allowed to carry a usable weapon (even if blunt, a reasonable sized one could be used to threaten and coerce)? One of the main arguments in favour was that they weren't usable. So we forget that and just talk about carrying usable weapons? You can't debate something which hangs on the dangerous nature of a weapon and its religious function if the Sikhs themselves don't know how dangerous they need the weapon to be.

Who's asking for a change in the law? Not me. He's asking for a change in the interpretation of the law: ie "good reason" always includes "religious belief". That's an icy path to pick over.

Should he even be saying it? What happens if a Sikh kirpan case comes up before him?

Anyway Badgers you disagree with him. He wants them permitted in schools.

"So are we debating whether Sikhs should be allowed to carry a usable weapon"

No.

Well that's not what the Judge was going on about.

Under the current law Sikh's are allowed to carry certain "weapons" as the Police accept that they have a good reason for doing so. So to the Police "good reason" already includes "religious belief", or at least for the recognised faith of Sikhism.

That's how it is right now.

However places such as school's have the right to say "I don't care if that's legal, it's not coming in."

Which is what happens, and is what the Judge is complaining about.

So he's not asking for the law to be changed.

He's not asking to be allowed to carry something he can't already legally carry.

He's not asking for schools to not be allowed to block legal objects from their premises.

He is asking that they choose to allow them.

Some people expanded that out to say that Sikhs should never carry them at all, which is what I was responding to.

"Should he even be saying it? What happens if a Sikh kirpan case comes up before him?"

He's retired.

As said I don't agree with this Judge, but I think it's important to be clear about what he's asking for so that we can disagree with him for the right reasons

can totally understand the schools stance on not allowing them. I said that way back in this thread.

Well B I can't work out if we are furiously agreeing on some of this

However, usable weapons in public, no, because apparently they can be little symbolic things, so no "good reason". Of course it happens but I just think, no, not necessary.

Also some debate about what is "usable" eg I think a blunt 6" blade hidden in your trews is eminently usable as a threat.

So we are sort of here and there over it I think. It does all feel a bit pointless if we aren't clear on "usable weapon" and "religious requirement" which it seems are both up for debate within the Sikh community anyway.

Hmmm

Frommy experience of religion you won't get any univeral agreement on what'saceptable: somewill be happy with the one inch wonder, others willbeleive they have to cary a full dagger. That'swhy I waspromoting dialogue/

But the law has toeither state 'carying knives is not ok for any reason' ornot; Sikhs can't become aspecific exclusion based on the faith- either way.ASwith the catholic homosexuiality and equality thread,I am against religions being excluded from blanket laws.

But if the alw stands,as it seems,that police can ascertain intention as part iofit,then there is no reason why an object (kirpan,not knife) never yet reported to have been used in a crimeshould be excepted from that. yes OK some crime is not reported but to be blunt, if you want it recognised report it, we can't constantly walka round saying 'Ah yes but just becuase there'sbeen no case of someone being (random example) stabbed with a crucifix it still may have happened', you can only wotk with the facts at hand.

And yes of course schools etc should have a right to ban things, they do all the time-mobiles and teddy ebars- all sorts.

These religious symbol has never been recorded as being used as a weapon has it?

Which is more than can be said for pencils, pens, mobile phones (I was working in A&E when they first got popular - loads of assualts with them), those pointy, stabby things that come in geometry sets, shoes, ping pong bats etc etc etc.

Surely Sikh boys are actually expected to be more responsible because they area carrying these symbols, not less.

And they seemed to have lived up to that so far.

Are you saying Sikhs have never, do not and will not commit knife crime, therefore they should be allowed to carry a knife.

I want to carry a knife too. Wrt knife crime, I haven't, don't and won't, and I'm offended that I'm not allowed to carry one. It's a requirement of my peace of mind, and discrimination against me as a woman that I'm not allowed.

"I want to carry a knife too. Wrt knife crime, I haven't, don't and won't, and I'm offended that I'm not allowed to carry one. It's a requirement of my peace of mind, and discrimination against me as a woman that I'm not allowed."

But as I've said you are allowed if you have "good reason".

However "peace of mind" is very unlikely to be seen as a "good reason", which I think is fair enough.

Perhaps it's time for people to clarify if they mean "carry a knife in a public place" or "carry a knife onto premises such as a school".

It was a stupid response: it was in response to the "Sikhs don't commit knife crime" implication.

Badgers, so much needs defining. I think he is SO wrong to ask for a blanket amnesty. It's the sort of thing where an unspoken blind eye is almost better. Because nothing is clear: there's dispute between Sikhs over what's required religiously, dispute over who feels the need to carry a usable weapons, dispute over whether religious faith is legal "good reason", dispute over where we can allow them to be carried. Negotiations behind the scenes are much better.

If a public statement is needed, it should be, no usable weapons. It's just divisive otherwise.

I wouldn't bother carrying a knife foprepace of mind tbh, i think its been proven that people who carry are morelikely to get invovled in violence.

And its no Siikhs... it is 10% of Sikhs, those that have chosent o join a Khalsa, something often called Baptism but isn't the same, it is much mroe an individual dedicating themselves than trad Christian baptism as it is generally carried out now in most Churches.

And it would only be discrimination against you as a woman if the rules were that women only could not carry a knife: likewise changing the rules to ban the kirpan without changing the general law that allows people to carry a knife in certain circs would be discrimination.

It's either / or: either knife carrying is banned in all circs (how the hell am I going to cut up my sausages when I go camping then?) or allow all people the same level of assessment of intention, that's all.

the kirpan does not need to be in any way a real usable weapon to fulfill the requirement of the reliion. some sikhs wear a knife-shaped brooch instead.

so possibly, they need to make it clear that though a kirpan can be carried, they need to stipulate that it can be carried in an utterly harmless form rather than just saying a blanket no.

and flick-knives, penknives and other things are already banned from schools AFAIAA.