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?

"I think he is SO wrong to ask for a blanket amnesty"

I don't think that that is what he is asking for, he does seem to be wanting better understanding of what the kirpan is in the hope that schools will then allow them.

However I do think that that hope is wrong and that schools continue to do what they have done and block blades at their own discretion rather than by black and white ruling.

"dispute over whether religious faith is legal "good reason""

Well it is in the law as being a legal good reason and there doesn't seem to be any real debate that it shouldn't.

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

No "usable weapons" anywhere in public?

But what about campers?

And what is "usable"?

The "good reason" defence seems to be a pretty good idea to me as it allows the police to practice the sort of good common sense that we hope that they would do.

The law does seem to be working on that front. We don't hear about campers being sent to prison or knife wielding youths claiming a religious defence.

So, as said, it all seems to be working so why change it?

But probono it was one man,with his own view.

he is as entitled to it as anyone.

You can'tgeneralise that to every Sikh even, certainly no more.

Every day I hear opinions and think- no youa re wrong. Or I don't agree at all.

So be it: at elast this man was thought provoking and might have got a fewpeopletounderstand alittle about Sikhism, which has some rather good facets IMO (eg the tradition of sharing langer, official opposition to the caste system (although am told its not always adhered to entirely in that some Gurdwaras seem to cater for some people,others for others IYSWIM).

Ok, really people missing the point here. But it was very interesting thanks for the debate

Excuse: that sounded dismissive. I was getting a Groundhog day feeling. I meant: beg to differ and thanks for the debate.

Thanks for posting Probono, it was good to hear your views

If your question was directed at me probono

No that is not what I was saying.

Not even nearly.

I was speaking specifically about the symbolic knife this thread is about.

Why on earth would I state that Sikhs do not every carry out knife crime?

That would be silly.

If carrying a very small, blunt symbolic knife makes you feel safe, go for it.

people who are into sword fighting, historical re-enactments and all that, are not allowed to carry swords in public without let or hindrance. Dh used to be into this kind of thing and they had to let the police know in advance if they were carrying swords, and go through the arrangements carefully so the cops were OK with it. Swords had to be blunt, too. (And even a blunt sword can do quite a lot of damage, as it happens.) They only use the swords in places where they have the permission of the landowner and with prior agreement with the police.

(Even with all this in place, there were quite a few occasions where some alarmed passer-by called the cops... And once some bloke at a camp had a row with his girlfriend in the middle of the night, sounded like he was dragging her off somewhere - cue hordes of men leaping out of their tents to rescue her, many of them having grabbed their swords. Although stupidly not their shoes. Running through a field of stubble without any shoes turned out not to be such a good idea. Fortunately all ended calmly with the only injury being her earlobe where nasty boyfriend had tugged her.)

"i think its been proven that people who carry are more likely to get invovled in violence.!"

Ah in that case we should stop Sikhs carrying them for their OWN safety. It's the least we can do.

Um, ws that me?PMSL, it was in response to soemthing else entirely- not thinkingt hat Sikhs carry themfor quite the same reason.....

"people who are into sword fighting, historical re-enactments and all that, are not allowed to carry swords in public without let or hindrance"

When I saw "carry" perhaps I should clarify that I mean "carry discretely" in the same way that most Sikh's carry their daggers.

If you go running about waving either a Sikh's dagger or a reproduction sword without the clearance you describe then you're going to get in trouble.

"Swords had to be blunt, too"

Isn't that more of a requirement of the various groups/clubs than an actual legal issue?

Badgers, I suspect anyone carrying a broadsword would a. find it pretty hard to be discreet (those things are pretty big!) and b. even if they managed it, or were using a dagger or something, get into LOTS of trouble if the cops realised they were carrying a hidden weapon. Hiding a weapon doesn't put it beyond use. Could be even more suspicious...

As for the blunt thing, I think the groups say you have to because the police (and quite possibly the law, am not an expert) say you have to.

Anyway, you'd have to be pretty expert to fight with a sharpened sword without hurting anyone. Even with blunt, they telegraph their blows so the other person knows what's coming and can block. Didn't stop dh picking up a few injuries along the way - those things can give you a nasty knock, as my Granny would say.

Wonder what fencers do?

I read this thread thinking "don't people do really mad things in the name of religion?"

I mean, if I got up tomorrow and said "I feel a deep seated need to carry a small, useless knife around, strapped to me at all times in order to show I could vanquish people" I think I'd be sent off to a phsychiatrist.

I'm not specifically having a go at Sikhs, I think most religions have some weird and unjustifiable traditions and customs.

Mind you, some women seem to have a deep seated need to carry small dogs in their handbags, which I find baffling as well.

However, a club or institution is entitled to have rules and stick to them and enforce them.

"I suspect anyone carrying a broadsword would a. find it pretty hard to be discreet (those things are pretty big!) and b. even if they managed it, or were using a dagger or something, get into LOTS of trouble if the cops realised they were carrying a hidden weapon. Hiding a weapon doesn't put it beyond use. Could be even more suspicious..."

You just pop it in a bag or box.

I'm not sure that just carrying it openly is illegal but you probably will be stopped by the Police.

"As for the blunt thing, I think the groups say you have to because the police (and quite possibly the law, am not an expert) say you have to. "

You can legally buy sharp swords and knives, the recent story about the man who chopped off a burglars ear with a reproduction samurai sword shows this, so the blunting must be a group thing.

Miggsie there'salmost always a goodr eason at some point in time.The 5 k's were developed forwhat in the world of religions is really quite understandable reasons I think. One of the beauties of sikhism forstudents is that the traditions were alwys quite easy torelate to the practice and history, and for afaith that developed a masrshall aspect after parsecution the dagger certainly falls under that. The rather wonderfully named sikhiwiki explains'While Guru Arjan was in captivity and under severest torture, he concentrated and relied on God for guidance to save the nascent Sikhi from annihilation. The only solution revealed to him was to guard it with the use of arms. He pondered over it again and again and concluded that the militarisation of Sikhism had become a necessity. Hence he sent to his young son and successor, eleven year old Har Gobind, and nominated him as the Guru of Sikhs giving his last injunction through a Sikh disciple; "Let him sit fully armed on his throne and maintain an army to the best of his capacity".' andwearetalking about the 1600's socomapredtomost faiths,including my own,not so long to adapt really.

You can buy sharp knives, doesn't mean you can carry them in public. Which is the issue here. No-one is saying Sikhs or anyone else can't own daggers. But I am saying the law should apply to everyone equally and the police should treat everyone equally.

If people feel they must carry a dagger for religious reasons, some of the practical ideas here about making sure they are securely in a holder so they can't be used without delay sound sensible.

Itotally agree Eam

Only the way I understand itis |I can carry a knife- eg I taken one when I go camping,or the cub leader has one for woodcraft

so intention and usage is taken intoaccount

so Sikhs shoud be able tocarry one on that basis

the agreed basis btw may well be that humungous gert sword-like things aren'r OK but little useless things are:ceremonialpurposeswuld be manageablewithin alimited area I would think, with storage on site.

"Only the way I understand itis |I can carry a knife- eg I taken one when I go camping,or the cub leader has one for woodcraft

so intention and usage is taken intoaccount"

Yes it is.

A cub leader on his way to a class has good reason to have the knife on him.

Likewise the camper wearing one on his belt as he's hiking through the woods.

Religion is explicitly stated in the law as being a "good reason" (along side work, education and national costume) so it is treated a little differently than the hobbyist who have to rely on the general "good reason".

Interestingly it's up to the person carrying the knife to prove that they've got good reason and not for the police to prove that they haven't.

Then you get back to the argument about why religions should have special privileges denied to everyone else... who says one way of spending your time (going to church or temple or whatever) is more valid or important than another (sword fighting or fencing)? Someone may be extremely passionate about their hobby and devote a great deal of energy to it. That is no more or less valid or important to society than spending your time on your knees praying.

I am just popping back to say I was hoping the humanists/atheists would be occurring at some point.

"Then you get back to the argument about why religions should have special privileges denied to everyone else."

Well everyone has access to the "good reason" defence.

Quite why the law felt the need to explicitly clarify that religion, work, education and national costume are explicitly "good reasons" is a good question.

Religion isn't alone in it's explicit clarity so it's not like it's got some special position that nothing else does.

Whether any of those four explicit "good reasons" have any kind of special position is another good question.

The law does make clear that the explicit reasons don't detract from or remove anything else that might also fall under the general "good reason" clause.

Actually education isn't an explicitly stated "good reason".

The law is:

(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a) for use at work;
(b) for religious reasons; or
(c) as part of any national costume.

Possibly so Edam, but on that hand I would argue that there should be a way of registering such a hobby so that there could be somekind of accreditation ofmwho youa re that the polive could access- maybe there is?

Whereas a Sikh can't just pretend to be khalsa, all uncut hair and all. Hiso r her accreditation is visible IYSWIM in a way that someone may not be able to tell if someone walking down the high street with a sword is a re-enactor (I assume they dont wear costume always when carrying?) or a psycho.

Pro my take has nothing to so with my holding of any faith, but everything to dowith a degree in RS that helped form my opinions.

"Possibly so Edam, but on that hand I would argue that there should be a way of registering such a hobby so that there could be somekind of accreditation ofmwho youa re that the polive could access- maybe there is?"

I don't believe that there should be any kind of requirement to register your hobby if you want to have a knife.

It's just simpler to leave it up to the police officer on the scene or in the end a court to decide if the holder has a good reason.

And given how we don't seem to have campers being sent to prison and knife wielding thugs claiming to be reenacting the battle of Hastings the system seems to be working.

I don't believe that religions should get any special exemptions to laws but I really don't see a problem with the current situation.

I don't think it's necessarily always that clear if someone's a Sikh. Certainly not women (I've known plenty of Sikh women and don't think there's anything obvious about them as a group). As for men, lots of men have long hair. Would be easy for someone who wants to get away with carrying a knife to get hold of a fake turban from a fancy dress shop. Although I doubt in real life many would try, you can't apply the law in a simplistic 'ooh, he looks like a Sikh, he must be fine' way. That way lies the madness of shooting innocent Brazilian electricians for the crime of using the tube while looking a bit Asian...