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?

What if someone is a member of one of those Aryan churches that command people to kill blacks?

Should they be allowed to because it's their religion?

Huh kerry?

The generalpoint was that by UK lawpeoplecan generallyc arry weaponry if it is decided by policeto have been forasuitable reason.

Sikhs shouldn't be exempted from that:trhey should be liable to the lawas much as any of us, but equally not separated and automatically branded as carrying a weapon when others may.

They should indeed be treated as equal.

Of course not all sikhs are law abiding any more than the rest of us but joining the Khalsa is a decision amde by only 10% ofSikhs and part of that covers the use of weaponry, and it is they who are the ones carrying the kirpan. So I would happily hedge my bet that,like certain other groups who have decided deliberately to follow a non violent path (Quakers,Jains, carriers of white poppies etc etc),theya re less likely than a random person pulled off the street.

However, as I said my point is simply that they should be held to the force of the law as everyone else- which is weaponry may be carried in circumstances deemed OK by the law.

"religion does not trump state law."

I agree completely and with Sikh's and the Kirpan it doesn't.

Furthermore this Judge isn't asking to trump the law either.

So everything's fine then.

"The generalpoint was that by UK lawpeoplecan generallyc arry weaponry if it is decided by policeto have been forasuitable reason."

Exactly.

Yes, if the law allows a blanket exemption for knives for religious reasons then I do want a change in the law. I think it's discriminatory.

What a waste of time telling us all that the weapons can be small, and useless, and hidden away. That's no excuse at all and apparently not good enough for the Sikh community, who want the right to carry useable dangerous weapons -- and into schools too.

Well, stuff it -- that offends me deeply. I don't have to be religious to be offended, and it offends me right off.

That's silly, that's just as discriminatory, implying that Sikhs don't carry out knife crime. You think Sikhs don't ever carry out knife crime? What a generalisation. The skinheads would be banned too, as they are now.

Faulty reasoning.

I've never committed a crime with a gun, so can I carry one everywhere?

montreal

"Experience in Canada indicates the kirpan is dangerous. Justice Campbell in Ontario Human Rights Commission and Harbhajan Singh Pandori v. Peel Board of Education:

There have been, in the Metropolitan Toronto area, three reported incidents of violent kirpan use. One involved a plea of guilty to attempted murder after a stabbing with a kirpan. In one street fight, a man was stabbed in the back with a kirpan. In one case, a kirpan was drawn for defensive purposes."

couldn't happen here?

possible

What this law means is that if you look like a Sikh you can allowed to carry a lethal weapon in public.

If there are checks on your background, you may be found not to be a baptised Sikh.

But if you look like a Sikh, dress like a Sikh, even wear the beard net, this is highly unlikely to happen. You wouldn't be arrested/checked unless you were suspected of a crime. The fact that Sikhs have special dispensation makes it virtually inconceivable that any Sikh would be checked to see if they were a proper Sikh and therefore allowed to carry a knife.

In reality it means that if you look and dress a particular way you can carry a murderous weapon with impunity.

"Yes, if the law allows a blanket exemption for knives for religious reasons then I do want a change in the law. I think it's discriminatory."

Well it allows a "blanket exemption" for lots of reasons, basically any "good reason" you can think of.

It doesn't say "Sikhs can carry a knife but no one else can."

It simply says that anyone with "good reason" can, which seems sensible to me.

"The fact that Sikhs have special dispensation."

Anyone with a "good reason" has a "special dispensation."

"In reality it means that if you look and dress a particular way you can carry a murderous weapon with impunity.. "

It also means that anyone dressed like a carpenter can carry a number of truly lethal implements.

Or dress as a cub master and wear a camping knife.

Or dress as a camper and walk around the woods carrying an axe.

All of which is a lot easier than dressing up as a Sikh.

Religious reasons are simply one of unnumbered reasons as to why you can "carry a murderous weapon with impunity."

If someone is determined to try and "trick" the Police there's so many other ways they will do it, doors that would have to be closed before you began to worry about being in disguise as a Sikh.

And you would then have to work out how to specifically word the law so that religion is excluded as a "good reason", which would be an interesting one to try considering that nothing else is excluded.

Firstly Stewie, you're not allowed to carry a steak knife on the streets or into school. Secondly, if we are going to make laws based on who is or is not more likely to carry out crime we will get into a filthy mess. Imagine if there were special restrictive laws for young black men for particular types of crime. Look at the controversy over ethnic profiling at airports, where the 90-year-old Caucasian New Yorker is considered as likely a suspect as a 25 year old Yemeni man. We don't do that Stewie -- it's considered racist.

"Well it allows a "blanket exemption" for lots of reasons, basically any "good reason" you can think of."

No it doesn't. Self defence is a good reason, for example. It does allow a blanket exemption for religion. Why do you think this is good?

"It doesn't say "Sikhs can carry a knife but no one else can."

It does mean Sikhs are the only people who can carry a knife not being used for any function, day or night.

"which seems sensible to me"

Why do you think it is sensible for a knife to be allowed for religious reasons?

Anyone with a "good reason" has a "special dispensation."
Sikhism is the only religion which requires carrying a murderous weapon in everyday life for no practical function. They have special dispensation.

"It also means that anyone dressed like a carpenter can carry a number of truly lethal implements."

Carpenters' tools have a practical function.

"Or dress as a cub master and wear a camping knife."

Practical function.

"Or dress as a camper and walk around the woods carrying an axe."

Practical function.

"All of which is a lot easier than dressing up as a Sikh."

Actually, not at all, particularly if you are a Sikh.

"Religious reasons are simply one of unnumbered reasons as to why you can "carry a murderous weapon with impunity."

But it is the only one which serves no practical purpose.

"If someone is determined to try and "trick" the Police there's so many other ways they will do it, doors that would have to be closed before you began to worry about being in disguise as a Sikh."

If you are a Sikh will malign intent, it will probably the first way you will do it.

And you would then have to work out how to specifically word the law so that religion is excluded as a "good reason".

How's this: "Religion does not constitute a good reason under the law for carrying a knife".

How does religion compete with carrying them home from the shops as a good reason?

I came back to this thread having changed my mind and strengthened my position because of the weakness of arguments in favour.

Religion is as good a reason as carpentry (or it seems, carrying them home from the shops) to be carrying a lethal weapon

Sikhs are peace-loving. Just ridiculous.

The knives aren't really lethal. Or are they? Or aren't they? Who knows?

They've never been used.

It's discrimination. Well yes it is, against everyone else who wants to carry a weapon they aren't planning to use.

I haven't read a single cogent argument in favour of allowing one section of the community dispensation to "waltz about" with lethal weapons strapped to their thighs without practical purpose or function.

I don't suppose, Stewie or Badgers, that you read the links.

Canada, it seems, has seen the most incidents involving the kirpan being drawn as an offensive or defensive weapon.

"I have never read an argument that would persuade me its a problem since those who want to commit violence will do so regardless of whether or not they carry a knife as part of their religious observance."

Same for everybody: so why have a law at all?

"I haven't read a single cogent argument in favour of allowing one section of the community dispensation to "waltz about" with lethal weapons strapped to their thighs without practical purpose or function."

I haven't read one single argument in favour of changing the law and restricting our lives even further than they are at present.

I'm firmly of the opinion that you only go restricting something if there's a problem.

And the current knife laws are simply not a problem, so why restrict freedoms any further?

Now you might argue that because the courts do not accept a reason that you perceive to be good, you've mentioned self-defence, as a "good reason" then you've got some sort of right to say "well I can't have one so nor can you! Na-na-nana-na!"

But I disagree with that, "if I can't then you can't" is no basis to draw up laws for a country.

And then there's the whole can of good reason worms as to why the courts of this country do not accept "self defence" as a reason to be carrying a weapon.

Though that said the law as worded would allow that if that's what a judge or jury ruled. The law doesn't exclude self-defence, it's just that the interpretation of the law up to now has always been that self-defence is not a good reason.

And all this from someone who doesn't like organised religion, doesn't believe in special treatment for religious groups and wishes this country would become completely secular.

There simply isn't a reason to go changing anything.

I can carry around a knife when I need to, there's been no wave of stabbing Sikhs or carpenters and the thugs who do carry knifes are found guilty (even if they're not punished enough).

And to cap it all off as argued already the law is set up so that we could allow knife carrying for just any reason that the courts begin to rule as "good". All without changing one word. I see no problem.

"Religion a good reason for carrying a lethal weapon."

Are you able to articulate why? Seriously, I would like to see that.

The links I gave referenced kirpans being used as offensive or defensive weapons.

Forgot to add: weak reasoning 5. we couldn't word the law
and now weak reasoning 6. we'd have to change the law.

"weak reasoning 6. we'd have to change the law"

Thankfully the law is currently on my side and you don't just change it because you perceive that there are only "weak" reasons not to.

You're the one who wants the law to be changed, so the onus is somewhat on you to argue exactly why the law should be changed.

So why do you want to curtail the freedom of people in this country?

Consider that you're going to have to amend the law in two ways.

Firstly you're going to have to remove the explicit statement that "religion" is a "good reason".

Secondly, and this is where it gets interesting, for the first time you're going to have to explicitly state that something is not a "good reason".

That's taking away the freedom of the courts and of juries to decide for themselves.

Which is a substantial shift.

So all told you want to restrict the freedoms of the public, of judges and of juries.

Why?

Persuade us why you should take our freedoms away.

Persuade us why you want to tie the hands of judges and juries.

Personally aside from the idea that you don't take away freedoms without a very good reason I'd be very worried about where this might go next.

What choices might be taken away from judges and juries now that the precedent has been set that it's no longer up to them?

"You're the one who wants the law to be changed, so the onus is somewhat on you to argue exactly why the law should be changed." Lucky for you -- you plainly can't do it.

So why do you want to curtail the freedom of people in this country?

The freedom of people to carry knives is already restricted. I think we all know why the freedom of people to carry knives is restricted. All laws tie the hands of judges and juries. I think you are engaged with displacement activity.

Let's just see, for the sake of argument, whether or not you can give a good reason for people to carry a lethal weapon about with them which they are not going to use. Bearing in mind that the freedom of most people to do this is restricted. Try not to compare them with carpenters.

Reasons the law should never have allowed this? Discrimination. Specifically against non religious and other religious groups. Inconsistency. An open door to special pleading.

Reasons to change the law? Use of the kirpan offensively and defensively.