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?

"The freedom of people to carry knives is already restricted"

So because it's restricted in some ways it's fair to just go and restrict it in more ways?

Of course not.

"All laws tie the hands of judges and juries. I think you are engaged with displacement activity."

At the moment Judges and juries can decide what is a good reason.

You're going to have to take that choice away from them.

Once again because in some other instances we restrict the ability of the courts to interpret the law does not mean that we should always do that.

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

OK now that could be a good reason to change the law.

You've mentioned links, which I've missed.

Do they relate to this country and can you post them again?

The law was quoted in this thread: if we are to trust that, which I have done (perhaps mistakenly) then religion is specifically given as a good reason under the law. So where is the freedom for a jury or a judge?

You support the law as it stands but seem unable to justify it, apart from the restriction of freedom: which is rather broad (so broad as to be meaningless, I would say) as we accept that our freedom is restricted in many ways in order to maintain civil society. Freedom for one person may endanger another.

Of the links, I will try to post again. They worked the first time and I don't know what happened to them.

One relates to this country: possible use in Southall. Three incidences in Canada, Montreal and Toronto.

sikhnet

will try to find southall link again

southall

Actually I think that's four in Canada: three in Toronto, one in Montreal.

I don't know anything about this mix together website, but if you click on the Asiana link at the side, it seems to be a regular community website. I haven't read thoroughly enough to see if it's linked to the Muslim community, which due to ancient and latent murmurings of hostility between the communities could I suppose be biased.

nope seems to be a fairly strong community site, against honour killing and such

"religion is specifically given as a good reason under the law. So where is the freedom for a jury or a judge?"

It is given as a "good reason", so it can be used as a defence but that doesn't mean that it's a "get out of jail card".

I see explicitly making sure that something is legal as fine it's the presumption that it's not is the problem.

"we accept that our freedom is restricted in many ways in order to maintain civil society. Freedom for one person may endanger another. "

Absolutely.

There's always a balance to be struck.

Cars, for example, cause enormous suffering and many deaths and injuries, yet we accept that.

Even the presumption of innocence has a price as the guilty go free, yet again we accept that.

However I agree that there does come a time when a freedom has to be given up, for example guns, due to the "costs" of it upon society.

While I believe that a free society has got to be able to restrict freedoms I also believe that the default should be that all freedoms are allowed and any restrictions are the things that need to be argued and justified.

We've not got the argument around the right way, you're arguing that a freedom should be taken away rather than having others argue why it shouldn't.

"One relates to this country: possible use in Southall. Three incidences in Canada, Montreal and Toronto."

Only the incident in this country is really relevant, as a rule I don't believe that freedoms should be restricted because of what people in other countries are getting up to.

Yes again there are exceptions to that and it can help as corroborative evidence. Yet that you have to look internationally does suggest that we do not have a big problem here.

The Southall case is going to court later in the year, so it will be interesting to find out the actual details of the case.

Even then to take away a freedom because of one incident?

And if it's decided that we do then why not take away the freedom to carry some forms of the Kirpan rather than all of them? If it was a Kirpan used in this case, which is not clear, then it seems to have been a sword sized one.

Few freedoms should be absolutely sacred, yet right now with only one possible case in this country we don't seem to be anywhere near having a real problem.

The freedom to carry a knife is not sacred. You are talking about the freedom to carry a knife. The onus is always on the person to justify why they should carry a knife. I have not seen a good reason so far. You believe religion to be a good reason. Why do you think this? Carrying a knife in the name of freedom? Like the NRA and their right to bear arms?

How many incidents would you like? How many would justify it? What would you consider a real problem? Would the victim have to be non Asian?

I've read vicious stuff on forums about community relations, some calming voices, others highly inflammatory. You can look yourself. It is not reassuring.

Yes Stewie, there is. And there are gangs.

"The freedom to carry a knife is not sacred."

Nor is driving a car, drinking, smoking and so on.

Yet all are things that are "damaging" yet tolerated (if restricted to one degree or another).

Just because a freedom is damaging is not reason enough to ban it.

"I have not seen a good reason so far. You believe religion to be a good reason. Why do you think this?"

To me personally it's not.

However I accept that to other people it is and I'm happy enough with that.

If I were to stand before a court charged with possession of an offensive weapon because I was off to a friends house with a reproduction sword to discuss whether some computer game handled them correctly then I would expect a jury to say that was a good reason to have it on me.

They might personally think I was barking mad and that I had no "need" to be doing it but I'd expect it to be accepted.

I'm not completely happy that religion is bluntly stated as a "good reason" but I would happily allow it to be given as one in defence of a Sikh found with a Kirpan.

"How many incidents would you like? How many would justify it?"

One's too few, a thousand too many, somewhere in between.

Samurai swords, for one thing, are a bladed weapon that causes far more harm than Kirpan's so if you're going to make any kind of argument to ban a certain type of weapon would it not make more sense to start there?

Why nibble around the edges at something that, given the current evidence you've given, simply doesn't appear to be a problem.

"Like the NRA and their right to bear arms"

Nothing like that at all.

The NRA believe that the US cannot ban arms as it's a constitutionally protect right essential to their country.

I just don't believe in charging headlong into banning something when, as said, there appears to be no reason to do so.

And with this when there are so many more things that appear to be more damaging than Kirpans, though again I'm willing to be proved wrong on this, then if accept that a Kirpan has reached the "banning threshold" then so will many other freedoms.

The last time I looked this was still England, you want to come live here fine, you want to raise your family here fine, you want to follow your religion here not a problem, BUT you need to comply with the law here and not scream racism and discrimination when you are treated the same way as everyone else and not getting your own way.

Its idiots like this that cause people to dislike whole races of people because of the selfishness and stupidity of the few

"However I accept that to other people it is and I'm happy enough with that."

Why do you accept that? Where would you draw the line? Adultery as a crime? Do you accept that? At least you accept it is an entirely personal and subjective judgement. I do not accept that it. But the principle of subjectivism does not obtain in law: we do not say, more people want to see adultery as a crime than don't, therefore adultery shall be a crime. We should not say: a lot of people want to carry a knife for subjective reasons: therefore they are allowed to.

With ref. to your comparison with cars: one does not need to supply a good reason to drive a car: I can't work out if you are deliberately obfuscating or genuinely equate carrying a knife with driving a car.

"Nothing like that at all. The NRA believe that the US cannot ban arms as it's a constitutionally protect right essential to their country."

How is this different from religious belief?

If you would be happy to see eight hundred people murdered with a kirpan before wanting it banned then we are very different people.

"THE BELOW MAY COME IN USE IN THE FUTURE EITHER FOR YOURSELVES OR OTHERS IF YOU ARE FACED WITH YOUR KIRPAN BEING STRIPPED.

*It is LEGAL under the criminal justice act 1988 (section 139) and offensive weapons act 1996 (section 3 and 4) for a Sikh to carry a Kirpan for religious reasons.

*The criminal justice act 1988 safeguards the rights of the Sikh to carry the Kirpan as it is deemed a necessary part of their religion.

*Also, under European Convention on human rights on freedom of religion.

DON'T EVER LET YOUR KIRPAN BE TAKEN OFF OF YOU
(other than when going on a plane then do ardas) "

From a Sikh website: there is no legroom for a judge or jury.

And apparently you are allowed to take it off on a plane where it might endanger others. So not quite so "necessary" after all.

To take it to a religious ceremony fine, to take it to Tesco not fine.

"At least you accept it is an entirely personal and subjective judgement. I do not accept that it. But the principle of subjectivism does not obtain in law."

But the law is subject to personal and subjective judgement. That's the way the UK legal system works, case law, how the law was applied in previous cases.

What the law says about knives is that when carrying one the defences are having a "good reason" and/or "lawful authority".

It does then clarify that work, national costume and religion are examples of a "good reason" but are not the only instances.

That's it.

"We should not say: a lot of people want to carry a knife for subjective reasons: therefore they are allowed to."

Well we do, or the law does. If you've got a "good reason" and can convince the police, judge and jury of that then you're OK.

Which is perfectly sensible.

The law shouldn't have to bluntly state each and every reason why it's OK to carry an offensive weapon, that would make it completely unworkable.

'Nothing like that at all. The NRA believe that the US cannot ban arms as it's a constitutionally protect right essential to their country.'

"How is this different from religious belief?"

Because I believe that religious beliefs can be legally banned both in terms of what the law of our country allows and in terms of keeping to our "principles".

The NRA believe neither about guns.

However just because I believe that something could be banned does not mean that it should.

"If you would be happy to see eight hundred people murdered with a kirpan before wanting it banned then we are very different people."

But very crudely that's how the law and freedom works here, and no matter how terrible it is to see it spelt out that way it's pretty much true.

Things are by default allowed.

Things hurt society.

Society acts and restricts the freedom.

We, as a rule, don't just take away freedoms because of what "might" happen or the damage it "could" inflict.

And it's always a balance between how much destruction and death we are willing to accept vs. how much we like the freedom.

For example drinking almost certainly kills more than 800 people a year.

Personally I think that 800 murders would be too many and it's very hard to know at what number society would twitch and take a freedom away.

However right now when the best you can come up with is one possible instance in this country is clearly not the time.

We can't, or to be more accurate we shouldn't, make laws in this country via Daily Mail style panic reactions.

"The last time I looked this was still England, you want to come live here fine, you want to raise your family here fine, you want to follow your religion here not a problem, BUT you need to comply with the law here and not scream racism and discrimination when you are treated the same way as everyone else and not getting your own way."

Firstly what about Sikhs that are born here?

Secondly you do understand that the judge was not asking for any change in the law and was not screaming racism?

Badgers, I'm afraid you've lost me with your cheap Daily Mail reference.

FWIW your logic is heavily flawed, your thinking muddled and your analogies poor.

"FWIW your logic is heavily flawed, your thinking muddled and your analogies poor."

So muddled and poor that not one of the points could be responded to?

So what exactly is your logic and your point?

I'm refuting your claim that English law is not subjective by pointing out that it clearly is what with it's reliance on "case law" (how the law was interpreted and applied in the past) and in this particular instance by allowing a "good reason" defence without specifying what a "good reason" is.

I'm also saying that we should be free to do something unless there's a good reason to ban it. That is to say that it is up to you to argue the case and present the evidence for the banning of the Kirpan.

Furthermore I'm saying that there appears to be no good reason to ban Kirpans.

You seem able to find only one incident in the UK, and even that's not certain and not gone to trial yet.

It appears that you are saying that it should be banned as murders could happen and you don't believe that religion is a good reason.

And rushing into a ban on something because of one possible incident and a somewhat groundless fear of what could occur is what I would call an overreaction.

Finally if there were "enough" evidence that Kirpans were causing "trouble" then I would have no problem with them being banned as any other item would be.

Not one, as they don't refute any of mine and it's pointless repeating myself.

Plainly you're informed by prejudice if you feel the need to resort to a Daily Mail poke.

I thought we were talking outside the bounds of prejudice, English laws for the English and all that rot, but I was wrong.

The last person to be endangered by carrying of a kirpan fits the Daily Mail demographic. Far more likely to be of a very different background -- but who cares about that.

"Not one, as they don't refute any of mine and it's pointless repeating myself."

Picking one example the refutation of the claim that English law is not subjective with the example that a "good reason" is completely subjective.

"Plainly you're informed by prejudice"

Where as you are informed by what?

I support both the status quo and the idea that the law is open to change if required.

What exactly do you want and why?

I told you Badgers, I only came back to the thread because of the paucity of argument in favour.

I started off thinking, it's fine, but really not in schools.

But I continued to read and during the thread I just changed my mind. I'm not informed by prejudice -- sorry to disappoint you, but there we are. I'm looking for consistency and reason.

I would like a change in the law so that religion is not a good reason for carrying a usable weapon. A worn kirpan must be small and symbolic, or sewn into clothing. I didn't want that at the beginning of the thread: I am surrounded by Sikhs and don't feel the kirpan threatens my personal safety. The more I've read around the forums and the more arguments I've read in favour -- well, they've changed my mind completely. As one Sikh voice on a forum put it, discussing gangs (who threaten Sikhs) and the kirpan: "There are a lot of young hotheads around".

I just can't repeat myself any more. I don't think it's sensible to compare religious belief to carpentry, or driving, but you do. You will only change your mind if scores of people are hurt with a kirpan: I would prefer to shut the stable door before the horse bolts. We disagree in too many ways: and because of that you decide to be cheap.

"I'm not informed by prejudice"

Sorry, there was a bit missing from my last post.

I meant for it to say: "Where as you are informed by what? One possible and until it comes to court unconfirmed case in Southall?"

Which you might still disagree with but at least it's not left me looking like I called you prejudiced, which is something I'll leave to you to call me.

"I would like a change in the law so that religion is not a good reason for carrying a usable weapon."

So someone could carry one for a hobby but not a religion?

What if they called their religion a hobby?

Personally if push came to shove I'd just amend the law to flat out explicitly ban Kirpans, in the same way that Samurai Swords have had some special legislation aimed at them alone.

"You will only change your mind if scores of people are hurt with a kirpan: I would prefer to shut the stable door before the horse bolts."

That's a fair assessment.

I believe that we'd loose far too many freedoms if it were possible to restrict them based upon the possibility of harm alone.

I've told you what has informed me: no, it is not one unconfirmed court case: it's clarity of thought and a lot of reading around which I assume you've done too (or possibly not) -- but you have come to different conclusions.

It is your last resort: historical re-enactors. I knew you would come to this as your last resort. It's all there is on your side of the argument really: the fact that historical re-enactors can use them.

As a cogent argument, it doesn't work for me. Ban them too. I don't care. After that there's nothing left.

Your use of Daily Mail was perjorative: perhaps you don't DM readers as prejudiced: a refreshing change or perhaps you weren't accusing me of a Daily Mail panic reaction at all: it was just thrown out in a sort of foot stamping way.

Your fear about loss of freedom is rather belated, and, once again, inconsistency is your watchword.

"it's clarity of thought and a lot of reading around which I assume you've done too (or possibly not) -- but you have come to different conclusions."

Yes I have and yes I do.

Though I am now very interested in this upcoming court case.

"As a cogent argument, it doesn't work for me. Ban them too. I don't care. After that there's nothing left."

I'm guessing you meant my question "What if they called their religion a hobby?"

To which the response is "ban them too"?

"perhaps you don't DM readers as prejudiced: a refreshing change"

No I don't, I read the Daily Mail at least as much as any other paper.

"perhaps you weren't accusing me of a Daily Mail panic reaction at all"

Yes I would say it was a panic reaction.

And yes I would say that that's the sort of thing that the Daily Mail does.

However see my comments on DM readers.

"once again, inconsistency is your watchword."

Where's the inconsistency in a "anything can be banned but nothing should without good reason" type of argument?

I'm pretty sure that you enjoy at least one thing that would fall under an "it could hurt someone so ban it" approach to law. Is that not more inconsistent?