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?

Badgers, all you do is repeat the thing and then you don't say much yourself! Like "to which the response is ban them too?" I'm beginning to think you can't string a sentence together without that prop.

Well yes of course -- it's the only thing to do to be consistent. Don't you understand that? You seem not to get the gist of consistency and subjectivism.

There's masses of inconsistency in the arguments in favour of the kirpan.

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

I agree: don't ban something without a good reason.

But for the fifty millionth gazillionth time -- you've yet to give a good reason why religion is a "good reason". I'm not asking for much, as you seem to have such a strong belief in this. All you've said is that "you're happy with it". That's marvellous, well done you. But it's not a cogent argument.

You know what Badgers, I may be x posting with you, but you think I'm prejudiced and that bores me very badly. See you elsewhere no doubt and have a jolly week.

"I agree: don't ban something without a good reason."

And your reasons for banning the Kirpan are?

1. An attack in Southall that might have used one.
2. A general impression from some forums that there are some angry people out there.

Given your "shut the door before the horse has bolted" argument that might well be enough to bring in a ban.

Thankfully the way that the law generally works in this country with regard to taking away any freedom, no matter how irrelevant or odd many of us may see it, is a bit more demanding.

"you think I'm prejudiced"

No I don't.

What I honestly think is that you're far too keen to take away a freedom due to a small perceived risk.

I also think it probable, though not certain, that you expect an activity to justify why it should remain free rather than just presuming that it should be.

That doesn't make you prejudiced.

We do not share the complacency that carrying a dangerous weapon is "an activity" like any other. We start from a different place. There is no point.

Of course most sensible people don't share that view, for which I am grateful.

I include, of course, the legislators who have drawn up Prevention of Crime Acts over the years: who have not wasted a great deal of time on driving, carpentry and alcohol consumption.

Their interest in activities to be restricted unless there are special circumstances are listed here.

Please note the reference to alcohol is the use of bottles as weapons.

I disagree with them about the kirpan: you disagree with them about the very notion that the onus is upon the weapons carrier to produce a good reason for carrying a weapon. You believe the onus is upon the legislator to produce a good reason why he should not carry a weapon.

You seem to either believe that there is enough reason and evidence for a ban of the Kirpan or that just because it could harm someone and doesn't serve a practical purpose then it should be banned anyway.

You've also seemed to be making noises about the "weakness" of the "pro kirpan argument" which makes it sounds like if a "pro" argument isn't strong enough then pop goes a freedom.

I instead believe that it's for a potential law changer, such as yourself, to justify why anything, such as the Kirpan, should be completely banned.

And that is the way that the law works. It doesn't turn to a freedom and say "why should you be allowed?" Rather it turns to the freedoms opponents and asks "why should it be banned?"

The "law" has seen the evidence about the the entire spectrum of knives and has decided there is not enough evidence for a ban.

However "the law" has seen the general problem with knives and has justifiably placed restrictions upon them.

Those restrictions allow just about anybody to carry just about anything as long as they have a "good reason".

And that is very reasonable. It allows professional, cultural, religious, educational or hobby reasons to allow someone to carry something relevant.

As said the decision to restrict was reasonable, the decision to ban would not have been.

The law is working the way that I believe it should and has made some very sensible decisions.

I'd like to add that should some "threshold" of evidence ever be reached then I believe that the law can and will ban the Kirpan and that's not racism or discrimination.

I think we have reached the point where you don't understand your own point of view.

That must be a comforting thought for you.

Basically.....

• A freedom should not be banned simply because it could cause harm no matter how "weak" the argument in that freedoms favour might be. The law in this country is generally, and rightly, reactive rather than proactive.
• If most freedoms do cause harm then they can be banned or restricted. The Kirpan is not some special case.
• It is for those arguing that a freedom should be restricted to prove their case.
• The law believes that there is not sufficient evidence for an outright ban on knives in general yet alone the Kirpan in particular, I agree with it.
• Even if the specific clarification that religion is a "good reason" defence is removed I suspect that many people would judge it to be one anyway.
• Basically the law covering the Kirpan seems to be working and doesn't need to be tampered with. As said though it's not sacred and should be reviewed when required.