PSingh

Hi Argus, I really have no defence for those cases in India...I hope they were all charged and given appropriate sentences, but that's for the judicial system to decide once the facts come out (I always doubt Indian media, they have a notorious record of writing nonsense). Even so, India has no problems with Sikhs and Kirpans...not sure if this means anything. Regarding the Metro Toronto cases, it does not say anywhere 'who' was using the Kirpans (in streetfights, etc.). Was it a Sikh or just somebody who got their hands on a 'knife'? It seems no different than normal gang activity and many youngsters are involved in this kind of thing. Again, I will not deny that the Kirpan 'could' be used as a weapon, but it is not for that purpose. If some people have used it as such, then they are criminals. If we banned everything that could be used as a weapon, then sporting equipment would also have to go. Overall, Kirpans have a better record and are not a threat to Canadians (I didn't know about these cases though, so thanks for that). Either way, the first website you posted is a good source to see how Canada has dealt with the Kirpan even in light of these facts. It's a good read, but I don't want to repeat it. -P

Hi again! Before I answer the specific questions that RB asked, I would like to point out that the legal questions that are beginning to appear on this thread have already been addressed in many Kirpan court cases. I am not a lawyer and hence will not try to argue the legal case for it on this board, but I can forward you to the papers if you like. Basically, the verdict has been that Kirpans can be carried by 'baptised' Sikhs. Although it may be irrelevant in our case being Canadians, prominent cases in the UK and US have also reached this conclusion. Now, onwards to the points raised by RB: It has never been stated (legally or otherwise) that a Kirpan must be hidden...I do so personally, but it is a personal choice whether the individual wears it over or under their clothes. I find that where there are large populations of Sikhs, it is a common practice to wear it over since the non-Sikh community is more aware. I would hope that the perpetrator of the act is responsible and the law is fully brought to bear. The Sikh who let the Kirpan get away from his/her possession should also be dealt with, as this is a transgression for a 'baptised' (Kirpan-carrying) Sikh. I would not consider the Sikh a criminal however. Again, if a person is going to commit violence, getting a weapon is the easiest part and it should not be important that they got their hands on a Kirpan. I would also like to emphasize that Kirpan is generally quite secure so the chances of it dropping are quite low to nil. I'm sorry, but I do not have any statistics. I'm not sure if any are collected. Personally, in dire situations (i.e. murder, rape, etc. in progress) where no alternative is available and immediate help is required, I would feel obligated to act. Reaching for my Kirpan would not be my first instinct, but if I could help somebody in trouble, I would. Having said that, please do not take this out of context. This kind of case has never happened in Canada and Kirpans have been kept out of any confrontations (as far as I'm aware). This is strictly hypothetical and the situation would indeed be pretty out-of-control to warrant such an act. You are entitled to your views regarding 'common sense' and 'religion vs. logic' and I will not comment on this. However, Sikhs have tried to lobby against giving up their Kirpans in the situations you've stated, including planes. As of now, Sikhs do not wear their Kirpans on planes since all passengers go through baggage checks and metal detectors. Any other case, it generally ends up in court or a settlement is reached beforehand. As I stated in a previous post, though we may not agree with different views, I hope Canada treats all issues the same way it has treated the Sikh Kirpan. Discussion and learning takes place before decisions are reached. If it was a genuine requirement of Christianity to carry a gun and history showed that it was not a threat, then I would have no problem with this hypothetical case. Rather, I would consider a 'gun-carrying' Christian harmless since Christianity discourages criminal activity and a 'gun-carrying' Christian would be a strict believer of this credo. Again, a Kirpan is carried only by a small minority of Sikhs who are 'baptised' and have taken vows to follow a very specific code of conduct which discourages any sort of criminal behaviour. They also wear 4 other assorted 'articles of faith' in addition to the Kirpan. Regarding your last point about taxpayer dollars being inappropriately allocated, we all have similar complaints. Such is the nature of the country we live in; some of our money is always used towards things we don't support. I personally believe education in this regard is a good thing. As I stated in my first post, I only came on this board to introduce a new perspective to the discussion. Personally I believe this is a perception issue which is addressed by education. I live in a multi-cultural area that is quite comfortable with Kirpans and similar areas exist across Canada, so it is not an impossibility. I doubt I have much more to contribute to this discussion as I've already made my viewpoints clear. I can answer any specific questions you may still have about Sikhs, but I want to avoid engaging in lengthy debates. We all know where we stand and have presented our views, it is up to the individual to make their own conclusions. -P

Hi rbacon, Interesting you mention that I 'go back to my homeland'...if you missed it in one of my previous posts, please reread my anecdote about the individual in Ottawa who told me the same. Like Mr. Singh in the Via rail story, this IS my homeland - I was born and bred in Toronto. Furthermore, nobody in my family has worn a Kirpan before me. I was the first to get 'baptised' a short while back, so I don't see how this is an 'immigrant issue'. If you do have more information regarding the use of the Kirpan as a weapon, I ask you to present the evidence. This is the first time I've heard this...in all court cases, this is one of the first points that gets mention, that Kirpans have not been used as such and it has never been argued otherwise. I do not want to mislead the board by saying this, if it is in fact wrong. If the Kirpan has been used in an assault, please give specifics since this is very disconcerting to me. I also wonder what 'blend in or go home' means in present-day Canada. I have an Asian (Chinese) neigbour and an Italian....who should I strive to be the same as? -P

Hi RB, yes 'baptised' (can't think of a better word) women also wear Kirpans (the Sikh faith does not discriminate between male/female adherents). If you need more information about what I mean by 'baptised', I can provide more information or you can find it through a quick google. It subjects the initiate to a more structured code of conduct involving prayer, voluntary service and other religious obligations, including the carrying of the Kirpan. Argus, we seem to be stuck on the issue that the Kirpan to you is a weapon, but to me and most Sikhs, it is not. If we wanted a weapon, there are better alternatives out there, such as the 9mm gun you mentioned. I have explained my perspective on the issue, but if you insist on calling it a weapon then I doubt I can change your mind. Anyhow, I will state my case a last time. Many items people carry daily have the potential to be used as weapons. At some point, it becomes a question of whether you trust the carrier of the item. May I call somebody's knitting needles or hockey skates weapons? If the intent of the carrier is malicious, they can easily inflict harm with these things, and many have. Yet with no precedence, Kirpans are classified as weapons ahead of these other items. Perhaps all of these other things should also be confiscated upon boarding a Via train, but they are not. I also add that Via is a crown corporation and the Canadian government allows Kirpans to be worn. In light of these issues, I don't see Mr. Singh being thrown off was justified. You argue that shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is disturbing public order and illegal, a stance I agree with. Yet it is the intent in this case that makes it an issue. Yelling fire if there is indeed a fire is not illegal. Carrying a Kirpan is not disturbing public order. I'm not sure where you reside, but many parts of Canada are quite used to seeing Kirpans in schools, malls, and other public places. People have learned to embrace them and do not mind sitting next to a Sikh on a bus because of it. I'd hope before I'm thrown off the train for being a 'security risk', they'd at least have a chat and assess the situation. Even the Brits and Americans don't mind Kirpan carrying Sikhs, despite their perpetual amber alerts. As for the slippery-slope argument, this has been asked many times and I honestly do not have a proper answer if you liken carrying a Kirpan to a gun. If another religion pops up asking for a concession, I hope they are treated as Sikhs have been by the Canadian judicial system. It doesn't necessarily means we'll concede to their every whim, but learning and understanding will take place before a decision is reached. However, I ask a general question...Why are Sikhs with Kirpans perceived as potential threats? Kirpan carrying Sikhs have been in Canada for 100+ years without issue and have been legally granted these rights. Most cops have never had a problem allowing the Kirpan since they've all undergone training to explain it, so this was an exceptional case. Do these points factor into the 'security assessment' or will Sikhs never prove themselves to certain people? -P

Hi Argus, welcome to the discussion! Until we can stop categorizing a Kirpan simply as a 'weapon', we can't proceed in having a meaningful discussion. You have stated this as fact, that it's a 'knife'...I contend that it's a 'Kirpan'. If you read through the literature (judicial and otherwise), you will realize the courts have also recognized the difference. If you have not the patience to read court literature (I can provide links if necessary), then the link Melanie provided is very clear that calling it a knife/dagger/sword is misleading. It can be used as such, but it has never been, nor is it for that purpose. I've already responded to the fact that it causes concern among fellow travellers, especially the size Mr. Singh was carrying, but the apprehension of some people is not a legitimate reason to take away a fundamental right and selectively enforce policy. This is the crux of my 'fairness' complaint. If I were sitting beside Mr. Singh with my Kirpan under my shirt, I would have been left alone. We are both in possession of the same item, but one gets thrown out while the other doesn't. Yes, compromises can be reached (i.e. a smaller size, under clothes, etc) but it does not tackle the core issue in this case. Mr. Singh was kicked off for just having a Kirpan, not its specific characteristics. Regarding 'very religious' Sikhs in the media, I assume you're referring to the Air India bombing. I understand the truth of your statement, but also consider it unfortunate. Like Balpreet Singh I'm Canadian born and bred, but a 'very religious' Sikh as well. Most of us contribute to society professionally and socially and have tried to educate those we interact with, but indeed we've fallen short in educating the general public. It's something we're working on, but in the meantime we shouldn't be forced to remove our Kirpans. I think PocketRocket hit the nail on its head in his/her last post - the key is education and perception. And yes BHS, grandma should have her nailclippers back! -P

Hi Black Dog It's not a stupid question...ask away! In general, the average Kirpan is no sharper than a breadknife. Some people may have it duller or sharper, but that's the general medium. Again, a Kirpan has a much different purpose than being used as a weapon, as outlined in that link Melanie posted.

Hi PocketRocket, thanks for your comments! I do agree with you that there's no need for a gigantic Kirpan at all times. Balpreet Singh himself would agree that a smaller one would suffice, and indeed I know that he has been told that through the community. Especially for the picture in the paper...it was quite damaging. But nonetheless, as I understand the question here was not the size, but the fact that he had one at all. All I'm pointing out is that he wasn't treated fairly. Quoting the 'policy' in this case does not justify what happened. I know people get afraid and since you don't know everyone's intentions, I don't expect them to get along without issue. However, Sikhs wearing Kirpans are a visible bunch, and especially in a public place such as a train, would it not be simpler to approach the man and ask what's up with the 'knife' at his waist? There were plenty of witnesses around and the threat was minimal. On the occasion that people have asked me (when it is visible), it has always been a great experience. But then again, I live in Toronto which has a far larger Sikh population than Ottawa. On a weekend a couple years ago a little after 9/11, I stopped at a Tim Horton's on my way back and was told by an Ottawanite (is that what they're called??) to 'go back where i came from', even though I had no Kirpan visible. In any case, I left and came back to Toronto...haha. In essence, all I'm recommending is a more 'holistic' approach. I understand the post-9/11 stresses and I myself have personally faced some weird situations because of it (most visible Sikhs have), but this does not mean we have to propagate this culture of fear and suspect our neighbours at every turn. I could be off my rocker, but that's what I think. P.S. In this day in age, I wouldn't want to be a cabbie at all! With all the gun violence in Toronto, it seems like everybody's packing heat!

Hi Everyone! I'm new here I think the first thing I should clear is that I'm a Kirpan-wearing Sikh, albeit I mostly keep it under my clothes aside from religious functions (just so people don't freak out all the time). I think that link Melanie posted is pretty good for clearing up the 'why Sikhs carry Kirpans' question (thanks Melanie!), but I'd also like to point out that in my experience riding on Via, they never check people for concealed weapons. People could potentially be riding around with firearms in their bags, if so inclined. As a Sikh, I've also ridden the train with my Kirpan (under my clothes) many times. So the question in this case is whether Mr. Singh was discriminated against for wearing it over his clothes, i.e. is Via enforcing an 'anti-weapons' policy, or an 'anti-visibile-weapons' policy? The latter's a disturbing thought. Next, the issue that comes up again and again, is that a Kirpan 'could' be used as a weapon. In that case, baseball bats, skates, hockey sticks, etc. 'could' be used as weapons, and as a matter of fact have been used as such (the Marty Mcsorley incident being an obvious case), while Kirpans have not. Yet we are never afraid of people carrying sporting equipment around. If in this case it was a question about identity and 'who' was carrying the Kirpan, then it would have been simple to ask Balpreet Singh for some sort of ID instead. Though inappropriate, it still would have provided a better alternative to kicking him off (the second time within a month no less!) Regarding the planes/airport situation, there are baggage checks, metal detectors, etc. for everybody in airports. Sikhs are not singled out as in this case with Via. We have reluctantly given up our Kirpans in this one case, but it's still not so simple. We must religiously atone and perform prayers for letting the Kirpan leave our person when we regain it on landing. Many also do not eat while on the plane since they are without their Kirpan. Sikhs consider their Kirpan similar to a limb, and while this may not be fathomable to non-Sikhs (and some 'Sikhs' as well), it is the reality. I don't expect everybody to agree with me, but I just wanted to add another perspective to the discussion. Please feel free to question, comment or outright flame . -P