VIA Rail tough on kirpan's

[Leafless]

University of Ottawa law student Balpreet Singh according to local media was taken off a train twice in a month after someone complained he had a weapon.

Navdeep Bains an Ontario Sikh and MP for Mississauga plans to raise the incident with VIA Rail executives and board of directors.

VIA has a policy that the company prohibits all kinds of weapons from it's trains that includes according to a VIA spokesperson "collectables, antiques and those of ceremonial nature."

I personally see nothing wrong with the banning of this individual even if this is part of his religion to carry a ceremonial sword.

I can understand a lot of people might find this intimidating and how does anyone know for sure if this is not a real sword and if this is VIA's policy concerning weapons on their trains and who could possibly argue against against whay most people would assume is a fair law concerning the general safety of it's passengers.

Also I personally have a problem with an individual who is hidden by a full beard in loose fittng robes as far as I.D. is concerned. I think federal authorities should re-think it's policy pertaining to freedom of religion as it applies to how far it extends out onto the streets of Canada.

[newbie]

It seems to me a lot of these issues were raised and challenged back in the Mulroney years: turbans, ceremonial knives in school, etc. I think I have to agree re the knife on the train. I think we can accomodate religion only so far. In a related scenerio, a Sikh was told he couldn't work in a coal mine near my residence because of his turban. It didn't take him long to take it off and put on a hard hat.

[Melanie_]

http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm

Just a bit of background reading, for those who want to see both sides of this issue...

[newbie]

Thanks for that Melanie. I guess some of us are a little jittery post 911. Having said that, I still might not feel comfortable next to anyone shielding a knife or sword.

[kimmy]

For the sake of argument... the website argues that the kirpan is not a weapon. However, nobody would argue that nail-clippers or sewing scissors are weapons either... but they still confiscate these before you board an airplane. Whether or not the kirpan is intended for use as a weapon, it could certainly be employed as such.

-k

[PSingh]

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

[PocketRocket]

To PSINGH: Welcome aboard. You make some good points.

But in this quote from MELANIE's link......

The Reht Maryada does not specify the length of the Kirpan or how it is to be worn by the devotee. Kirpans can be anywhere from 3 foot swords carried by Sikhs on religious festivals, marriages and parades, to a few inches in length. They can either be worn over ones clothing or under the clothing. The Kirpan is usually kept sheathed except when it is withdrawn from it's casing on such occasions as consecration of the ceremonial sweet pudding distributed during religious ceremonies.

......it is made evident that any Sikh could well do exactly what you do; wear a small ceremonial sword ("a few inches in length" is acceptable, as per MEL's link) beneath his outer garb.

I don't know about anyone else, but I would be a bit disturbed if I was on a train, and someone boarded, and stood beside me wearing some huge knife strapped to their waist.

Additionally, as someone else pointed out, post 9/11, and especially in light of recent terror attacks all over the world, I can see officials of Via, or any other major transit/travel company being concerned when individuals appear bearing fearsome-looking weapons.

Hell, in this day and age, if I was a cab-driver, I wouldn't let anyone in my taxi if he/she appeared to be carrying a weapon.

[PSingh]

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!

[Black Dog]

This may seem like a stupid question, but: are kirpans sharp?

[PSingh]

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.

[Argus]

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. 

It is a fairly Canadian policy, in that it is on paper but not really strongly enforced.

Given what happened in Spain I think we should do more to check for weapons and explosives of people getting onto trains. But our government has little or no interest in security.

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,

That's not really a valid argument. The kirpan IS a weapon. It is a knife. And when it's as large as the one this gentleman was carrying, so visible, it obviously would cause concern among fellow travellers. Particularly as what little is publicly known of Sikhs in Canada, or rather, very religious Sikhs such as him, involves violence.

[BHS]

I have thought, since September 12 2001, that the ban on potential weapons on airline flights, replacing metal cutlery with plastic, etc., etc., is a ridiculous response to the terrorist attacks. The attacks were successful because the passengers on board those flights were following the 1970's terrorism hostage roll, to remain calm, put up no fight, let the terrorists make their demands, and everything will turn out fine. No one thinks that way any more. I mean really, if there were a jet flying across the continent and four guys tried to take 280 people hostage with boxcutters they wouldn't make it three sentences past "Nobody move! We're taking this plane hostage!" before their heads were ripped off by the enraged mob. You couldn't take a plane hostage with an UZI. (Not that Islamic terrorists would carry Israeli weaponry, but you get my drift.)

If a Sikh is allowed to carry a ceremonial weapon on his person walking down the sidewalk, he should be allowed to carry it on a plane or train. And give grandma back her nailclippers, for Christ's sake.

[PocketRocket]

Hi PocketRocket, thanks for your comments!

And thank you for your courteous response.

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 didn't see the picture, or the paper.

As for the fairness of the treatment he received, I think in a case like this, "Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder.

Consider this; how many people who have responded to this thread had no idea whatsoever about the necessity of wearing a Kirpan???

I consider myself fairly well-informed, and yet I had no idea that the Kirpan is necessary to the Sikh dress-code.

Consider also that most people on the street (or the train) are considerably less informed than the majority of people on this website, and what you have is a mild recipe for panic.

I honestly don't think discrimination was involved, although I may well be wrong.

I simply think it was a case of authority (or authorities) being worried about what damage may be caused by the presence of the "weapon".

After all, when you consider the aforementioned ignorance regarding the Kirpan, then the vast majority of people would not perceive a religious "ornament", but rather they would "see" a great, whacking sword.

Like I said in my previous thread, that would certainly cause me some concern.

But I thank you for the education in this regard. In future it may come in handy in keeping me from running in panic

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.

I agree that this would seem the reasonable approach, but keep in mind too, that in larger cities, the tendency is for people to mind their own business and not ask questions of strangers around them.

This tendency would certainly be exacerbated by the presence of a huge blade hanging from the waist of the person whom you want to question.

Combine all this with the "unshorn beard and hair", which would certainly lend to a sinister appearance (sorry, I call 'em as I see 'em), and I can definitely see why the majority of people would be hesitant to question the sword-bearer.

I certainly would be, I'm sorry to say. Although, as stated earlier, now that I've been somewhat educated in this regard, I'll see them in a different light in the future.

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.

Hah!!!! You should have looked the guy in the eye, put on your best eastern accent, and said "Toronto???, okay".

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.

As stated earlier, education is part of the problem, on both sides.

Most people are unaware of the significance of the Kirpan.

Some people who carry Kirpans do not take this into account, and so do not expect people to be worried in the presence of larger, visible blades.

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I don't live in Toronto, and I don't drive cab.

Here in Sudbury, if I had no other choice, I wouldn't mind.

After all, dignity comes not from what you do, but from how well you endeavour to do it.

Thank you for what I've learned here. Not many Kirpan-wearing Sikhs in Sudbury, but next time I see one, I'll certainly be better prepared.

[PSingh]

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

[theloniusfleabag]

Dera PSingh,

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'..... It can be used as such, but it has never been, nor is it for that purpose.

Boxcutters are for cutting boxes, but 19 guys ruined it for everyone. If it were 'First Nations peoples' carrying daggers as ceremonial objects, I am sure that they would have their freedoms curtailed too.

Nail clippers? I am sure everyone has heard this one..."Did you hear about the old woman that had her knitting needles confiscated on a recent flight? They thought she might try to knit an 'Afghan"...

Seriously, though, not many followers of Guru Nanak are militant, and Sikhism is an inclusive, rather than exclusive or 'dominance-minded' religion, as far as I have seen. I have met a few Sikhs, almost all of them really nice people (and good Canadians!) but the few can always ruin it for the majority.

[Argus]

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'.

Picture of Kirpan

And if I call a cat a dog it still won't stop it from climbing trees. Whatever the name, it remains what it is. When I was younger I routinely carried a hunting knife. I never thought of it as a weapon. It was more of a handy tool, especially as I spent a lot of time along the river and in the woods. One day I wore it into town and into the Parliament buildings. Those were less scary days than these, but the guard who noticed it still led me back to the front desk and I had to check the knife there until I returned.

If you read through the literature (judicial and otherwise), you will realize the courts have also recognized the difference.

I'm sorry, but I have an enormously cynical view of the intelligence level of judges. Again, let the courts tell me my cat is a dog if they please. That does not change the nature of the beast.

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.

Sure it is. Maintaining public order is one of the principal duties of government. There is an old saying that free speech, which most of us value highly, ends when it comes to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. This is a recognition that even our most basic of freedoms can be curtailed in the interest of public order and safety.

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. 

True, but if you'd been sitting there with a 9mm hand gun under your shirt you'd have been left alone, too. The instant it was spotted, however, you'd be seen as a security risk and the authorities would have felt obliged to do something about you.

So I'm not sure what your point is.

There is also the slippery slope argument. Suppose some other religion somewhere claims that they must carry, oh, I don't know, an axe wherever they go, or a sword, or a gun. Do we recognize that, too? No? Why not? We can't give one religion permission to carry what is a weapon by any other name and not another religion. It's the same as the Rastafarians and marighuana. This is claimed to be an element of their religion, and they even cite biblical quotes to back it up. No dice. It's still illegal. If it weren't, then too many people would claim to be Rastafarians just to use it legally.

[RB]

Are women also carrying these Kirpan?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

It seems that 'all followers' can wear it, though I'll bet not all of them do. Incidentally, from the Sikh homepage,

A free community kitchen can be found at every Gurdwara which serves meals to all people of all faiths. Guru Nanak first started this institution which outline the basic Sikh principles of service, humility and equality.

I was invited to one of these community meals by a friend. I didn't get the chance to go, but next time I see him, I'll be sure to ask about it. I love food, especially Asian. (Except for that horrid Russian 'boiled chicken'. )

[PSingh]

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

[rbacon]

I think Canadians have been way to lenient with immigrants when it comes to our culture. Immigration is not a right. It is simple for those who don't like it in Canada return to your homeland. I see the kirpan as a knife. It is nothing more or less. And they have been used by some as a weapon. You are not being entirely truthful. They should not be allowed in schools either. That is an assinine idea. This argument is no different than Moslems demanding that they be issued drivers licenses without a photograph of their face. A drivers license is a priveledge not a right. You have a choice blend in or go home.

[PSingh]

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

I think Canadians have been way to lenient with immigrants when it comes to our culture. Immigration is not a right. It is simple for those who don't like it in Canada return to your homeland. I see the kirpan as a knife. It is nothing more or less. And they have been used by some as a weapon. You are not being entirely truthful. They should not be allowed in schools either. That is an assinine idea. This argument is no different than Moslems demanding that they be issued drivers licenses without a photograph of their face. A drivers license is a priveledge not a right. You have a choice blend in or go home.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[PocketRocket]

Hi again, PSINGH:

I think the basic problem here is perception.

You perceive the Kirpan as an ornamental, religious item.

Unfortunately, this icon comes in the form of a knife.

TomAYto, TomAHto????

Perhaps. But my tendency on this is to agree with others who have said "it is a knife".

After all, that's what it is.

Take a long blade, attach a handle, and what do you have??? Right, a knife.

Now, as to the uses of that knife, different story altogether.

A small jacknife, with a 2" blade, would hardly be considered a threat by most, but it could be used to kill.

A Kirpan such as the one in the link provided by ARGUS, is quite fearsome-looking, and could easily alarm people.

Not to mention that if used a weapon, could be very effective.

But for the perception argument, then ARGUS is absolutely right, calling a cat a dog does not cause the cat to bark.

Now if the religious icon were a teddy bear, there would be no such perception problem.

After all, not too many people have been held up with a teddy bear.

The difference is that if you put a Kirpan in the hands of a non-Sikh, it's simply a knife, and a rather nasty-looking one, at that.

The teddy bear, on the other hand, remains a teddy bear, no matter who is holding it.

So, this makes educating people all the more important.

Now in the incident being discussed, Balpreet Singh was removed from a train twice, but it does not say by whom.

Presumably VIA rail authorities, as the thread opener states that it was a result of VIA policy regarding "weapons".

Now you have also mentioned that many (most???) police have been educated regarding the Kirpan's significance.

It's probably safe to assume that the average VIA employee has NOT been educated in the same manner.

After all, consider how many people have no idea at all about Kirpans. I was among their number until participating in this thread.

Perhaps the solution to this particular problem is to simply petition VIA rail to educate their staff regarding the Kirpan and its role in sikhism (is that a word???).

[RB]

Well the law holds that a knife is not prima facie an offensive weapon – but you can’t carry around a knife with you.

Discarding the original use of Kirpan for now. Even though the Kirpan is currently not designed to be used as a weapon, the general perception and look of the Kirpan puts the public in a defensive mode. It looks and smells like trouble.

And welcome to what is real and current - there is a current real war on terror. The public is on major alert for box cutters and any weapon relatives simply because is poses imminent threats to safety of masses of people.

I mean if are contending that this Kirpan is hidden for starters how come people are seeing it.

Also, I wanted to ask if the Kirpan was accidentally dropped and someone is hurt who takes responsibility? You understand about public panic and outrage.

Also, I wanted to find out if you have the statistics available for the number of incidences that Kirpan was used e.g. drawn to defend, uphold law, dignity and morality

Then, would you personally draw your Kirpan under any circumstances.

I think that general prohibition of Kirpan is justified and common sense. Kirpan is already not allowed on planes (but you don’t complain) greyhound coaches, via based on your info, and some schools. On the flip side when the argument becomes religion, logic hath gone awry

I mean can I buy a small gun which I can carry in my purse, have all my millions of fellow Christian followers in sync and decide I don’t really intend to use guns as a weapon, for me a gun symbolizes freedom and liberty of humanity. I make this announcement even though I clearly know guns are weapons

Here is what I dislike about this issue that my taxpayers dollars will be used to educated Canadians on Kirpan and teach them to be nice, tolerant and understand people are different, that you also must be smart enough to make some distinction between what you perceive as "terror" and "terror", plus be accommodating of their whims and fancies.

[Leafless]

RB

You wrote- "That you must also must be smart enough to make some distinction between what you perceive as "terror and terror", plus be accommodating of their whims and fancies."

This is where the "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" fails or becomes a fallacy in allowing certain Rights to overide common sense laws built for the safety or well being of society.

It is the same in another sense with federal official bilingualism has to why is there such a high percentage of francophones dominating the federal civil service and bilingual positons when Quebec's population is only around 22%.

Bilingual positons should not exceed the percentage of what Quebec's population represents out of Canada's total popualtion and therefore can be seen as discriminating against the majority English language in Canada.

[Melanie_]

In another thread we talked about whether or not homosexuals should raise children, and some argued that the public's perceptions and bigotry toward homosexuals would be a good reason to deny them children. Others argued that people shouldn't be punished for someone else's ignorance and bigotry. I see this as being fundamentally the same. Should Sikhs be denied their freedom of religion to carry a kirpan because the general public is unaware of the tenets of Sikhism, and perceives the kirpan to be a threat? I've never heard of an incident of a kirpan being used as a weapon. It seems there is an easy solution to this, though; dull flat short blades fulfill the requirements of wearing a kirpan just as well as the long sharp blades do. Compromise on both sides.