SCC allows kirpans

[wellandboy]

I agree Cybercoma 100%, good piece. The digression into racism and bigotry shouldn't have come into this controversy. As I said earlier, the courts demonstrated a lack of wisdom in this ruling.

[Spike22]

You know, the more I think about it the less I agree with the Supreme Court.

They are giving special circumstances to Sikh children to carry a knife, albeit religious, it is afterall a knife which most definitly is a weapon. No one has said they're against the Sikhs wearing kirpan necklaces or carrying dulled replicas. The laws in Canada say that no one is allowed to carry around with them a knife or a dagger, especially not in a schoolyard, regardless of their intent with the thing. It's a weapon and carrying it around under the clothes in a sheath is carrying a concealed weapon.

To accept the Supreme Court ruling would mean to accept that anyone can walk around carrying knives, otherwise, there is no equality before the law. Religious convictions or not, what they are doing is carrying around something that is classified as a weapon. Their intent doesn't matter since the laws don't allow for us to be carrying weapons, whether you agree or disagree with that law is another story.

This is a special circumstance for the Sikhs and it's being masked as a religious issue, when in fact their religion was never attacked with the creation of the law. The law is there to protect people from dangerous people. Each individual Sikh may not necessarily be dangerous, but one of them could be just like anyone else in society. Since no one else is allowed to carry foot long daggers, they would be unable to defend themselves against an attack from someone who is allowed to carry these things.

i guess it comes down to, allow everyone to carry a dagger to school or allow no one to carry a dagger to school. There is no in between and justifying it as a freedom of religion and intolerance is just plain wrong. People are allowed to practice their religions within the scope of the criminal code. Religions are not allowed to offer up human sacrifices, rape women, have sex with animals, etc because those acts are against the law. The act of carrying a dagger is also against the law because it compromises public safety.

Laws are created for the mutual benefit of one another. They may inconvenience us, but in the end we follow them because they make society a better place to live. There are certain unwritten rules which we abide by as part of this "social order". Don't belive me? Try standing backwards in an elevator next time. Or try staring directly in the eyes of everyone you pass on the street. Try playing music in your apartment building or neighbourhood as loud as you can at 3am. Go outside and burn leaves in your backyard. They seem insignificant but culture expects us to act in a certain predictable manner. Once you break those predictable manner you will be met with great resistance from others. We don't do these things because we don't want them done to us.

People don't carry around daggers, or firearms, or any other weapons because we don't want other people to be carrying weapons as well. This alone is not in everyone's best interest since you never know who could be carrying a weapon. But this does benefit society as a whole, so people are expected not to be carrying around daggers. When someone does have one on them, it presents a break from the social norm and as such should be met with resistance. This behaviour is unacceptable since it puts everyone at risk and is only serving to create an "arms race" of sorts within society.

It will only take but a single demonstration at a school to sort this out and make the supreme court realize they're wrong. Students everywhere as of today should begin to carry knives around on them and claim it's in their own interests to be able to defend themselves should a Sikh in their school happen to lose their temper and attack them. Once all these kids are carrying knives, some of them should begin upgrading to firearms with the excuse, "if everyone is carrying knives, I need to be able to protect myself in case one of them attacks me."

A good show of solidarity and enough high school students going to jail would get this point across nicely and hopefully the supreme court would realize the error in their judgement.

A knife is a weapon, a kirpan is a knife, the kirpan is a weapon regardless of the humility in which it is carried. Weapons are banned in our schools, within certain guidelines for knives. If kirpans don't meet those guidelines, they too should be banned from our schools under the criminal code. The point is not whether or not they will be used as weapons, the point is that they ARE weapons and they could be used as weapons. Equality for all means everyone can carry weapons or no one can carry weapons.

The Supreme Court was wrong on this one.

So you are smarter than the supreme court justices? I think all religions rights have to be protected. It is one of the cornerstones of our country that makes us different from other less developed nations.

[Spike22]

You know, the more I think about it the less I agree with the Supreme Court.

They are giving special circumstances to Sikh children to carry a knife, albeit religious, it is afterall a knife which most definitly is a weapon. No one has said they're against the Sikhs wearing kirpan necklaces or carrying dulled replicas. The laws in Canada say that no one is allowed to carry around with them a knife or a dagger, especially not in a schoolyard, regardless of their intent with the thing. It's a weapon and carrying it around under the clothes in a sheath is carrying a concealed weapon.

To accept the Supreme Court ruling would mean to accept that anyone can walk around carrying knives, otherwise, there is no equality before the law. Religious convictions or not, what they are doing is carrying around something that is classified as a weapon. Their intent doesn't matter since the laws don't allow for us to be carrying weapons, whether you agree or disagree with that law is another story.

This is a special circumstance for the Sikhs and it's being masked as a religious issue, when in fact their religion was never attacked with the creation of the law. The law is there to protect people from dangerous people. Each individual Sikh may not necessarily be dangerous, but one of them could be just like anyone else in society. Since no one else is allowed to carry foot long daggers, they would be unable to defend themselves against an attack from someone who is allowed to carry these things.

i guess it comes down to, allow everyone to carry a dagger to school or allow no one to carry a dagger to school. There is no in between and justifying it as a freedom of religion and intolerance is just plain wrong. People are allowed to practice their religions within the scope of the criminal code. Religions are not allowed to offer up human sacrifices, rape women, have sex with animals, etc because those acts are against the law. The act of carrying a dagger is also against the law because it compromises public safety.

Laws are created for the mutual benefit of one another. They may inconvenience us, but in the end we follow them because they make society a better place to live. There are certain unwritten rules which we abide by as part of this "social order". Don't belive me? Try standing backwards in an elevator next time. Or try staring directly in the eyes of everyone you pass on the street. Try playing music in your apartment building or neighbourhood as loud as you can at 3am. Go outside and burn leaves in your backyard. They seem insignificant but culture expects us to act in a certain predictable manner. Once you break those predictable manner you will be met with great resistance from others. We don't do these things because we don't want them done to us.

People don't carry around daggers, or firearms, or any other weapons because we don't want other people to be carrying weapons as well. This alone is not in everyone's best interest since you never know who could be carrying a weapon. But this does benefit society as a whole, so people are expected not to be carrying around daggers. When someone does have one on them, it presents a break from the social norm and as such should be met with resistance. This behaviour is unacceptable since it puts everyone at risk and is only serving to create an "arms race" of sorts within society.

It will only take but a single demonstration at a school to sort this out and make the supreme court realize they're wrong. Students everywhere as of today should begin to carry knives around on them and claim it's in their own interests to be able to defend themselves should a Sikh in their school happen to lose their temper and attack them. Once all these kids are carrying knives, some of them should begin upgrading to firearms with the excuse, "if everyone is carrying knives, I need to be able to protect myself in case one of them attacks me."

A good show of solidarity and enough high school students going to jail would get this point across nicely and hopefully the supreme court would realize the error in their judgement.

A knife is a weapon, a kirpan is a knife, the kirpan is a weapon regardless of the humility in which it is carried. Weapons are banned in our schools, within certain guidelines for knives. If kirpans don't meet those guidelines, they too should be banned from our schools under the criminal code. The point is not whether or not they will be used as weapons, the point is that they ARE weapons and they could be used as weapons. Equality for all means everyone can carry weapons or no one can carry weapons.

The Supreme Court was wrong on this one.

So you are smarter than the supreme court justices? I think all religions rights have to be protected. It is one of the cornerstones of our country that makes us different from other less developed nations.

[Hydraboss]

It's human nature for everyone to think they are smarter than people who make decisions that they don't agree with. Even the Sikh community states that the kirpan is a weapon (religious symbol or not). This is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is whether or not people, due to religious beliefs, have the right to carry these weapons. The debate is whether religious freedoms or law of the land take precidence. If the blades were plastic, this would not even be worthy of a thread. But they are not plastic, they are very real. So it seems to break out this way:

1) religious symbol vs weapon

2) religious right vs public safety

3) specific law for special interest vs law of the land

And so, we choose. Both sides believe utterly in their arguments, and are unlikely to change. For me, the safety of my kids is paramount above ANY religious beliefs or rights or whatever you would like to call them.

[geoffrey]

You know, the more I think about it the less I agree with the Supreme Court.

They are giving special circumstances to Sikh children to carry a knife, albeit religious, it is afterall a knife which most definitly is a weapon. No one has said they're against the Sikhs wearing kirpan necklaces or carrying dulled replicas. The laws in Canada say that no one is allowed to carry around with them a knife or a dagger, especially not in a schoolyard, regardless of their intent with the thing. It's a weapon and carrying it around under the clothes in a sheath is carrying a concealed weapon.

To accept the Supreme Court ruling would mean to accept that anyone can walk around carrying knives, otherwise, there is no equality before the law. Religious convictions or not, what they are doing is carrying around something that is classified as a weapon. Their intent doesn't matter since the laws don't allow for us to be carrying weapons, whether you agree or disagree with that law is another story.

This is a special circumstance for the Sikhs and it's being masked as a religious issue, when in fact their religion was never attacked with the creation of the law. The law is there to protect people from dangerous people. Each individual Sikh may not necessarily be dangerous, but one of them could be just like anyone else in society. Since no one else is allowed to carry foot long daggers, they would be unable to defend themselves against an attack from someone who is allowed to carry these things.

i guess it comes down to, allow everyone to carry a dagger to school or allow no one to carry a dagger to school. There is no in between and justifying it as a freedom of religion and intolerance is just plain wrong. People are allowed to practice their religions within the scope of the criminal code. Religions are not allowed to offer up human sacrifices, rape women, have sex with animals, etc because those acts are against the law. The act of carrying a dagger is also against the law because it compromises public safety.

Laws are created for the mutual benefit of one another. They may inconvenience us, but in the end we follow them because they make society a better place to live. There are certain unwritten rules which we abide by as part of this "social order". Don't belive me? Try standing backwards in an elevator next time. Or try staring directly in the eyes of everyone you pass on the street. Try playing music in your apartment building or neighbourhood as loud as you can at 3am. Go outside and burn leaves in your backyard. They seem insignificant but culture expects us to act in a certain predictable manner. Once you break those predictable manner you will be met with great resistance from others. We don't do these things because we don't want them done to us.

People don't carry around daggers, or firearms, or any other weapons because we don't want other people to be carrying weapons as well. This alone is not in everyone's best interest since you never know who could be carrying a weapon. But this does benefit society as a whole, so people are expected not to be carrying around daggers. When someone does have one on them, it presents a break from the social norm and as such should be met with resistance. This behaviour is unacceptable since it puts everyone at risk and is only serving to create an "arms race" of sorts within society.

It will only take but a single demonstration at a school to sort this out and make the supreme court realize they're wrong. Students everywhere as of today should begin to carry knives around on them and claim it's in their own interests to be able to defend themselves should a Sikh in their school happen to lose their temper and attack them. Once all these kids are carrying knives, some of them should begin upgrading to firearms with the excuse, "if everyone is carrying knives, I need to be able to protect myself in case one of them attacks me."

A good show of solidarity and enough high school students going to jail would get this point across nicely and hopefully the supreme court would realize the error in their judgement.

A knife is a weapon, a kirpan is a knife, the kirpan is a weapon regardless of the humility in which it is carried. Weapons are banned in our schools, within certain guidelines for knives. If kirpans don't meet those guidelines, they too should be banned from our schools under the criminal code. The point is not whether or not they will be used as weapons, the point is that they ARE weapons and they could be used as weapons. Equality for all means everyone can carry weapons or no one can carry weapons.

The Supreme Court was wrong on this one.

Well said Cyber, glad to see you've come to that conclusion based on the facts of the matter.

[cybercoma]

So you are smarter than the supreme court justices? I think all religions rights have to be protected. It is one of the cornerstones of our country that makes us different from other less developed nations.

there is no such thing as complete freedom of religion, they have to fall within the framework of the criminal code. religions cannot advocate murder, rape, incest, bestiality, pedophilia, assault, etc. because they break the law. carrying a kirpan or anything remotely similar to a kirpan is illegal for everyone in canada, not just the Sikhs. they're not being unfair or inconsistent by not allowing them in schools. no child is allowed to carry weapons in school, nor should they be able to.

[cybercoma]

It's human nature for everyone to think they are smarter than people who make decisions that they don't agree with. Even the Sikh community states that the kirpan is a weapon (religious symbol or not). This is not in dispute. What IS in dispute is whether or not people, due to religious beliefs, have the right to carry these weapons. The debate is whether religious freedoms or law of the land take precidence. If the blades were plastic, this would not even be worthy of a thread. But they are not plastic, they are very real. So it seems to break out this way:

1) religious symbol vs weapon

2) religious right vs public safety

3) specific law for special interest vs law of the land

And so, we choose. Both sides believe utterly in their arguments, and are unlikely to change. For me, the safety of my kids is paramount above ANY religious beliefs or rights or whatever you would like to call them.

And for those taking the otherside of the coin, it is not necessarily the sikhs who could take advantage of these weapons. It is also for the sikhs safety as well.

Say some kid gets into a fight with a sikh, for whatever reason (insert emotional plea saying some kids think they're funny looking with their turbans and uncut hair, etc....blah blah blah) and the sikh drops the dagger and that other kid is just mad enough and unreasonable enough to use it.

It's completely irresponsible to let anyone carry a dangerous weapon on their person.

[Argus]

I have some respect for people of religious belief, but the more fanatic that belief and their behaviour the less respect I have. So no, I have little respect for ultra-orthodox anyone, especially if they insist on wearing wierd costumes everywhere they go.

Nor do I have a lot of respect for people who casually use the word "racism" without even knowing what the term means.

Oh yes, racism doesn't work if you're bashing a religion. I know all about it.

But when someone starts generalizing another group as being "goat herders" then they're reached beyond the religion alone. Thus, racism.

Ah, but again, you're using an extremely simplistic definition you made up yourself, and it bears no relation to the real world. I can rather contemptuously dismiss third world riff-raff as goat herders all I want, and it would have nothing to do with racism. It's merely a cultural judgement.

You don't respect orthodox behaviours in any religion. I highly suspect you're reserving such judgement for only certain religions, and have found yourself an out here.

I don't need an out, and your suspicions, given how intellectually berift your writings have been thus far, are of little concern to me, or, I suspect, anyone else here.

But then who you respect means nothing. You're too stupid to even realize that Sikh dress is clothing. Quite practical, and quite stylish, not "wierd costumes" at all.

Perhaps not weird in goat herder country. No doubt, grass skirts have their practical nature, too, in some places. But what passes for standard apparal here in the twenty first century is somewhat different, and by any logical or reasonable assessment wandering around with a big turban and robe, with a big knife at your side, is pretty goddam weird for this society. But then, you can't bring yourself to judge such things, can you? All people are equal and that sort of thing (except those whose politics you dislike, of course)

You see, this is why you keep going wrong. None of your posts and none of your arguments contain logic or judgement. They are little more than shrill, emotional rants and accusations based on nothing more than an adolescent sulk at people having different opinions than yours. They make no sense and they convince no one. They just make you look childish.

[gerryhatrick]

Ah, but again, you're using an extremely simplistic definition you made up yourself, and it bears no relation to the real world. I can rather contemptuously dismiss third world riff-raff as goat herders all I want, and it would have nothing to do with racism. It's merely a cultural judgement.

You display racism and deny it in the same breath!

Truely amazing.

When you learn to respect all people...even if they wear a turban or different clothes or don't speak English very well, THEN you will have joined the rest of us. Until then, you're racist "riff-raff".

[geoffrey]

Ah, but again, you're using an extremely simplistic definition you made up yourself, and it bears no relation to the real world. I can rather contemptuously dismiss third world riff-raff as goat herders all I want, and it would have nothing to do with racism. It's merely a cultural judgement.

You display racism and deny it in the same breath!

Truely amazing.

When you learn to respect all people...even if they wear a turban or different clothes or don't speak English very well, THEN you will have joined the rest of us. Until then, you're racist "riff-raff".

Respect and bending over for them are two different things Gerry. I respect their right to exist, I don't respect anyone 'right' to carry a weapon in a peaceful land.

The law must be equal to all before it, and its not in this case. That is not a democratic principle.

[GostHacked]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...hats060307.html

Just more retardedness really. No hard hat? No entry. Allowing them to wear the turbans might be fine if they waive all rights to sue on the job site for not wearing the regulated saftey equipment meant to keed your head in one piece. Now if they can prove the turban does just that.. then we might be ok.

This is not discrimination, this is about job saftey #1. You all can read the sign 'HARD HATS AND SAFTEY GEAR REQUIRED FOR ENRTY TO THE FACILITY'

This is not hard to understand.

[geoffrey]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...hats060307.html

Just more retardedness really. No hard hat? No entry. Allowing them to wear the turbans might be fine if they waive all rights to sue on the job site for not wearing the regulated saftey equipment meant to keed your head in one piece. Now if they can prove the turban does just that.. then we might be ok.

This is not discrimination, this is about job saftey #1. You all can read the sign 'HARD HATS AND SAFTEY GEAR REQUIRED FOR ENRTY TO THE FACILITY'

This is not hard to understand.

See this is the problem. They claim this is discrimination. What would be discrimination is allowing this to happen, giving one group higher status than another based on religion. That would be crap.

They should all be fired like any employee that refuses to abide by safety regulations.

[Argus]

Ah, but again, you're using an extremely simplistic definition you made up yourself, and it bears no relation to the real world. I can rather contemptuously dismiss third world riff-raff as goat herders all I want, and it would have nothing to do with racism. It's merely a cultural judgement.

You display racism and deny it in the same breath!

Truely amazing.

That's okay. You display idiocy and arrogance at the same time.

When you learn to respect all people...even if they wear a turban or different clothes or don't speak English very well, THEN you will have joined the rest of us. Until then, you're racist "riff-raff".

Who's "the rest of us"? Your on-line doom-playing group?

You see, I never subscribed to that idiotic lefitst "all people are equal" nonsense. It's very hard for me to be tolerant of fools at the best of times (surely YOU can see that) but even harder when they're religious wackos who think God tells them to do things.

I know I am more sophisticated than some illiterate savage whose culture is still in its witch burning phase.. I can see, however, where someone like you would find it much easier to judge all people as being at leat your equal.

Although, in fact, I think you're being unjustifiably confident in that.

[Hydraboss]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...hats060307.html

Just more retardedness really. No hard hat? No entry. Allowing them to wear the turbans might be fine if they waive all rights to sue on the job site for not wearing the regulated saftey equipment meant to keed your head in one piece. Now if they can prove the turban does just that.. then we might be ok.

This is not discrimination, this is about job saftey #1. You all can read the sign 'HARD HATS AND SAFTEY GEAR REQUIRED FOR ENRTY TO THE FACILITY'

This is not hard to understand.

See this is the problem. They claim this is discrimination. What would be discrimination is allowing this to happen, giving one group higher status than another based on religion. That would be crap.

They should all be fired like any employee that refuses to abide by safety regulations.

Been there. Done that. Don't suggest you try it. I was the Director of Health, Safety and Environment for one of the companies that tried to take that route. Good luck...let me know how it turns out for ya.

The CHRC decision made damn sure that I can't enforce the OHS laws that I am required to enforce. Figure that one out. I (the company) must make substantial changes to our operation (even if it shuts us down) to allow for turbans to be worn, or it's discrimination.

Want a good one? The company I am now Director for received an OHS Order (bad!!!) for not following the section of the Code that mandates that I "must ensure that workers wear the personal protective equipment that is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of those workers". Wanna guess why?

The workers weren't wearing hardhats.

Welcome to Canada. Would you like to change our laws or have any special priviledges?

[Drea]

You see, I never subscribed to that idiotic lefitst "all people are equal" nonsense. It's very hard for me to be tolerant of fools at the best of times (surely YOU can see that) but even harder when they're religious wackos who think God tells them to do things.

George Bush is on record saying God told him to invade Iraq. What a religious wacko.

[uOttawaMan]

You see, I never subscribed to that idiotic lefitst "all people are equal" nonsense. It's very hard for me to be tolerant of fools at the best of times (surely YOU can see that) but even harder when they're religious wackos who think God tells them to do things.

George Bush is on record saying God told him to invade Iraq. What a religious wacko.

God told me to start a religion in which I wear a blackjack on my hip. I better get protection by the courts.

[cybercoma]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...hats060307.html

Just more retardedness really. No hard hat? No entry. Allowing them to wear the turbans might be fine if they waive all rights to sue on the job site for not wearing the regulated saftey equipment meant to keed your head in one piece. Now if they can prove the turban does just that.. then we might be ok.

This is not discrimination, this is about job saftey #1. You all can read the sign 'HARD HATS AND SAFTEY GEAR REQUIRED FOR ENRTY TO THE FACILITY'

This is not hard to understand.

See this is the problem. They claim this is discrimination. What would be discrimination is allowing this to happen, giving one group higher status than another based on religion. That would be crap.

They should all be fired like any employee that refuses to abide by safety regulations.

Been there. Done that. Don't suggest you try it. I was the Director of Health, Safety and Environment for one of the companies that tried to take that route. Good luck...let me know how it turns out for ya.

The CHRC decision made damn sure that I can't enforce the OHS laws that I am required to enforce. Figure that one out. I (the company) must make substantial changes to our operation (even if it shuts us down) to allow for turbans to be worn, or it's discrimination.

Want a good one? The company I am now Director for received an OHS Order (bad!!!) for not following the section of the Code that mandates that I "must ensure that workers wear the personal protective equipment that is deemed necessary to ensure the safety of those workers". Wanna guess why?

The workers weren't wearing hardhats.

Welcome to Canada. Would you like to change our laws or have any special priviledges?

I thought there was a ruling made on the hard hat thing already. The Sikhs lost because hard hats are there for their safety and are a requirement for the job.

[Hydraboss]

Occupational Health and Safety (Workplace Health and Safety) in Alberta does not acknowledge the CHRC decision officially. They see their rules (laws, actually) as paramount in the province (for any issues that fall under their jurisdictional responsibility).

The Alberta Human Rights Commission (and therefore CHRC) in Alberta does not acknowledge anyone's rules (laws, remember?) as being paramount over their commission rulings.

If you fail to abide by either, you and your company can and will be cited (fined, charged, etc depending on severity) for failure to comply with an Order.

For those that may not believe this, please call 310-0000 in Alberta and ask for either department.

And yes, my workers that want to wear turbans have the RIGHT to do it. And I have the RIGHT to receive an OHS Citation Order for it.

Anyone want to guess how many turban-wearing new hires I have? I'm not telling.

[Argus]

You see, I never subscribed to that idiotic lefitst "all people are equal" nonsense. It's very hard for me to be tolerant of fools at the best of times (surely YOU can see that) but even harder when they're religious wackos who think God tells them to do things.

George Bush is on record saying God told him to invade Iraq. What a religious wacko.

George Bush is not a religious wacko. He simply plays to the religious right. It's not clear to me he is particularly religious at all.

[Argus]

You see, I never subscribed to that idiotic lefitst "all people are equal" nonsense. It's very hard for me to be tolerant of fools at the best of times (surely YOU can see that) but even harder when they're religious wackos who think God tells them to do things.

George Bush is on record saying God told him to invade Iraq. What a religious wacko.

God told me to start a religion in which I wear a blackjack on my hip. I better get protection by the courts.

I do snide much better than you. I suggest you find another schtick.

[Concerned]

If little kids in school haven't been allowed previously to carry them, then you'd think there would have been violence.

Apparently kids have been carrying them to school since that is why the school went to the trouble of forbidding it.

And Geoff, you (and others on this forum) have avoided the key question:

Does anyone have any evidence of any incident from any school anywhere in which a kirpan was used to injure someone or threaten someone?

Without such evidence, and as a purely practical question, the Supreme Court's decision seems perfectly justified.

Ya, but do you have to prove that you are a Sikh to carry one of these things ? Any kid could carry one if a Sikh could carry one....I don't think you can discriminate.

Dangerous equipment does not belong in school, nor do any religious symbols in my mind. Its ok to dress the way you wish but carrying knives, crosses, any type of symbolism is unnecessary in the schools. We have to be just as respectful of those people that believe that weapons are a symbol of violence as those who believe it is a symbol of a religion. Just keep the symbolism out of schools altogether.

[cybercoma]

Occupational Health and Safety (Workplace Health and Safety) in Alberta does not acknowledge the CHRC decision officially. They see their rules (laws, actually) as paramount in the province (for any issues that fall under their jurisdictional responsibility).

The Alberta Human Rights Commission (and therefore CHRC) in Alberta does not acknowledge anyone's rules (laws, remember?) as being paramount over their commission rulings.

If you fail to abide by either, you and your company can and will be cited (fined, charged, etc depending on severity) for failure to comply with an Order.

For those that may not believe this, please call 310-0000 in Alberta and ask for either department.

And yes, my workers that want to wear turbans have the RIGHT to do it. And I have the RIGHT to receive an OHS Citation Order for it.

Anyone want to guess how many turban-wearing new hires I have? I'm not telling.

After demanding that they wear safety helmets and sending them home when they don't comply, can't you just not pay up your fines/charges to the CHRC? Won't they take you to court, in which case you can challenge their idiotic rulings?

[cybercoma]

Ya, but do you have to prove that you are a Sikh to carry one of these things ? Any kid could carry one if a Sikh could carry one....I don't think you can discriminate.

Dangerous equipment does not belong in school, nor do any religious symbols in my mind. Its ok to dress the way you wish but carrying knives, crosses, any type of symbolism is unnecessary in the schools. We have to be just as respectful of those people that believe that weapons are a symbol of violence as those who believe it is a symbol of a religion. Just keep the symbolism out of schools altogether.

Banning any and all religious symbolism is a bit ridiculous.

The problem here is that a kirpan is a knife, knives are considered weapons and weapons are not allowed to be carried in schools -- or anywhere else for that matter -- by ANYONE. There is no discrimination here, it is a matter of criminal law and religions do not have the freedom to violate the criminal code.

[August1991]

Banning any and all religious symbolism is a bit ridiculous.

Peter the Great would disagree:

Peter's visits to the West impressed upon him the notion that European customs were in several respects superior to Russian traditions. He commanded all of his courtiers and officials to cut off their long beards and wear European clothing. Boyars who sought to retain their beards were required to pay an annual tax of one hundred rubles.

Wikipedia

[cybercoma]

Banning any and all religious symbolism is a bit ridiculous.

Peter the Great would disagree:

Peter's visits to the West impressed upon him the notion that European customs were in several respects superior to Russian traditions. He commanded all of his courtiers and officials to cut off their long beards and wear European clothing. Boyars who sought to retain their beards were required to pay an annual tax of one hundred rubles.

Wikipedia

maybe we could return to the times of public executions too....wouldn't that be "fun?"