SCC allows kirpans

[seabee]

I wonder:

If a child who belongs to no organised religion, nor his parents, were to wear a kirpan to school because it is his families belief he must carry a symbol that he will protect his security if attacked by somebody who wears a kirpan for religious reasons, and if this child were forbidden to do so, could he make a court case that he is discriminated against for not belonging to an organised religion?

Just wondering.

[geoffrey]

I wonder:

If a child who belongs to no organised religion, nor his parents, were to wear a kirpan to school because it is his families belief he must carry a symbol that he will protect his security if attacked by somebody who wears a kirpan for religious reasons, and if this child were forbidden to do so, could he make a court case that he is discriminated against for not belonging to an organised religion?

Just wondering.

Thats true. If they can wear a kirpan, its discrimination against other religions or agnostics to bar them from wearing one.

So every kid should be legally entitled to wear a kirpan.

[August1991]

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

I am curious what devout Sikhs do when they board a plane? I assume that airport secuirty doesn't give a damn about their religious sensitivities.

Good question. Presumably they can hand it over to the cabin crew for safe-keeping until arrival at destination.

OTOH, it's the symbolism that matters - like a wedding ring or a crucifix or star of David necklace. So, hasn't someone invented plastic kirpans, or miniature kirpans?

That is to say, this is all about "face". The Western world has been successful because it takes a pragmatic view of such questions.

[August1991]

Here is a case.

Apparently there is a "travel kirpan". Small, and blunt.

I note the following:

This is demonstrated by the experience of Air Canada. In twenty years, Air Canada has never had an incident involving the violent use of a kirpan.

[justcrowing]

http://tinyurl.com/fj8u8

Professor McLeod's testimony was consistent with that of Dr. Pashaura Singh. Dr. Singh is himself an Amrit-dhari Sikh, one who has held positions of considerable responsibility within the Sikh community, and who is clearly a devout adherent to the Sikh faith. Dr. Singh was called by the respondent to testify with respect to his own practices relating to the wearing of the kirpan. Dr. Singh testified that when he flies, he will wear a miniature kirpan of approximately 1 ½ inches in length attached to his kanga or comb, as some airlines do not permit kirpans the size of Mr. Nijjar's travel kirpan to be carried on board. In Dr. Singh's view, wearing a miniature kirpan is sufficient to discharge his religious obligations, and is a practice followed by many devout Amrit-dhari Sikh.

In a complaint by a Sikh against a Canadian Airline, the ruling was ....

"

Conclusion re Prima Facie Case

While the fact that Mr. Nijjar filed and pursued his complaint for several years certainly suggests that he has strong feelings about what transpired, ultimately we must decide the case on the basis of the evidence before us. In this regard we cannot conclude on the basis of that evidence, and in particular, on the basis of Mr. Nijjar's testimony, that the respondent's policy had a differential impact on Mr. Nijjar based upon his religion. As a consequence, we find that the complainant and the Commission have failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the complaint is dismissed.

Other Kirpan Policies

There is no standard within the airline industry with respect to kirpans on aircraft. We have earlier described Transport Canada's position with respect to the four inch rule and the application of that approach by Air Canada and Canadian Airlines. It appears that Air India and Pakistani International Airlines specifically prohibit kirpans on board their airplanes. British Airways, US Air and American Airlines have policies prohibiting any bladed items on board, which policies are interpreted to include kirpans.

The court policy makes no exception for kirpans as they have the potential to inflict damage, notwithstanding their religious nature.

violent incidents regarding kirpans

Evidence was led by the respondent with respect to a number of incidents where it appears that kirpans were indeed used as offensive weapons, including evidence with respect to the hijacking of two aircraft in the mid-1980's. In addition, testimony was given by Cpl. McConnell, who was the file co-ordinator with respect to a major disturbance at the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Surrey, British Columbia, on January 11, 1997. The disturbance evidently arose as a result of a disagreement between two factions in the congregation with respect to an issue of religious doctrine. Cpl. McConnell was present at the scene and described what occurred there. In addition, he provided two videotapes of the disturbance.

[Bryan]

Whether they have been used as a weapon or not is irrelevant. They CAN be, and have no place in schools. Even if the person wearing the Kirpan would never use it, some other kid might take it from them and use it.

Here is a case where I definitely think the Prime Minister SHOULD use the not-withstanding clause to overturn this ridiculous decision.

[geoffrey]

Whether they have been used as a weapon or not is irrelevant. They CAN be, and have no place in schools. Even if the person wearing the Kirpan would never use it, some other kid might take it from them and use it.

Here is a case where I definitely think the Prime Minister SHOULD use the not-withstanding clause to overturn this ridiculous decision.

Too dangerous, the Liberals would have a ticket to the minority population next election.

Elections aside, we should just treat everyone equally and ban all religious items and symbols from school.

[Argus]

can someone please direct us to a link where a kirpan has been used in any other manner than a ceremonial one? you guys are going off the deep end on this one... no, you are.

You have to remember that there are only about 25,000 orthodox Sikhs in Canada, half of which are women, and presumably, many more children. So you're talking a very small base of bizzare folks who insist on carrying their ceremonial daggers around.

However, in India, Sikhs have indeed used their kirpans as weapons. That is documented.

PS, Global TV did a mini poll and found 95% of respondants against allowing kirpans in schools.

[Hydraboss]

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.

To the best of my limited knowledge, no incident has ever been recorded of anyone in Canada being threatened or attacked with a Howitzer 108mm either, but I sure as hell can't tow one around in public, much less a school.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR LAWS, LEAVE!

Call me a racist, or a bigot, or an idiot if you prefer. MY KIDS SAFETY COMES BEFORE YOUR KIDS RELIGIOUS RIGHTS. End of story.

[cybercoma]

Has this country gone bananas?

The Surpreme Court of Canada overturned a Quebec court of Appeals has overturned a decision that had barred a teenager from wearing a dagger known as a kirpan to school.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

A kirpan is a ceremonial dagger and is a symbol of POWER and FREEDOM OF SPIRIT.

A Sikh may use it in SELF-DEFENSE or to protect a person in need. Some Sikhs choose to learn the art of GATKA. This is a martial art devised by the Sikh Gurus that uses a circular movement to effectively SWING a SWORD.

This does not sound like a religious ornament to me and I would choose not to have my children continually exposed to a potentially violent weapon.

Looking armed does not sit well with me.

What's your take?

Has anyone ever been attacked with a Kirpan?

[geoffrey]

Has this country gone bananas?

The Surpreme Court of Canada overturned a Quebec court of Appeals has overturned a decision that had barred a teenager from wearing a dagger known as a kirpan to school.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

A kirpan is a ceremonial dagger and is a symbol of POWER and FREEDOM OF SPIRIT.

A Sikh may use it in SELF-DEFENSE or to protect a person in need. Some Sikhs choose to learn the art of GATKA. This is a martial art devised by the Sikh Gurus that uses a circular movement to effectively SWING a SWORD.

This does not sound like a religious ornament to me and I would choose not to have my children continually exposed to a potentially violent weapon.

Looking armed does not sit well with me.

What's your take?

Has anyone ever been attacked with a Kirpan?

Yes, not in a school though. It's a self-defense weapon used to defend yourself or a person in need.

It's like saying a rapier hasn't been used in an attack in school so I should be allow to carry one if my religion suggests it. Complete rubish.

Public safety is a greater priority.

I honestly wouldn't have a child of mine in a class with a kid that carries a weapons openly.

It's a slippery slope to say religion justifies carrying weapons.

[politika]

And if it was a religious handgun, then what? Would it still be allowed? Quit this bullshit right now! The SCC should stop being idiots, and overturn their own decision. These are CANADIAN schools, with CANADIAN kids (ethnic background is unimportant). OUR laws should reflect the needs for protection of the majority, not a miniscule percentage of the population that thinks they are head and shoulders more important. You come to this country, you follow the laws. OUR laws take precidence over OTHER laws. Not the other way around. You are welcome to your beliefs, and you will not be persecuted for them in any way. But you do not have the right to endanger my kids, no matter what your religion says. Period.

I am so sick of this crap.

Amen

I absolutly agree with you, we should tell them to go back to their own country when they pull this crap. When you rin the RCMP you where a traditional unifrom with a traditional hat not a turbin, you dont like it don't join, its that simple.

[sage]

Have any of you people actually read the Supreme Court's decision on this? I'll go out on a limb and suggest you haven't, which means that the majority of you are obtaining your information from the media.

The difficulty is this: the Supreme Court did not say it is okay to bring kirpan's to school. It said you cannot ban them wholly, without even trying to accomodate the religion. This is a fundamental distinction.

I first heard of this case on the CBC, in advance of the ruling. While I listened, I too was struck by the stupidity of the idea that someone should bring a knife to school. I then read the Supreme Court's decision with this in mind.

I had envisioned someone either wearing a sheath with a kirpan in it, or wearing it on their belt, etc. The fact of the matter is that the school placed the following restrictions on this kid bringing it to school (taken from the SCC's judgment):

-- that the kirpan be worn under his clothes;

— that the kirpan be carried in a sheath made of wood, not metal, to prevent it from causing injury;

— that the kirpan be placed in its sheath and wrapped and sewn securely in a sturdy cloth envelope, and that this envelope be sewn to the guthra;

— that school personnel be authorized to verify, in a reasonable fashion, that these conditions were being complied with;

— that the petitioner be required to keep the kirpan in his possession at all times, and that its disappearance be reported to school authorities immediately; and

— that in the event of a failure to comply with the terms of the judgment, the petitioner would definitively lose the right to wear his kirpan at school.

Now I am not that familiar with Sikh clothing, but it sounds to me like this thing is in a wooden sheath, then sewn in a cloth bag that is again sewn to some clothing (I'm assuming a "guthra" is some type of clothing).

The point in all of this is to recognize that you have to try to accomodate the individual, which I believe the school did (it was the school board which would not sign off on the proposal).

Ultimately if we take the rationale you people are expounding then, as the SCC says:

"The application of a standard of absolute safety could result in the installation of metal detectors in schools, the prohibition of all potentially dangerous objects (such as scissors, compasses, baseball bats and table knives in the cafeteria)."

Anyone want to rethink their previous posts?

[politika]

Have any of you people actually read the Supreme Court's decision on this? I'll go out on a limb and suggest you haven't, which means that the majority of you are obtaining your information from the media.

The difficulty is this: the Supreme Court did not say it is okay to bring kirpan's to school. It said you cannot ban them wholly, without even trying to accomodate the religion. This is a fundamental distinction.

I first heard of this case on the CBC, in advance of the ruling. While I listened, I too was struck by the stupidity of the idea that someone should bring a knife to school. I then read the Supreme Court's decision with this in mind.

I had envisioned someone either wearing a sheath with a kirpan in it, or wearing it on their belt, etc. The fact of the matter is that the school placed the following restrictions on this kid bringing it to school (taken from the SCC's judgment):

-- that the kirpan be worn under his clothes;

— that the kirpan be carried in a sheath made of wood, not metal, to prevent it from causing injury;

— that the kirpan be placed in its sheath and wrapped and sewn securely in a sturdy cloth envelope, and that this envelope be sewn to the guthra;

— that school personnel be authorized to verify, in a reasonable fashion, that these conditions were being complied with;

— that the petitioner be required to keep the kirpan in his possession at all times, and that its disappearance be reported to school authorities immediately; and

— that in the event of a failure to comply with the terms of the judgment, the petitioner would definitively lose the right to wear his kirpan at school.

Now I am not that familiar with Sikh clothing, but it sounds to me like this thing is in a wooden sheath, then sewn in a cloth bag that is again sewn to some clothing (I'm assuming a "guthra" is some type of clothing).

The point in all of this is to recognize that you have to try to accomodate the individual, which I believe the school did (it was the school board which would not sign off on the proposal).

Ultimately if we take the rationale you people are expounding then, as the SCC says:

"The application of a standard of absolute safety could result in the installation of metal detectors in schools, the prohibition of all potentially dangerous objects (such as scissors, compasses, baseball bats and table knives in the cafeteria)."

Anyone want to rethink their previous posts?

No I wont rethink it. The point is he gets to carry it and whoes going to stop him if he kills some one with it? He will lose his right to carry it of course but does it need to result in the death of an inocent bystander for the courts to wake up and smell the coffee?

[Bryan]

Here is a case where I definitely think the Prime Minister SHOULD use the not-withstanding clause to overturn this ridiculous decision.

Too dangerous, the Liberals would have a ticket to the minority population next election.

Elections aside, we should just treat everyone equally and ban all religious items and symbols from school.

I disagree. I think Harper could make some serious political hay by pointing out that if the Liberals had their way, the not-withstanding clause would have been eliminated, and the Prime Minister would no longer have the ability to protect school kids from this outrageous decision. People would be thanking their lucky stars that the Liberals didn't get in. The polls I've seen show 95-99% of respondants are opposed to the Supreme Court's decision. That means a LOT of Liberal voters are not happy with this, and would probably welcome some way to reverse it.

[wellandboy]

Unless we start a Kirpan Registry..........?

[geoffrey]

Unless we start a Kirpan Registry..........?

Now your thinking!

[Leafless]

cybercoma

You wrote- " Has anyone ever been attacked with a kirpan?"

Be my guest --Search the tens of thousands of knive related attacks from the files of various police forces to see if any can be identified as a kirpan.

I am sure it has ...As the old saying goes 'anything you can think of has already been done many times before.'

[cybercoma]

Has this country gone bananas?

The Surpreme Court of Canada overturned a Quebec court of Appeals has overturned a decision that had barred a teenager from wearing a dagger known as a kirpan to school.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

A kirpan is a ceremonial dagger and is a symbol of POWER and FREEDOM OF SPIRIT.

A Sikh may use it in SELF-DEFENSE or to protect a person in need. Some Sikhs choose to learn the art of GATKA. This is a martial art devised by the Sikh Gurus that uses a circular movement to effectively SWING a SWORD.

This does not sound like a religious ornament to me and I would choose not to have my children continually exposed to a potentially violent weapon.

Looking armed does not sit well with me.

What's your take?

Has anyone ever been attacked with a Kirpan?

Yes, not in a school though. It's a self-defense weapon used to defend yourself or a person in need.

It's like saying a rapier hasn't been used in an attack in school so I should be allow to carry one if my religion suggests it. Complete rubish.

Public safety is a greater priority.

I honestly wouldn't have a child of mine in a class with a kid that carries a weapons openly.

It's a slippery slope to say religion justifies carrying weapons.

Excuse me, but has the religious relic of a Kirpan ever been used in an assault case?

I find it incredibly insulting that it would even be implied that they'd use it as a weapon, it's nothing more than a religious symbol...and I imagine it would be incredibly sacreligious for them to actually use the item to commit murder or assault.

[cybercoma]

Here is a case where I definitely think the Prime Minister SHOULD use the not-withstanding clause to overturn this ridiculous decision.

Too dangerous, the Liberals would have a ticket to the minority population next election.

Elections aside, we should just treat everyone equally and ban all religious items and symbols from school.

I disagree. I think Harper could make some serious political hay by pointing out that if the Liberals had their way, the not-withstanding clause would have been eliminated, and the Prime Minister would no longer have the ability to protect school kids from this outrageous decision. People would be thanking their lucky stars that the Liberals didn't get in. The polls I've seen show 95-99% of respondants are opposed to the Supreme Court's decision. That means a LOT of Liberal voters are not happy with this, and would probably welcome some way to reverse it.

What's outrageous is the idea that Sikh's would be attacking other students with something they carry as a religious symbol. Whoever came up with the idea that this was something of "public safety" should be looked-down upon for trying to persecute people for the religion they practice. We're not talking about allowing assault and murder, we're allowing someone to carry a religious relic. Why not ban rosaries while we're at it, because you could probably strangle someone with one of those...or dig their eyes out with the crucifix.

Just because they're carrying the Kirpan does not mean they're going to be murdering school children.

[Hydraboss]

"Ultimately if we take the rationale you people are expounding then, as the SCC says:

"The application of a standard of absolute safety could result in the installation of metal detectors in schools, the prohibition of all potentially dangerous objects (such as scissors, compasses, baseball bats and table knives in the cafeteria)."

Anyone want to rethink their previous posts?"

A kirpan is a knife. A weapon. And knives HAVE been used to attack many people in schools. There should be no distinction between what TYPE of knife it is...it's a knife designed for assault (offensive or defensive).

Baseball bats are bats. Not knives. Table knives in the cafeteria? What are they going to do? Spread you to death?

And cyber, you wrote,

"I find it incredibly insulting that it would even be implied that they'd use it as a weapon, it's nothing more than a religious symbol...and I imagine it would be incredibly sacreligious for them to actually use the item to commit murder or assault"

Read about kirpan's. They are currently being used, so they're not relics. They ARE designed for assault. It absolutely would NOT be sacreligious for a person to assault someone with it.

This whole issue is completely ridiculous. The SCC said it is okay for children to carry weapons in school. I guess my only hope is to tell my kid's school to update his record to reflect his new religion...and arm my son. And my daughter...why the hell not...they can't stop me now, can they?

Do you think my kids will be disciplined and told to turn in the weapons? Let me think.........they're white so the school may not buy the whole "I'm a Sikh now" argument. Do you think the SCC will hear their cases? Not freakin likely.

[sage]

If you ban these Kirpan's where does it end?

Please explain one difference between a scalpel used in a science biology class and a kirpan. Both are knives, both are even sharp (likely the scalpel is sharper then the kirpan). Holy shit, the scalpel is even purposely manufactured to cut flesh.

I am outraged, why haven't scalpel's been banned before!!!!!!

[geoffrey]

This whole issue is completely ridiculous. The SCC said it is okay for children to carry weapons in school. I guess my only hope is to tell my kid's school to update his record to reflect his new religion...and arm my son. And my daughter...why the hell not...they can't stop me now, can they?

Do you think my kids will be disciplined and told to turn in the weapons? Let me think.........they're white so the school may not buy the whole "I'm a Sikh now" argument. Do you think the SCC will hear their cases? Not freakin likely.

The SCC doesn't hear complaints from 'majority' people, you should know that by now.

Your point is absolutely correct though. I simply would have my kids stay away from Sikh's from now on if I were a parent, they are a threat to public safety.

[Hydraboss]

If you ban these Kirpan's where does it end?

Please explain one difference between a scalpel used in a science biology class and a kirpan. Both are knives, both are even sharp (likely the scalpel is sharper then the kirpan). Holy shit, the scalpel is even purposely manufactured to cut flesh.

I am outraged, why haven't scalpel's been banned before!!!!!!

School kids are not allowed to carry scalpels because......THEY COULD BE USED AS A WEAPON! Scalpels are locked up in the bio labs, where they should be.

Thanks for supporting my arguement.

[cybercoma]

We don't simply ban anything that could potentially be used as a weapon. The jump in logic here is that someone who carries a kirpan will use it to assault another student. We have laws against that, what we shouldn't have laws for is prohibiting people from practicing their religion. And by practicing their religion, I don't mean murdering people or assaulting them with knives....something I don't imagine any Sikh has EVER done in Canada.