SCC allows kirpans

[Argus]

What good points were those? I must have missed them among all the racist slurs.

And as far as your comments on culture....I suppose if you lived 100 years ago you'd be banning oriental immigrants and burning crosses to protect your 'canadian ideals' wouldn't you.

Nope, just stopping the public from carrying weapons around in cities.

You really are ignorant if you believe that people like us that are just concerned for children's safety are the same as those found in the KKK.

Politically correct zealots like this make no distinctions. Someone who tells an ethnic joke is in the same category as someone who lynches blacks. And anyone who argues against anything to do with immigrants, ethnics, multiculturalism, or who shows any pride in or defence of Canadian's home-grown culture (which, btw, they'll ridicule at the drop of a hat) is a vicious bigot and must be expelled from Canada.

To them, Canada is a bland, horrible place, and only "colourful" people from "real" cultures make it liveable.

[Argus]

Well then, feel free to post all the Canadian kirpan related injuries/deaths that have occured thusfar. What's that? There are none?

You know, if you read through an entire thread before responding, you might seem just a bit less ignorant.

[Argus]

What good points were those? I must have missed them among all the racist slurs.

And as far as your comments on culture....I suppose if you lived 100 years ago you'd be banning oriental immigrants and burning crosses to protect your 'canadian ideals' wouldn't you.

But don't use it as a facade for racial hatred.

This is nice. Another one who calls anybody who disagrees with them racist.

I really havn't commented on the actual issue. I could care less. I just don't like how people are dealing with the issue. I mostly refer to Argus when I say racist.

I'm crying on the inside. Every time some simpleton calls me names I die a little bit.

He was calling all Sikhs "goat herding terrorists", who if you merely lived by them you were just as bad as the worst bomber for not driving them away. Among other comments.

Didn't say anything of the sort, but I can appreciate and sympathise with your lack of compehension. Sometimes I use long words and I'm sure it's hard for you to speak them aloud while running your finger slowly across the screen with that confused look on your face.

But really, in a debate about freedom of minorities, if one who disagrees with me does so by attempting to abolish all other cultures in Canada, I guess that would make them racist. Funny how that works out sometimes.

Yes, that's our goal, to abolish all cultures. Thank God there's you to defend them.

Incidentally, way to completely ignore all the comments in my post that wasn't an insult.

You had comments other than insults? I didn't notice.

[Argus]

Argus make good points, youon the otherhand lack common sense, this is a debate about the Kirpan not about peoples debating skills.

Canada would have a culture but it is diluted with foreigners coming in telling us what their going to do and when they are going to do it. Soon we will be a country just like these foreigners came from where Canada is divied and we blow eachother to threads.

Foreigners aren't telling YOU how to live their life. On the otherhand, you're telling them how they have to act. They just want to be left alone, to practice their faith and culture as they please, just as you are allowed to practice your faith and cultural heritage as your parents have taught you.

The problem is their "faith and culture" have made their nations places of violence and hatred, which is why they left them. And when they import their faith and culture and insist on living it alongside us, and that faith and culture includes carrying weapons, beating their wives, or practicing genital mutilation, we have the right to say no.

[Argus]

What good points were those? I must have missed them among all the racist slurs.

And as far as your comments on culture....I suppose if you lived 100 years ago you'd be banning oriental immigrants and burning crosses to protect your 'canadian ideals' wouldn't you.

Nope, just stopping the public from carrying weapons around in cities.

You really are ignorant if you believe that people like us that are just concerned for children's safety are the same as those found in the KKK.

How can you possibly be concerned for kids safety when these things have never been used in schools in a violent way by Sikhs? It's slippery slope at its worst. First they're allowed to carry these kirpans in sheath, sewn into a pouch that's sewn into clothing,

First of all, why do you keep saying this? If the thing was sewn in and hidden it would not have caused a problem. This was an eight inch knife which fell out of its sheath on the playground. That's why it came to the notice of the school. Second, there are very, very few ultra-orthodox male Sikhs in schools. No doubt that would relate to there being no incidences of violence that we know of yet. Third, this is a religion noted for religious violence. How do we know when this kid considers his religion under attack? When his turban is knocked off and his religion is mocked and other kids try to snatch his kirpan? That is pretty typical schoolboy bullying. What if someone shows him a cartoon?

[Argus]

Seriously, can you be anymore ridiculous?

You're comparing a religious relic to gangsters who carry weapons to be used specifically for hurting and killing.

Sikh's carry them as a sign of faith and devotion to their religion.

Gangstas carry them to murder people.

bit of a stretch.

Not entirely. Sikhs carry them as a symbol of their readiness to violently resist any attack on their religion. That's why the "relic" is required to be a killing weapon. The one in question was 8 inches long, plenty capable of killing anyone.

The school felt that banning them would send the message that violence is not the way to solve disputes. Not a bad idea, imho. You disagree?

[cybercoma]

Except there's a whole lot more of them per capita. That's why we need to get them to adjust to Canada and get more in tune with our society and culture. Letting them carry around foot long daggers is not the way.

We also missed a great chance to show them they can't act here the way they act at home when we let the Sikh community through pressure brought to bear on Indian politicians in BC, help a Sikh temple elder and his sister get away with having a girl murdered. Perhaps now that there's been a change of government these two scumbags might be dragged out of their temple and into a prison cell.

We can only hope that those scumbags will be punished to the full extent of the law; however, that has nothing to do with whether or not kirpans should be banned.

Has to do with the tolerance for religious fanaticism and cultural violence within the ultra-orthodox Sikh community.

It has to do with sick people committing murder, something that should not be tolerated in our society. But if you can't see the difference between carrying a knife with you and actually murdering someone, I'm sorry.

[cybercoma]

The problem is their "faith and culture" have made their nations places of violence and hatred, which is why they left them. And when they import their faith and culture and insist on living it alongside us, and that faith and culture includes carrying weapons, beating their wives, or practicing genital mutilation, we have the right to say no.

We weren't talking about allowing genital mutilation or allowing the Canadian government to fall into the same sort of corruption that these other countries have had. I can't help but notice you're treading water here and grasping at straws. Did the SCC say assault was legal? Did the SCC say murder would now be legal? You're absolutely right, we're allowed to say no to those things. That's not what they said though, is it? They said Sikh's are allowed to carry their kirpans as long as they're worn under the clothing and not used to break any of the other laws we have. No one, not once has condoned violence, assault or murder. So before you start ripping on other people for reading comprehension problems, maybe you should understand where they're coming from first.

[cybercoma]

Seriously, can you be anymore ridiculous?

You're comparing a religious relic to gangsters who carry weapons to be used specifically for hurting and killing.

Sikh's carry them as a sign of faith and devotion to their religion.

Gangstas carry them to murder people.

bit of a stretch.

Not entirely. Sikhs carry them as a symbol of their readiness to violently resist any attack on their religion. That's why the "relic" is required to be a killing weapon. The one in question was 8 inches long, plenty capable of killing anyone.

The school felt that banning them would send the message that violence is not the way to solve disputes. Not a bad idea, imho. You disagree?

And the Sikh in question has made you look like an imbecile by using our court system to protect his religion, instead of slicing the throat of the school board officials. There isn't anymore of a need to fear these people than there is to fear anyone else.

Should we ban students from bringing knives to cut their food in school? And if we're banning all knives, shouldn't teachers by prohibited from carrying them in their lunchbags as well?

[Argus]

Seriously, can you be anymore ridiculous?

You're comparing a religious relic to gangsters who carry weapons to be used specifically for hurting and killing.

Sikh's carry them as a sign of faith and devotion to their religion.

Gangstas carry them to murder people.

bit of a stretch.

Not entirely. Sikhs carry them as a symbol of their readiness to violently resist any attack on their religion. That's why the "relic" is required to be a killing weapon. The one in question was 8 inches long, plenty capable of killing anyone.

The school felt that banning them would send the message that violence is not the way to solve disputes. Not a bad idea, imho. You disagree?

And the Sikh in question has made you look like an imbecile by using our court system to protect his religion, instead of slicing the throat of the school board officials. There isn't anymore of a need to fear these people than there is to fear anyone else.

Jeez it's so hard trying to explain things to simpletons.

You don't make a law for "1" person. You make a law for all. Now the SC has said "if your religion says you should carry around a weapon anywhere you go, even schools, then you can do so." There is no way of now denying other religions the right to carry weapons - and no way of discriminating between religions. Ie, the people who think the souls of space aliens are inside you, and the suicide cult the Raelians, have every single solitary right that the Sikhs do. And if you think this interpretation is only about schools, you're even dumber than your writing would suggest. Every nut group which calls itself a religion (and which must therefore be recognized as a religion) will now be able to use this decision to justify carrying weapons wherever they go.

As for this particular Sikh, while he hasn't killed anyone - yet - the rule now applies to all Sikhs. Even those who had previously confined themselves to carrying miniatures will now feel free to bring out the foot-long dagger and carry it on them, openly or not, wherever they go. And don't think this decision won't cause them to revisit previous lawsuits over carrying them on aircraft.

And we know that at least a fair number of ultra-Orthodox Sikhs are strong advocates of violence in defence of their religious and political aims.

Should we ban students from bringing knives to cut their food in school? And if we're banning all knives, shouldn't teachers by prohibited from carrying them in their lunchbags as well?

Most schools already ban students from carrying knifes. Most ban sharp scissors as well. Teachers don't eat with students, and one must assume they're less likely to be getting into fights.

[Argus]

The problem is their "faith and culture" have made their nations places of violence and hatred, which is why they left them. And when they import their faith and culture and insist on living it alongside us, and that faith and culture includes carrying weapons, beating their wives, or practicing genital mutilation, we have the right to say no.

We weren't talking about allowing genital mutilation or allowing the Canadian government to fall into the same sort of corruption that these other countries have had.

You said we had to leave them alone to practice their faiths and cultures as they please. Now you're picking and choosing what aspects of their faiths and cultures they should be allowed to practice? Why, you filthy little racist!

[politika]

Argus make good points, youon the otherhand lack common sense, this is a debate about the Kirpan not about peoples debating skills.

Canada would have a culture but it is diluted with foreigners coming in telling us what their going to do and when they are going to do it. Soon we will be a country just like these foreigners came from where Canada is divied and we blow eachother to threads.

Foreigners aren't telling YOU how to live their life. On the otherhand, you're telling them how they have to act. They just want to be left alone, to practice their faith and culture as they please, just as you are allowed to practice your faith and cultural heritage as your parents have taught you.

They want to live their life? The damn sikhs took the Kirpan issue to the higest cout in Canada, they are trying to teel us what to do, and how to run OUR country.

[geoffrey]

I can tell you from an employment perspective, I've got no problem hiring Sikh's. I have problems hiring people with foot long daggers at the interview.

But apparently, that makes me racist to disagree with having weapons at my office.

[Spike22]

The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) is worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or it's tenants. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways it’s religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapon than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.

Sikhism is a 500 year old religion with over 20 million followers worldwide. It is ranked as a major world religion with even more followers than Judaism for example. Guru Nanak (1469-1539) who preached a message of One God for all of humanity founded it. He stressed loving devotion to God and universal principles of morality, truth and honest living and full equality of mankind irrespective of race, caste, creed or sex. Nine successive prophets succeeded Guru Nanak, the line ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708. Sikhism is not a new-age movement, cult or sect, but a well established and respected major world religion with it's own distinctive beliefs and practices.

The Kirpan has been an integral part of the Sikh religion since it's early inception and has a very sacred religious symbolism for Sikhs. To suggest that it is a `dagger', or a `weapon' or merely a cultural symbol is both misleading and offensive to Sikhs.

To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is ment to inspire a Sikh in their daily life;

"To forsake pride, emotional attachment, and the sense of `mine and yours', is the path of the double-edged sword." (Guru Arjan Dev, Devgandhari, pg. 534)

"From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom. I have cut down the fortress of duality and doubt, attachment, greed and egotism. The Name of the Lord abides within my mind; I contemplate the Word of the Guru's hymns." (Guru Ram Das, Maru, pg. 1087)

Guru Gobind Singh introduced the metaphor of the Kirpan to refer to God and his qualities;

"O Sword, O Conqueror of continents, O Vanquisher of the hosts of evil, O Embellisher of the brave in the field of battle. Thy Arms are unbreakable, Thy Light refulgent, Thy Glory and Splendor dazzle like the sun. O Happiness of the holy, O Crusher of evil intent, O Subduer of sin, I seek Thy refuge." (Guru Gobind Singh, Vachitra Natak, Chapter I)

The practice of Sikhs carrying the Kirpan as a religious symbol can be traced back to the lifetime of the sixth Sikh prophet, Guru Hargobind (1595-1644). Guru Hargobind regularly carried two swords, symbolic of a Sikhs spiritual as well as temporal obligations. Guru Hargobind introduced Sikhs to the concept of being a Sant-Sipahi (Saint-Soldier). A Sikh must be a Saint always meditating and remembering God. At the same time a Sikh is also expected to be a soldier, a person taking part in their social responsibilities to their family and community. Following the path of law, order and morality as laid out by the Sikh Gurus.

It was Guru Gobind Singh, the final living Sikh prophet who formally instituted the mandatory requirement for all baptized Sikhs to wear the Kirpan at all times. He instituted the current Sikh baptism ceremony in 1699 which is referred to as the `baptism of the sword' (khanda di pahul). During the ceremony sugar crystals and water are stirred in a steel bowl with a Kirpan before the initiate drinks the mixture. During the baptism ceremony the initiate is instructed in the duties and obligations of becoming a Khalsa (one belonging to the Divine). The Khalsa is expected to live by the high moral standards of the Sikh Gurus at all times which includes such things as abstaining from smoking, drinking and other intoxicants, performing daily prayers and always maintaining the distinctive physical symbols of Sikhism on their person. The most noticeable of these being uncut hair and carrying the Kirpan.

This injunction appears in the Reht Maryada (The Official Sikh Code of Conduct); "Have, on your person, all the time, the five K's: The Keshas (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (sheathed sword), the Kachhehra (drawers like garment), the Kanga (comb), the Karha (steel bracelet)." (Reht Maryada, Ceremony of Baptism or Initiation, Section 6, Chapter XIII, Article XXIV, paragraph (p))

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.

To suggest that the Kirpan is a weapon is both incorrect and misleading. If it was instituted as a weapon, then would Sikhs not be expected to carry guns today? Guns were in common use during the time of Guru Gobind Singh. If the Kirpan was purely a soldiers weapon for Sikhs, than why do they not also carry a shield as well or other armour? Why do modern armies and soldiers carry swords on ceremonial occasions? Because it is symbolic of their military tradition and heritage. In the same way Sikhs carry the Kirpan at all times because it is symbolic of their religious tradition and heritage.

[politika]

The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) is worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or it's tenants. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways it’s religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapon than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.

Sikhism is a 500 year old religion with over 20 million followers worldwide. It is ranked as a major world religion with even more followers than Judaism for example. Guru Nanak (1469-1539) who preached a message of One God for all of humanity founded it. He stressed loving devotion to God and universal principles of morality, truth and honest living and full equality of mankind irrespective of race, caste, creed or sex. Nine successive prophets succeeded Guru Nanak, the line ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708. Sikhism is not a new-age movement, cult or sect, but a well established and respected major world religion with it's own distinctive beliefs and practices.

The Kirpan has been an integral part of the Sikh religion since it's early inception and has a very sacred religious symbolism for Sikhs. To suggest that it is a `dagger', or a `weapon' or merely a cultural symbol is both misleading and offensive to Sikhs.

To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is ment to inspire a Sikh in their daily life;

"To forsake pride, emotional attachment, and the sense of `mine and yours', is the path of the double-edged sword." (Guru Arjan Dev, Devgandhari, pg. 534)

"From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom. I have cut down the fortress of duality and doubt, attachment, greed and egotism. The Name of the Lord abides within my mind; I contemplate the Word of the Guru's hymns." (Guru Ram Das, Maru, pg. 1087)

Guru Gobind Singh introduced the metaphor of the Kirpan to refer to God and his qualities;

"O Sword, O Conqueror of continents, O Vanquisher of the hosts of evil, O Embellisher of the brave in the field of battle. Thy Arms are unbreakable, Thy Light refulgent, Thy Glory and Splendor dazzle like the sun. O Happiness of the holy, O Crusher of evil intent, O Subduer of sin, I seek Thy refuge." (Guru Gobind Singh, Vachitra Natak, Chapter I)

The practice of Sikhs carrying the Kirpan as a religious symbol can be traced back to the lifetime of the sixth Sikh prophet, Guru Hargobind (1595-1644). Guru Hargobind regularly carried two swords, symbolic of a Sikhs spiritual as well as temporal obligations. Guru Hargobind introduced Sikhs to the concept of being a Sant-Sipahi (Saint-Soldier). A Sikh must be a Saint always meditating and remembering God. At the same time a Sikh is also expected to be a soldier, a person taking part in their social responsibilities to their family and community. Following the path of law, order and morality as laid out by the Sikh Gurus.

It was Guru Gobind Singh, the final living Sikh prophet who formally instituted the mandatory requirement for all baptized Sikhs to wear the Kirpan at all times. He instituted the current Sikh baptism ceremony in 1699 which is referred to as the `baptism of the sword' (khanda di pahul). During the ceremony sugar crystals and water are stirred in a steel bowl with a Kirpan before the initiate drinks the mixture. During the baptism ceremony the initiate is instructed in the duties and obligations of becoming a Khalsa (one belonging to the Divine). The Khalsa is expected to live by the high moral standards of the Sikh Gurus at all times which includes such things as abstaining from smoking, drinking and other intoxicants, performing daily prayers and always maintaining the distinctive physical symbols of Sikhism on their person. The most noticeable of these being uncut hair and carrying the Kirpan.

This injunction appears in the Reht Maryada (The Official Sikh Code of Conduct); "Have, on your person, all the time, the five K's: The Keshas (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (sheathed sword), the Kachhehra (drawers like garment), the Kanga (comb), the Karha (steel bracelet)." (Reht Maryada, Ceremony of Baptism or Initiation, Section 6, Chapter XIII, Article XXIV, paragraph (p))

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.

To suggest that the Kirpan is a weapon is both incorrect and misleading. If it was instituted as a weapon, then would Sikhs not be expected to carry guns today? Guns were in common use during the time of Guru Gobind Singh. If the Kirpan was purely a soldiers weapon for Sikhs, than why do they not also carry a shield as well or other armour? Why do modern armies and soldiers carry swords on ceremonial occasions? Because it is symbolic of their military tradition and heritage. In the same way Sikhs carry the Kirpan at all times because it is symbolic of their religious tradition and heritage.

You have to be kidding me :angry: another simpleton that wants to argue the same thing others have debating in this same thread. You posted basicly the same thing that people who want this weapon in school have. So I won't waste my time arguing another simpleton on this so do me a favour and read previous posts by me/argus/geoffry and others.

[Bryan]

My main point is that I am disappointed that the Sikh community could not find an acceptable solution that meets all religious criteria while not offending other Canadians. The choice to take this to the Supreme Court to resolve this through litigation is part of a greater problem in this country. This seems a more American way of accomplishing ones goals than Canadian. As uncomfortable as that sounds to the left, the Sikh community used the Canadian legal system to accomplish something that could just as easily been resolved outside the courts. We are not richer for this decision, just more litigious.

Agreed. The fact that this kid had the gall to challenge his school's decision to the courts is in itself almost more offensive than the Supreme Court's decision itself. How dare he challenge the safety considerations of not just his school, but now all Canadians, just so he can carry his precious dagger around? Somebody needs to teach that punk a lesson about minding his own business instead of making his business everyone else's.

[Spike22]

The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) is worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or it's tenants. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways it’s religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapon than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.

Sikhism is a 500 year old religion with over 20 million followers worldwide. It is ranked as a major world religion with even more followers than Judaism for example. Guru Nanak (1469-1539) who preached a message of One God for all of humanity founded it. He stressed loving devotion to God and universal principles of morality, truth and honest living and full equality of mankind irrespective of race, caste, creed or sex. Nine successive prophets succeeded Guru Nanak, the line ending with Guru Gobind Singh in 1708. Sikhism is not a new-age movement, cult or sect, but a well established and respected major world religion with it's own distinctive beliefs and practices.

The Kirpan has been an integral part of the Sikh religion since it's early inception and has a very sacred religious symbolism for Sikhs. To suggest that it is a `dagger', or a `weapon' or merely a cultural symbol is both misleading and offensive to Sikhs.

To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is ment to inspire a Sikh in their daily life;

"To forsake pride, emotional attachment, and the sense of `mine and yours', is the path of the double-edged sword." (Guru Arjan Dev, Devgandhari, pg. 534)

"From the Guru, I have obtained the supremely powerful sword of spiritual wisdom. I have cut down the fortress of duality and doubt, attachment, greed and egotism. The Name of the Lord abides within my mind; I contemplate the Word of the Guru's hymns." (Guru Ram Das, Maru, pg. 1087)

Guru Gobind Singh introduced the metaphor of the Kirpan to refer to God and his qualities;

"O Sword, O Conqueror of continents, O Vanquisher of the hosts of evil, O Embellisher of the brave in the field of battle. Thy Arms are unbreakable, Thy Light refulgent, Thy Glory and Splendor dazzle like the sun. O Happiness of the holy, O Crusher of evil intent, O Subduer of sin, I seek Thy refuge." (Guru Gobind Singh, Vachitra Natak, Chapter I)

The practice of Sikhs carrying the Kirpan as a religious symbol can be traced back to the lifetime of the sixth Sikh prophet, Guru Hargobind (1595-1644). Guru Hargobind regularly carried two swords, symbolic of a Sikhs spiritual as well as temporal obligations. Guru Hargobind introduced Sikhs to the concept of being a Sant-Sipahi (Saint-Soldier). A Sikh must be a Saint always meditating and remembering God. At the same time a Sikh is also expected to be a soldier, a person taking part in their social responsibilities to their family and community. Following the path of law, order and morality as laid out by the Sikh Gurus.

It was Guru Gobind Singh, the final living Sikh prophet who formally instituted the mandatory requirement for all baptized Sikhs to wear the Kirpan at all times. He instituted the current Sikh baptism ceremony in 1699 which is referred to as the `baptism of the sword' (khanda di pahul). During the ceremony sugar crystals and water are stirred in a steel bowl with a Kirpan before the initiate drinks the mixture. During the baptism ceremony the initiate is instructed in the duties and obligations of becoming a Khalsa (one belonging to the Divine). The Khalsa is expected to live by the high moral standards of the Sikh Gurus at all times which includes such things as abstaining from smoking, drinking and other intoxicants, performing daily prayers and always maintaining the distinctive physical symbols of Sikhism on their person. The most noticeable of these being uncut hair and carrying the Kirpan.

This injunction appears in the Reht Maryada (The Official Sikh Code of Conduct); "Have, on your person, all the time, the five K's: The Keshas (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (sheathed sword), the Kachhehra (drawers like garment), the Kanga (comb), the Karha (steel bracelet)." (Reht Maryada, Ceremony of Baptism or Initiation, Section 6, Chapter XIII, Article XXIV, paragraph (p))

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.

To suggest that the Kirpan is a weapon is both incorrect and misleading. If it was instituted as a weapon, then would Sikhs not be expected to carry guns today? Guns were in common use during the time of Guru Gobind Singh. If the Kirpan was purely a soldiers weapon for Sikhs, than why do they not also carry a shield as well or other armour? Why do modern armies and soldiers carry swords on ceremonial occasions? Because it is symbolic of their military tradition and heritage. In the same way Sikhs carry the Kirpan at all times because it is symbolic of their religious tradition and heritage.

You have to be kidding me :angry: another simpleton that wants to argue the same thing others have debating in this same thread. You posted basicly the same thing that people who want this weapon in school have. So I won't waste my time arguing another simpleton on this so do me a favour and read previous posts by me/argus/geoffry and others.

I do not argue goof. You all are such easy prey. I am simply posting the official message from their religious homepage. Personally I would like to see the "towel turners" have thier pocket knives removed too. Adopt to Canadian way of life or get out is my motto.

[gerryhatrick]

I can tell you from an employment perspective, I've got no problem hiring Sikh's. I have problems hiring people with foot long daggers at the interview.

But apparently, that makes me racist to disagree with having weapons at my office.

I think if you were going to characterize the Kirpan as a dangerous weapon - as you are wont to do - it would make you a small minded bigot.

[Hydraboss]

Gerry, do you ever have anything of value to add or is name-calling your only ability? People can disagree in this country, as it should be. Point-counterpoint is the preferred way of having a discussion. Why don't you make a contribution to this conversation that doesn't begin or end with "bigot".

[geoffrey]

I can tell you from an employment perspective, I've got no problem hiring Sikh's. I have problems hiring people with foot long daggers at the interview.

But apparently, that makes me racist to disagree with having weapons at my office.

I think if you were going to characterize the Kirpan as a dangerous weapon - as you are wont to do - it would make you a small minded bigot.

Well a small minded bigot I must be.

You've never answered the point how a foot long dagger isn't a dangerous weapon in any other situation besides being in the hands of a Sikh. This is definitely discrimination based upon religion. I'm now a second class citizen.

[gerryhatrick]

Gerry, do you ever have anything of value to add or is name-calling your only ability? People can disagree in this country, as it should be. Point-counterpoint is the preferred way of having a discussion. Why don't you make a contribution to this conversation that doesn't begin or end with "bigot".

If people refer to Sikhs as transplanted goat-herders I will call them racists. If you disagree with that, maybe you're a racist also.

Debate and point-counterpoint is fine, but there comes a time when you call a spade a spade.

thanks anyway.

[Spike22]

I can tell you from an employment perspective, I've got no problem hiring Sikh's. I have problems hiring people with foot long daggers at the interview.

But apparently, that makes me racist to disagree with having weapons at my office.

I think if you were going to characterize the Kirpan as a dangerous weapon - as you are wont to do - it would make you a small minded bigot.

Well a small minded bigot I must be.

You've never answered the point how a foot long dagger isn't a dangerous weapon in any other situation besides being in the hands of a Sikh. This is definitely discrimination based upon religion. I'm now a second class citizen.

Yes you are. Did you just discover this? If you are a WASP in T.O. you are in the minority and your rights mean nothing.

[Argus]

Gerry, do you ever have anything of value to add or is name-calling your only ability? People can disagree in this country, as it should be. Point-counterpoint is the preferred way of having a discussion. Why don't you make a contribution to this conversation that doesn't begin or end with "bigot".

If people refer to Sikhs as transplanted goat-herders I will call them racists. If you disagree with that, maybe you're a racist also.

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.

[gerryhatrick]

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.

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.

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. That is bigotry.

Do they need to wear blue jeans and t-shirts to fit into "Canadian culture" in your eyes?

[cybercoma]

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.