Cult Leader Sparks 'Sikh' Riots

[cybercoma]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article2565124.ece

One person was killed and more than 50 were injured after tens of thousands of angry Sikhs, many armed with their ceremonial kirpan daggers, went on the rampage across Punjab and the neighbouring state of Haryana.

These are the "ceremonial" daggers allowed in Canadian schools. Is our Supreme Court wrong?

[Figleaf]

Damn straight they were wrong. And so was special permission to let Sikhs (or anyone) not wear the proper police uniforms.

Neither religious nor ethnic traditions should be permitted to override the essential rules that the rest of us live by.

[geoffrey]

Canada still has a serious militant Sikh problem... does anyone really think they all just were so appeased by their brethren's attack against Canadians on Air India that they'd stop?

CSIS and the like need to really keep looking at these guys, I will venture a guess that out of all religiously motivated movements, Sikh's pose the greatest threat to our saftey. Far more than the Islamic extremists (which are also a threat, don't get me wrong).

Islam, at it's heart, it's not nearly as violent as a religion that openly encourages violence at all levels.

Remember that even the most socialist of the Liberals, Ujjal Dosanjh has repeated warned of the dangers of his own community. He's been physically nearly beaten to death, had his offices firebombed and is/was constantly threatened for his outspoken criticism of Sikh leadership and violence.

Pretty frightening. How quickly we forget. Allowing people that are sworn to use violence whenever it seems appropriate should not be carrying daggers in schools.

[Riverwind]

These are the "ceremonial" daggers allowed in Canadian schools. Is our Supreme Court wrong?

The SCC allowed the daggers because there was zero evidence that a real risk existed. The SCC did uphold the ban on airplanes because there was a real risk. That would change if a Sikh kids started to use the dagger as a weapon. Any school could ban them after such as incident without running afoul of the supreme court ruling because they would have real evidence that the daggers were a risk. Until then the SCC has said that a hypothetical risk is not enough to justify a ban.

[geoffrey]

A consistant history of religious violence and religion inspired by a warrior culture is significant risk enough. It's a dagger! Why is it less dangerous in the hands of a Sihk than a Catholic or Jew?

Ridiculous! The SCC was wrong on this one, this goes so far past reasonable accomodation.

[Riverwind]

A consistant history of religious violence and religion inspired by a warrior culture is significant risk enough.

The school board could not find one example where a Sikh student tried to use the dagger as a weapon in Canada. That is what the SCC looked at. Intention is everything. A non-Sikh student would only carry a dagger if they intended to use it as a weapon - that intent makes it dangerous. Sihk students would not have that intent.

[geoffrey]

A consistant history of religious violence and religion inspired by a warrior culture is significant risk enough.

The school board could not find one example where a Sikh student tried to use the dagger as a weapon in Canada. That is what the SCC looked at. Intention is everything. A non-Sikh student would only carry a dagger if they intended to use it as a weapon - that intent makes it dangerous. Sihk students would not have that intent.

I sure that I can't find an example of when a Rastafarian used a flamethrower either.

Sihk's are sworn to use their dagger in times when they see it's justfied. For it to be a religious symbol, it must be lethal (that's why plastic or blunted ones aren't used instead).

[Peter F]

Sihk's are sworn to use their dagger in times when they see it's justfied. For it to be a religious symbol, it must be lethal (that's why plastic or blunted ones aren't used instead).

And yet, with (as you say) every reason to knife other students with thier Kirpans, it has never happened.

The SCC deals with realities, not fantasy.

[geoffrey]

The reality is that being of one religion gives you rights far above what is afforded to non-members of that religion, ie. carry a weapon at school.

That is fundamentally wrong. No one should be getting additional rights and privledges based on their religion.

Are daggers banned in our schools? Good. Then they should be banned in our schools. There is no right to carry a dagger in the Charter so I think these Sihks should have been SOL.

[Figleaf]

These are the "ceremonial" daggers allowed in Canadian schools. Is our Supreme Court wrong?

The SCC allowed the daggers because there was zero evidence that a real risk existed.

If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one?

It seems like the SCC convinced themselves that Sikhs are less violence-prone than other people. I wonder what evidence was provided to support that notion?

The reality is that being of one religion gives you rights far above what is afforded to non-members of that religion, ie. carry a weapon at school.

That is fundamentally wrong. No one should be getting additional rights and privledges based on their religion.

Are daggers banned in our schools? Good. Then they should be banned in our schools. There is no right to carry a dagger in the Charter so I think these Sihks should have been SOL.

100% right on, Geoffrey!

[Riverwind]

If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one?

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to). Anyone other than a Sikh would only carry a dagger because they intended to use it for violence.

[Peter F]

Figleaf:

Neither religious nor ethnic traditions should be permitted to override the essential rules that the rest of us live by.

But the essential rules that the rest of us live by are not religious and/or ethic traditions? Or did we just make them up?

[betsy]

The school board could not find one example where a Sikh student tried to use the dagger as a weapon in Canada. That is what the SCC looked at. Intention is everything. A non-Sikh student would only carry a dagger if they intended to use it as a weapon - that intent makes it dangerous. Sihk students would not have that intent.

Neither could the school board find one example of a gun being fired in school until the first kid was killed.

It's unlikely that a gun-killing would occur without intent since the kid has deliberately sneaked it into school.

If a kid with a dagger strapped to his side decides that he is somehow being insulted or otherwise offended, he won't have to deliberately go looking for a weapon, he'll have it handy. There may not be legal intent rendering him a murderer, but there will be a dead kid nonetheless.

Would you rather your kid got killed by a murderer or a man-slaughterer?

Intent, phoooey.

We know the agenda of the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would we think they'd do the right thing anyway?

[betsy]

If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one?

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to). Anyone other than a Sikh would only carry a dagger because they intended to use it for violence.

What if a religion required its members to carry marijuana? Should they be allowed to carry it in school?

Or, do you think there might be some danger that these kids might peddle that drug to other kids?

[Riverwind]

What if a religion required its members to carry marijuana? Should they be allowed to carry it in school?

Carrying a dagger/knife is not an illegal act.

[betsy]

What if a religion required its members to carry marijuana? Should they be allowed to carry it in school?

Carrying a dagger/knife is not an illegal act.

It is, in schools. And on planes. And if it's concealed and I think, over 4 inches long, everywhere.

[cybercoma]

If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one?

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to). Anyone other than a Sikh would only carry a dagger because they intended to use it for violence.

What makes having faith in something a legitimate reason? We don't scrutinize something because it's a matter of belief in the supernatural?

I believe there are vampires out to kill me, but not the ones that can be killed with a wood stake, ones that can only be killed with high-powered rifles that carry more than 6 rounds. Should I be allowed to carry around a high-powered rifle because of my faith in these vampires?

Can Sikhs prove the existence of a God and that their religion is correct, therefore making it necessary to carry a dangerous weapon?

The weapons haven't been used in Canadian schools, however, this article clearly shows that Sikhs are not opposed to using them to injure and murder people when they think their supernatural beliefs have been offended.

[cybercoma]

But the essential rules that the rest of us live by are not religious and/or ethic traditions? Or did we just make them up?

Do you live a "good" or "moral" life simply because some religious leader told you to? If you were never taught about religion, could you bring yourself to rape, murder or abuse someone? Most people wouldn't and those that would, sure hell aren't going to have their minds changed by some ancient book and a group of old dudes telling them what's right and wrong.

[Figleaf]

If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one?

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to).

Their reason is not non-violent. It is an edict based on the principle that their religion requires them to be ready for violence.

Anyone other than a Sikh would only carry a dagger because they intended to use it for violence.

Or to defend themselves against violence (like the Sikh religion specifies).

Or to slice an apple.

[Figleaf]

Figleaf:

Neither religious nor ethnic traditions should be permitted to override the essential rules that the rest of us live by.

But the essential rules that the rest of us live by are not religious and/or ethic traditions? Or did we just make them up?

Our laws are not merely arbitrary traditions, particularly in the last 100 years.

We have a system of laws designed to deliver efficiency, predictability and objective fairness.

[Peter F]

cybercoma:

The weapons haven't been used in Canadian schools, however, this article clearly shows that Sikhs are not opposed to using them to injure and murder people when they think their supernatural beliefs have been offended

Actually the article doesn't clearly show that at all. The article says:

One person was killed and more than 50 were injured after tens of thousands of angry Sikhs, many armed with their ceremonial kirpan daggers, went on the rampage across Punjab and the neighbouring state of Haryana

So at least 20,000 Kirpan wielding Sikhs managed to kill 1 and injure 50-60. Sorta makes a Kirpan (even the long ones) kind of useless don't you think?

Cybercoma:

Do you live a "good" or "moral" life simply because some religious leader told you to? If you were never taught about religion, could you bring yourself to rape, murder or abuse someone? Most people wouldn't and those that would, sure hell aren't going to have their minds changed by some ancient book and a group of old dudes telling them what's right and wrong.

Nope. Personally religion don't mean squat to me. On the other hand, I usually do pay attention to old dudes telling me whats right and wrong...sometimes even old dudes long dead and speaking through ancient books.

Anyways, its evident that my point was not made. Figleaf may have understood what I was getting at.

Figleaf:

Our laws are not merely arbitrary traditions, particularly in the last 100 years.

We have a system of laws designed to deliver efficiency, predictability and objective fairness

.

I also like to think so. In fact, that very same system of laws efficiently, objectivley and fairly determined that it was ok for Sikhs to wear Kirpans in school.

...and no ones been knifed with one yet.

[Figleaf]

Our laws are not merely arbitrary traditions, particularly in the last 100 years.

We have a system of laws designed to deliver efficiency, predictability and objective fairness

.

I also like to think so. In fact, that very same system of laws efficiently, objectivley and fairly determined that it was ok for Sikhs to wear Kirpans in school.

I don't see where the fairness is, and accordingly the objectivity is questionable. Efficiency, perhaps.

...and no ones been knifed with one yet.

All it will take is once, to prove your position wrong.

[Sindhu]

As a Sikh who has grown up with racism in Canada, I can't say I'm surprised to read what I have on this thread.

I'd like to address many of the things posted on this thread that are just plain wrong.

The original post has a link and that link (if you bothered to read it) is about a cult leader who himself `Gurmit Ram Rahim Insaan` (Ram =Hindu,Rahim=Muslim,Insaan=human) who 'imitated' and 'mocked' the Gurus (like prophets) of Sikhism. That's like somoene claiming to be Muhhamed, Jesus, Buddha, etc. That is what provoked the violence in the Punjab region of India where Sikhs are from. Secondly, the swords that a are used are not the exact same as kirpans carried by baptized Sikhs. Those are full sized swords meant to be used for one purpose and people are legitimately pissed off in Punjab. The highest spirtual and temporal authority on Sikhism, the 'Akal Takht' issued a religious edict ordering the destruction of all the places where this `insaan` guy has followers and for him to be summoned before them to explain himself by May 27, 2007. He is operating out of another state called Haryana which is next to Punjab and has few Sikhs. The Haryana and Punjab governments so far have been offering him protection. That deadline of May 27 passed and he gave a half-hearted apology. The Akal Takht is still deciding what to do next. There been daily clashes between Sikhs (followers of the world's 5th largest religion) and these cult members for weeks. To put things into perspective, violence like this has not been seen in that region since around 1984 when all hell broke loose and Sikhism's holiest shrine was desecrated by the Indian Army with tanks. That's what likely prompted the 1985 Air India bombing. Right now there is a period of calm but it has the potential to turn into something worse.

Kirpans are much smaller and have a cover. They are not 'daggers' as many have incorrectly said so. Baptized Sikhs carry kirpans which are a religious symbol (just as the cross is for Christians). It is obviously different then a cross. It is one of 5 symbols that all Baptized Sikhs have to carry with them at all times. Its purpose is to be used as a last resort anytime the person carrying it sees a wrong being committed or is attacked then the are justified to use it in self-defense as a last resort when all other peaceful means have failed. Baptized Sikhs (not all Sikhs are Baptized) take an oath and try to live a more spirtual life then the majority of Sikhs are who are not baptized.

Someone mentioned about Sikhs being a threat to Canada. A few rogue elements set out to bomb a plane in 1985 (still unproven by the way) and all of a sudden all Sikhs are terrorists? Get real. The biggest act in history of terror is still 9-11 and that was by Muslims. IRA and PLO have been terrorists with more attacks over the years as well.

There have been between 5-7 different MPs in Parliament from Paul Martin's time to now who are Sikh. Ujjal Dosanjh is a former BC Premier and former Federal Health Minister. Wally Oppal, the Solicitor General of BC (and former BC Supreme Court Judge) is a Sikh. You may not have noticed us but we are human just like you. We have good and bad just like you.

The turban in the RCMP is here to stay. It is not about changing anyone's uniform. It was all about being inclusive and letting others practice their religious beliefs fully. If Whites can to keep their culture and didn't have to change to fit into the culture of the Natives then why can't the Sikhs keep their culture, religion and traditions? It is in the law of this land that this country is officially bilingual and officially multi-cultural. That Charter of Rights and freedoms further protects those rights.

Last but not least, if anyone doesn't believe that racism isn't here and isn't real well look up the 'Kamagata Maru' incident. Canada's immigration laws at that time were denying entry to people into Canada solely based on skin colour. The law was that only whites could come in. Also, if you get the chance talk to famous environmentalist David Sazuki and ask him how he felt when during WW2 him and his family (he was a child) were stripped of their property and jailed for being of japanese descent. Sikhs have been in Canada over 100+ years but have had the right to vote only about 40 years or so.

[BC_chick]

If daggers posed no risks, then why wouldn't every student be allowed to carry one?

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to). Anyone other than a Sikh would only carry a dagger because they intended to use it for violence.

Doesn't matter - the law clearly states that a blade carried in public bigger than six-inches is illegal, no matter what the person's intention is with the weapon. I've always believed the same argument as Figleaf - respecting religions is a grand and noble notion, but so long as it doesn't override our laws. We don't allow Muslim men to marry four women or Rastas to smoke pot, why should Sikhs carry daggers?

[BC_chick]

Sindu, please leave racism out of this, there is nothing racist about asking for people to abide by Canadian law while in Canada. No, I'm not white, and yes, I would say the same thing about anyone of my own ethnicity who puts former traditions above the law of our new country. The more we ask for special treatment and cry racism when people object, the more racism we bring on to ourselves. This is not to say that some people, many of whom frequent this board on a daily basis, don't like us no matter what we do. But try to look at things objectively - how much respect do you have for someone of another culture who wants special treatment in Canada and cries racism when people don't want to grant it? Now apply the same idea to being a Sikh.