NationStates Jolt Archive

This should open up an interesting debate. A kirpan is a small dagger that a sikh male has to wear. It is one among the 5 things that a male always has to have with him (the unshorn hair, the dagger, the comb, the underwear, bracelet). More info on that here (http://allaboutsikhs.com/basics/sikhsymbols.htm)

Seems like Canada banned the practice of Sikh kids brining dagger to schools and have now allowed it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm
Canada backs Sikh dagger rights

Canadian Sikhs should be allowed to wear small daggers central to their faith when they go to school, the country's Supreme Court has ruled.

In an 8-0 judgement, the court reversed the ruling of a Montreal school board, which banned Gurbaj Singh Multani from wearing his dagger, known as a kirpan.

The kirpan is deemed sacred by Sikhs as a symbol of power and truth.

School authorities banned the kirpan in 2001 after an objection by a parent concerned about pupil security.

Announcing the judgement, the Supreme Court said that a total ban on kirpans violated the country's Charter of Rights.

The charter guarantees total religious freedom within Canada.

Safety debate

"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron wrote in the judgement.

"If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is... at the very foundation of our democracy." The government of Quebec had backed the Montreal school board, which imposed the ban.

Parents campaigning for tighter restrictions on weapons in school were dismayed by the ruling.

"My first reaction as a parent is a feeling of insecurity," Claude Bouchard of the Quebec Federation of Parents' Committees, told Reuters news agency.

"As a parent, is the life and safety of a child more important than religious freedom? I think so."

Old tradition

The ruling did allow some restrictions to be imposed on kirpans worn in public, including limiting their length and keeping them sheathed and worn underneath clothes.

Nevertheless, Gurbaj Singh Multani, who was 12 when he was suspended and then removed from his school, welcomed the judgement.

"Everybody stood for their rights. I got it. I'm happy," he said outside the court.

Orthodox Sikhs have been required to carry kirpans since the 17th century, and insist it is not a weapon.

About 250,000 Sikhs live in Canada, with 10% considered orthodox.


So what do you think?

At the other extreme is France, which has banned the wearing of external religious symbols of all religions in their schools (the turbans of Sikhs, the burqa of muslims, the skull cap of jews and the big crosses...)

Which approach is better for the society? Is this appeasement or is this freedom of religion?

I'm not completely sold on this "no dangerous items in school" business...a protractor, a compass, a ruler, softball bat, sock with a doorknob in it. If a kid wants to run the gears on another kid, there are a lot of opportunities

I've taught in a few juvenile court lockdowns, and seen the things kids can make weapons out of. If this little dagger deally can be shown to be no more stabby than three pencils rubberbanded together, maybe they should let the kid carry it.

I'm pleased. It is a ceremonial dagger, no different than Catholics wearing a cross around their necks.

Kirpans come in many sizes.

Pic for perspective.

http://www.sln.org.uk/re/images/sikh/28.jpg

http://www.macleans.ca/images/FEEDS/03/02/n030251A.jpg

Oh and usually it is not worn outside ,unless it is an all Sikh place like a gurudwara. And it is not that necessary actually. Sikhism was formed in tumultuous times, when Guru Nanak had to fend off muslim armies and there were fights and skirmishes all the time. So the gurus made it mandatory for the males to carry a knife all the time (as a reminder of their duty). Sikhs are not at war with anybody in Canada. So it is just an unnecessary ritualism (in my humble view, that is).

I'm pleased. It is a ceremonial dagger, no different than Catholics wearing a cross around their necks.

I guess you could garotte somebody with prayer beads, so you'd have to ban those, too, if you wanted to nix the daggers.

Sikhs are not at war with anybody in Canada

We must always be wary of Canada, and ready for war with them, as they have potential to eclipse all other nations with their potential greatness...

They could have French cuisine, British culture, and American technology.

Fortunately, for now they've settled for British cuisine, American culture, and French technology.

We must always be wary of Canada, and ready for war with them, as they have potential to eclipse all other nations with their potential greatness...

They could have French cuisine, British culture, and American technology.

Fortunately, for now they've settled for British cuisine, American culture, and French technology.
LOL

They could have French cuisine, British culture, and American technology.

Fortunately, for now they've settled for British cuisine, American culture, and French technology.

lol..reminds me of the joke

Paradise - American salary, Chinese cook, British house, Japanese wife
Hell - Chinese salary, British cook, Japanese house , American wife.

As a Canadian, I agree that the Sikh's should be able to wear their kirpan, but if it is ever used as a weapon, then there will be hell to pay from the public response to it. As said before, anything can be used as a weapon.
At least we, as Canadians, are more accepting of other cultures who come to our country.
I did NOT agree with the courts when the Sikh's were allowed to wear their turbans as part of the RCMP. The RCMP hat is a symbol of a Canadian tradition as much as the RCMP itself is. (Mind you, I have met the officer who did the court case in this and I do have to say that the turban looks great with the uniform.)

Well, I have seen lots of Sikhs without them, but I really like the idea anyway as I am of Scots ancestry and we like a claymore strapped to oor side. Next up: bagpipes and haggis in the school cafeteria. What sort of religion considers a weapon sacred anyway? Hoots mon.


Oh, sorry - I forgot about the Mayans.

As a Canadian, I agree that the Sikh's should be able to wear their kirpan, but if it is ever used as a weapon, then there will be hell to pay from the public response to it. As said before, anything can be used as a weapon.
At least we, as Canadians, are more accepting of other cultures who come to our country.
I did NOT agree with the courts when the Sikh's were allowed to wear their turbans as part of the RCMP. The RCMP hat is a symbol of a Canadian tradition as much as the RCMP itself is. (Mind you, I have met the officer who did the court case in this and I do have to say that the turban looks great with the uniform.)

Was it a Red turban with the mounty gear?

And as a Canadian, you are the gravest threat to human life to ever exist. You gawdamm people with your reasonable public discourse, peacable foreign policy, broadly available healthcare, expansive natural preserves, and fucked-up football rules. You people must be stopped.

Well, I have seen lots of Sikhs without them, but I really like the idea anyway as I am of Scots ancestry and we like a claymore strapped to oor side. Next up: bagpipes and haggis in the school cafeteria. What sort of religion considers a weapon sacred anyway? Hoots mon.

I thought the traditional scot sidearm was a dirk?

In Vegas, bagpipe is a verb...

I did NOT agree with the courts when the Sikh's were allowed to wear their turbans as part of the RCMP. The RCMP hat is a symbol of a Canadian tradition as much as the RCMP itself is.

Yeah, the turban tends to cause problems with headgears. Sikhs don't have to weat helmets in the Indian army too.

Ay, a dirk is fine in your sock whilst you play the pipes - but to really drive back the enemy ye need a claymore.

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/3221/claymore6xm.jpg


It is a khaki turban (or a black one also) he wears - what's all the fuss about head-gear anyway? They made different hats for women when they started hiring them. They wore skirts then too - dunno how long that lasted. Probably until the first time they had to give pursuit on foot.

Ay, a dirk is fine in your sock whilst you play the pipes - but to really drive back the enemy ye need a claymore.

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/3221/claymore6xm.jpg


It is a khaki turban he wears - what's all the fuss about head-gear anyway? They made different hats for women when they started hiring them.

If the oxygen mask for a pilot mounts to his helmet, will the Sikh pilot wear the helmet?

I guess they could rig something to his/her turban...

What about a deep-diver, do they have to wear some kind of helmet?

This is bullshit. Why should one religious group get to carry daggers around, and everyone else not?

Oh it's all nonsense - you don't think they really have to have it on every minute, do you? It's a political move just to make a point. If your religious beliefs are that strong - and that would be a small minority of the Sikh population - then don't sign up. I doubt there are any orthodox Jews or Buddhists on the force.

They are hired to beat people and kill them if they don't do as the courts order: the police are the teeth and the claws of the court.

This is bullshit. Why should one religious group get to carry daggers around, and everyone else not?
Because they're that religious group, and everyone else is not? d'uh ;)

I'm betting the ceremonial daggers are more blunt than a spoon.

Because they're that religious group, and everyone else is not? d'uh ;)

And everyone else just happens to own the country. If they want to carry around weapons, they can go back to India.

If the oxygen mask for a pilot mounts to his helmet, will the Sikh pilot wear the helmet?

I guess they could rig something to his/her turban...


hmmm...I know there are many Sikh pilots in the air force - and I have seen many of them with turbans. I have never wondered what they do with that turban inside the cockpit.:confused:

Link (http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/personalities/military/arjansingh.html) on Air Marshal Arjan Singh

And everyone else just happens to own the country. If they want to carry around weapons, they can go back to India.

It just so happens that Canadian court has decided this.

If and when it is an issue in Australia, you can start with "go back" comments.

And everyone else just happens to own the country. If they want to carry around weapons, they can go back to India.

And if the "owners" of the country choose to respect this as a religious practice, will you respect their decision?

And if the "owners" of the country choose to respect this as a religious practice, will you respect their decision?

Only if it's made by public vote.

It just so happens that Canadian court has decided this.

If and when it is an issue in Australia, you can start with "go back" comments.

It's an issue for all democratic countries. If I was a parent, I sure as hell wouldn't want my kids going to school with dagger-wielders.

Only if it's made by public vote.

So the "owners" can't express themselves by elected representatives or chartered judiciaries?

Only if it's made by public vote.

Really? Does the Australian supreme court passes every judgement by public vote?

So the "owners" can't express themselves by elected representatives or chartered judiciaries?

No. Because judges are idiots.

It's an issue for all democratic countries. If I was a parent, I sure as hell wouldn't want my kids going to school with dagger-wielders.

Even if the dagger is about as dangerous as a handfull of sharpened pencils?

Again, I've taught classes in youth correctional facilities, and kids can punch somebody's ticket with a toothbrush, if they really want to.

Haven't you claimed in the past that you and your friends went and beat up some ethnic group because they supposedly raped your sister or somebody?

Do you think trial-skipping vigilantes are an issue for all democratic countries?

Really? Does the Australian supreme court passes every judgement by public vote?

We don't need to, because our judges don't make stupid decisions like this.

No. Because judges are idiots.

Wow, what an insightful and well-supported statement.

Let's read the work of half a dozen judicial paragons, and compare them to what you've written, and see where the idiot hat gets mailed.

We don't need to, because our judges don't make stupid decisions like this.

Even though you just said judges are idiots?

You backpedal fast.

Haven't you claimed in the past that you and your friends went and beat up some ethnic group because they supposedly raped your sister or somebody?

Do you think trial-skipping vigilantes are an issue for all democratic countries?

When they send some police here, we'll stop vigilante-ing.

And everyone else just happens to own the country. If they want to carry around weapons, they can go back to India.
Umm... no. All citizens "own" the country, including them.

Even though you just said judges are idiots?

You backpedal fast.

Canadian ones, anyway.

Ok, listen. It's a public school. There are children there. No weapons should be allowed.

Would you be this tolerant if it was a Christian of Jewish issue?

Ok, listen. It's a public school. There are children there. No weapons should be allowed.

Would you be this tolerant if it was a Christian of Jewish issue?
Okay, we'll take their toothbruses away.

In Canada? Yes.

When they send some police here, we'll stop vigilante-ing.

And when you understand that a cricket mallet is more lethal than a small religious symbol, you'll have some perspective.

Okay, we'll take their toothbruses away.

Because toothbrushes are designed combat weapons. Notice the blood grooves on the head.

And when you understand that a cricket mallet is more lethal than a small religious symbol, you'll have some perspective.

When I see these Sihk daggers, I'll judge them.

Ok, listen. It's a public school. There are children there. No weapons should be allowed.

Would you be this tolerant if it was a Christian of Jewish issue?

Maybe the judges looked at these things close enough to see that you could make a better killtool by breaking a wooden ruler off at an angle.

I've been in Catholic schools where they've got prayer beads, and I know of a Jewish team on a youth baseball league. Guess what they walk around with?

When I see these Sihk daggers, I'll judge them.

You've already judged them, repeatedly. Jumped your own gun, guy.

Because toothbrushes are designed combat weapons. Notice the blood grooves on the head.
The point was made earlier that they could be made into weapons. "Designated combat" is meaningless, as the children in public schools are not in combat.

You've already judged them, repeatedly. Jumped your own gun, guy.

Yes, I have. The word "dagger" brings to mind the word "deadly."

Because toothbrushes are designed combat weapons. Notice the blood grooves on the head.

Your assertions are often so poorly developed, its hard to tell when you're being sarcastic.

Yes, I have. The word "dagger" brings to mind the word "deadly."

So you say you'll judge them when you see them.

Then you say you've judged them already based on the term.

Do you read your own posts before hitting "submit reply"?

So you say you'll judge them when you see them.

Then you say you've judged them already based on the term.

Do you read your own posts before hitting "submit reply"?
Different contexts. Give it a break.

You know what, fuck it. Your problem, not mine. And I'll laugh when someone gets hurt. I'll laugh my head off. And feel not one ounce of pity, because it was their own damn fault.

You know what, fuck it. You're problem, not mine. And I'll laugh when someone gets hurt. I'll laugh my head off. And feel not one ounce of pity, because it was their own damn fault.
The courts have good reason to allow it, and I suspect it is because those daggers will never come out of their sheaths, not without disgracing the bearer.

Different contexts. Give it a break.

Different contexts? They were within a couple of posts, on the same subject, in the same line of reasoning.

They actually are eachother's context, in my view.

You know what, fuck it. Your problem, not mine. And I'll laugh when someone gets hurt. I'll laugh my head off. And feel not one ounce of pity, because it was their own damn fault.

That's the mindset I was digging for. Just wanted to make sure you're who I think you are.

And you claim it's some kid who'll get hurt, a kid who had no influence on the ruling. How is that kid at fault?

I'm pleased. It is a ceremonial dagger, no different than Catholics wearing a cross around their necks.

Yes.

Yet, there was all that fuss when I crucified one* of my classmates.

I was made to feel guilty and I resent that.





*Well, three, but on different days. **


**And they were annoying ***

*** Apart from the second one, that was a misunderstanding. Actually, I was in the wrong there.

The courts have good reason to allow it, and I suspect it is because those daggers will never come out of their sheaths, not without disgracing the bearer.

And one day, a dagger will come out of it's sheath, and you know why? Because kids are stupid! That's why we have driving licenses.

You know what, fuck it. Your problem, not mine. And I'll laugh when someone gets hurt. I'll laugh my head off. And feel not one ounce of pity, because it was their own damn fault.
Does this mean you'll actually leave the thread this time, or will you be back when the posters have gone to bed to talk about how evil blades about as sharp as a butterknife are?

Does this mean you'll actually leave the thread this time, or will you be back when the posters have gone to bed to talk about how evil blades about as sharp as a butterknife are?

Butterknives are surprisingly sharp, when used with thrust.

Butterknives are surprisingly sharp, when used with thrust.

So is a ruler, a pen, a protractor, a compass, a lincoln log...

Follow your own line of reasoning (this time).

So is a ruler, a pen, a protractor, a compass, a lincoln log...

Follow your own line of reasoning (this time).

Yes. Armies around the world charge into battle with pens, protractors and compasses.

Seriously, learn the difference between a weapon and a tool.

And one day, a dagger will come out of it's sheath, and you know why? Because kids are stupid! That's why we have driving licenses.
Kids are stupid, and shit happens. And if you are a parent you should know that you would have to take everything they could touch away from them in order to ensure their complete safety, and even then they would manage to get in trouble. This dagger is not a weapon that will ever be taken from its sheath by its owner; and yes, one day it could be taken out of its sheath by someone else and used in a dangerous situation. So could a toothbrush filed down to a sharp point. If people are intent on harming others, there is no lack of access to available weaponry --this is a point that has been made earlier in this thread, and repeatedly.

I understand your concern and how the word "weapon" raises alarms, but the taking away the ceremonial dagger is not going to decrease the danger to children if someone else is intent on harming them.

Yes. Armies around the world charge into battle with pens, protractors and compasses.

Seriously, learn the difference between a weapon and a tool.

..and butter knives.

Pens, protractors, compasses and ceremonial butter knives.

This, Sir, is the inreasingly dangerous worl we live in.

I wonder what they use/d to spread butter in your school canteen.

Yes. Armies around the world charge into battle with pens, protractors and compasses.

Seriously, learn the difference between a weapon and a tool.

But don't you get it? You're the one failing to make that distinction of what makes a weapon.

It was pointed out to you that a butter knife is just as deadly as a Sikh dagger, and you turned around and tried to claim that a butter knife is "deadly with thrust".

Examine your own statement, please just this once.

Do "armies around the world" charge into battle with tiny blunt dagger-shaped religious symbols?

Fuck it. Good for Canada. If anyone gets hurt, their problem, not mine. And if it starts here, I'll just get a pistol and carry it around. Religiously.

Fuck it. Good for Canada. If anyone gets hurt, they're problem, not mine. And if it starts here, I'll just get a pistol and carry it around. Religiously.
Oh do get over yourself. :rolleyes:

Look, you're a xenophobe, we got that. But what happens in another country is none of your business. If Canada wants to allow children to carry blunt ceremonial daggers, whatever. It only offends your sensibilities because you are insecure about your own culture.

Fuck it. Good for Canada. If anyone gets hurt, they're problem, not mine. And if it starts here, I'll just get a pistol and carry it around. Religiously.

With such a weakness for frustration and pronounced immaturity, you probably shouldn't have a firearm.

Your dagger-envy hardly constitutes a religion.

Fuck it. Good for Canada. If anyone gets hurt, they're problem, not mine. And if it starts here, I'll just get a pistol and carry it around. Religiously.

"Fuck it" :eek:

Sir, must I remind you there are women, children and servants who might be allowed to view the internet our shoulders. What if they were to pick up such language.

Perhaps the American approach would be to protect children from these dangerous butter knives by allowing all kids to carry guns.

Just a thought.

Perhaps the American approach would be to protect children from these dangerous butter knives by allowing all kids to carry guns.
"Every teacher and student should be in a position to return fire." :D

With such a weakness for frustration and pronounced immaturity, you probably shouldn't have a firearm.

Your dagger-envy hardly constitutes a religion.

Listen, if I feel threatened, I'll shoot people. Simple. Get back on topic.

"Every teacher and student should be in a position to return fire." :D
Oh HELL no!

I lose stuff too easily to want to wander around armed. ;)

Listen, if I feel threatened, I'll shoot people. Simple. Get back on topic.
When you're old enough to legally own a gun. At which point you will go to prison.

Oh do get over yourself. :rolleyes:

Look, you're a xenophobe, we got that. But what happens in another country is none of your business. If Canada wants to allow children to carry blunt ceremonial daggers, whatever. It only offends your sensibilities because you are insecure about your own culture.
Nonsense; if he is concerned for children, then borders should make no difference when expressing his concern. And it is a legitimate concern for any parent.

Nonsense; if he is concerned for children, then borders should make no difference when expressing his concern. And it is a legitimate concern for any parent.
He sounds like a kid, and he wants to shoot people if they make him uneasy. Come on.

Nonsense; if he is concerned for children, then borders should make no difference when expressing his concern. And it is a legitimate concern for any parent.

I'm not concerned anymore. Their parents are dumb enough to make these decisions, so... ehh.

Listen, if I feel threatened, I'll shoot people. Simple. Get back on topic.

This is precisely and squarely on-topic.

You brought up carrying a gun, I responded.

Your objection to others carrying weapons can be explored and characterized by your own interpretation of weapons.

When you give an opinion, the percumbent reasoning and its manifestation in your view on weapons in general is not off-topic.

Listen, if I feel threatened, I'll shoot people. Simple. Get back on topic.

Yes, but not with a butter knife as that would be dangerous.

It would be a Health and Safety issue.

He sounds like a kid, and he wants to shoot people if they make him uneasy. Come on.
Aye; he's said he's not a parent, but then neither am I. His concern for children in public schools shows through plainly, though.

Edit: Okay, nevermind. ;)

I'm not concerned anymore. Their parents are dumb enough to make these decisions, so... ehh.
Owned. Willamena, you really shouldn't go around speaking up for trolls. :p

When you're old enough to legally own a gun. At which point you will go to prison.

I've taken a use-of-force course as part of a carry-permit requirement in the States, and I'm not sure Kievan-Prussia is prepared to abide by any country's interpretation of what calls for lethal force...

Owned. Willamena, you really shouldn't go around speaking up for trolls. :p

I'm sort of using reverse psychology. I'm still concerned, but you've told me you don't want me to care and don't want my opinion, so I'll pretend that I'm not.

Nonsense; if he is concerned for children, then borders should make no difference when expressing his concern. And it is a legitimate concern for any parent.

When presenting the idea that Kievan-Prussia is authentically concerned about the children, you might note that he claims he will "laugh his head off" when a kid gets hurt, because it will give him some petty, spiteful little chance to gloat.

I'm sort of using reverse psychology. I'm still concerned, but you've told me you don't want me to care and don't want my opinion, so I'll pretend that I'm not.

I beg your pardon, I thought we were discussing your concern that kids would only be safe if they could all carry guns to defend themselves from ceremonial butterknives.

Oh HELL no!

I lose stuff too easily to want to wander around armed. ;)

"Well, your honor, the assailant came at me with the butter knife, and I reached for my side-arm, but I had left my piece in my left desk drawer...

And that's why I beat a man to death with a stapler."

When presenting the idea that Kievan-Prussia is authentically concerned about the children, you might note that he claims he will "laugh his head off" when a kid gets hurt, because it will give him some petty, spiteful little chance to gloat.
I know adults who would say the same thing.

I'm sort of using reverse psychology. I'm still concerned, but you've told me you don't want me to care and don't want my opinion, so I'll pretend that I'm not.

When did anybody tell you not to care, and when did anybody refuse your opinion?

We'd just appreciate some due diligence in formulating your opinions, that's all.

Seriously, if you think you can cover your puerile expressions as "reverse psychology", you're digging your own hole.

I know adults who would say the same thing.

And the "concern" of those parents would be commensurately suspect.

Topics like these make me wish I was a sociopath. Every time I care about something, people tell me I'm wrong.

Topics like these make me wish I was a sociopath. Every time I care about something, people tell me I'm wrong.
You care about the wrong things. That's kinda sociopathic.

Topics like these make me wish I was a sociopath. Every time I care about something, people tell me I'm wrong.

You're not wrong to care, but your "care" is just your own justification for your own fearful reactions.

You've been presented with several responses to your position, and not a single one has anything to do with it being "wrong to care".

You're being told more than just "you're wrong". Supporting tautology is being offered that you aren't contending with in any meaningful way.

Kievan-Prussia, I don't know what happened to you, or what conditions you're subject to that make you feel this way, but the way out isn't in pseudo-hardass posturing and shooting people.

Topics like these make me wish I was a sociopath. Every time I care about something, people tell me I'm wrong.

There's a lesson to be learned here. :p

Kievan-Prussia, I don't know what happened to you, or what conditions you're subject to that make you feel this way,

Asperger's and bipolar.

You care about the wrong things. That's kinda sociopathic.
It's not a "wrong thing", though, to care about kids carting around weapons in public schools. I know for a fact this supreme court decision will spark a lot of debate in Canada, especially under the new conservative leadership.

We just need to impress that this particular "weapon" is not the same as carrying a gun.

Asperger's and bipolar.

On a completely unrelated subject, I feel a bit cheated when I can't get magnets to stick to bipolar people. :(

On a completely unrelated subject, I feel a bit cheated when I can't get magnets to stick to bipolar people. :(
LOL!

Asperger's and bipolar.

So, you now know that you're mentality is somewhat impacted, in an abiding sense, by those factors.

You know that the intensity and nature of your reactions, particularly to emotionally charged issues that may cast shadows across your own situation, can be magnified by a neurochemical condition.

But you are aware, in a primal sense, and can adjust your mindfulness accordingly.

Begin to sense, and eventually anticipate, how these things will warp or twist your thoughts. In time, you can begin to compensate for, and thus diminish, those factors.

On a completely unrelated subject, I feel a bit cheated when I can't get magnets to stick to bipolar people. :(

I'm similarly bummed when I can't use Van Der Waals forces to levitate Dutchmen.

On a completely unrelated subject, I feel a bit cheated when I can't get magnets to stick to bipolar people. :(
You just haven't used enough ducktape, that's all.

"Every teacher and student should be in a position to return fire." :D

exactly, just think if every one at columbine had been armed those shooters would have been down in moments :rolleyes:

I have some mixed views on freedoms of religion. Sometimes it’s good to read someone’s religion if you have to deal with them in an emergency services setting. I had a Muslim in my section and since I was also on the Mess Committee, when he was fasting for religious reasons I could put his meal aside in the fridge and nuke it for him once it was night. This was fine when we were in barracks, because the day he was pretty much limited to drinking fruit juices at meal time. I did make it very clear to him that if training ever got too intense during his fasting that I would require him to eat to keep going. I quoted him a line regarding this in the Quran, where it mentioned that if it was necessary a Muslim could break this fast, because Allah was all-forgiving.

I’m not very well read on Sikh religion, other than the articles of faith. We had a lot of rows over the turban issue, especially among older Canadians and those from rural areas (I think the US has similar problems). For the RCMP I don’t have much problem with a guy wearing a turban. Between that and the beard though, it will however prevent him from being part of a tactical team because he can’t wear a gas mask. In the military it means that you can’t serve aboard a warship (can’t wear breathing apparatus because you can’t get a proper seal to fight fires) or be in a combat unit or a unit deployed into a hostile theatre (essentially useless if you can’t don a gas mask).

The thing is that the turban isn’t actually one of the five articles of faith at all. It’s something that the Guru’s wore that was adopted by their followers, but it’s not an actual article of faith. The five articles of faith for Sikh’s are: Kes (unshorn hair), the Kirpan (a sword), Kara (metal bracelet), Kanga (comb) and Kaccha (under-shorts). It’s only because the turban wraps the unshorn hair is it considered sacred in anyway.

The Bruce

I don’t know of a single case of a Sikh using a ceremonial dagger in an act of violence. I heard stories about it from the streets of Vancouver when I was younger, but my guess is that most stories guys tell about living rough in the streets are exaggerated and hard to take as the gospel.

Problems with freedom of religion occur when you have people like the Hell’s Angels registered a fake religion for the purpose of regularly visiting their fellow gang members in prison in a setting where they can’t be monitored by authorities. It allows imprisoned leaders to run their gang from prison and the gang to intimidate its imprisoned members to ensure they don’t stray from the gang. If you ask me, instead of hassling the Sikh’s they should be putting an end to this fake gang religion that is being widely abused in both the US and Canada.

The Bruce

On a completely unrelated subject, I feel a bit cheated when I can't get magnets to stick to bipolar people. :(

That is so getting sigged, Goofballs FTW!

I've read the Toronto Sun (gasp) about this issue.

Apparently, there hasn't been a single incident with these ceremonial daggers in Quebec, where it was allowed. So unlike most other religions, the Sikhs can show responsibility.

Although I really dislike the ideas of judges allowing this through besides asking the will of the people. It's true Sikhs are part of Canada, but so are we.

I really hope that one day that these Judges who seem to enjoy denying the people's right to say, would realize that Canadian Lives are more importent then Canadian Image.

Canada City']I've read the Toronto Sun (gasp) about this issue.

Apparently, there hasn't been a single incident with these ceremonial daggers in Quebec, where it was allowed. So unlike most other religions, the Sikhs can show responsibility.

Although I really dislike the ideas of judges allowing this through besides asking the will of the people. It's true Sikhs are part of Canada, but so are we.

I really hope that one day that these Judges who seem to enjoy denying the people's right to say, would realize that Canadian Lives are more importent then Canadian Image.

Okay, which is it? Have there been no incidents of violence with ceremonial daggers, or are 'Canadian Lives' at stake? :rolleyes:

Don't get me wrong, I agree with a level of responsibility to the electorate from Supreme Court judges, but ultimately their job is to interpret the law set forth by parliament and precedent. It's this little thing in Canada called The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Gaurantees fair treatment under the law regardless of religious belief. You do realise that judges have to consider this when applying the law right?

I hardly think that a small blunt knife wrapped in cloth, encased in a wooden box and then stuffed into your clothing constitutes 'Canadian Lives' at stake.

I don't see why people should just be able to wave the word 'religion' around and then society bends over backwards to their every whim. I don't think that a person shoud be able to carry something to school that's designed as a weapon (As opposed to some of the more silly examples such as pens or compasses), under any circumstances. If that conflicts with a person's religious beliefs then so be it.

I don't see why people should just be able to wave the word 'religion' around and then society bends over backwards to their every whim. I don't think that a person shoud be able to carry something to school that's designed as a weapon (As opposed to some of the more silly examples such as pens or compasses), under any circumstances. If that conflicts with a person's religious beliefs then so be it.

That's basically what I've been saying. Carry your sword around in your own time, or else find another school.

This should open up an interesting debate. A kirpan is a small dagger that a sikh male has to wear. It is one among the 5 things that a male always has to have with him (the unshorn hair, the dagger, the comb, the underwear, bracelet). More info on that here (http://allaboutsikhs.com/basics/sikhsymbols.htm)

Seems like Canada banned the practice of Sikh kids brining dagger to schools and have now allowed it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm
Canada backs Sikh dagger rights

So what do you think?

At the other extreme is France, which has banned the wearing of external religious symbols of all religions in their schools (the turbans of Sikhs, the burqa of muslims, the skull cap of jews and the big crosses...)

Which approach is better for the society? Is this appeasement or is this freedom of religion?
The French approach of banning *all* religious symbols is certainly the best! http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif
However, sadly not all are smart enough to realize this yet... :rolleyes:

Well, at least the Sikh aren't a violent religion like the Islam...

The Kirpan is ceremonial and therefore of no required size.

This same issue was settled in New York.

This is how it was settled:
"During the hearing on Feb 16th Amandeep agreed to wear a smaller kirpan of two inches in length that would be securely fastened under his clothes in a cloth pouch. He also agreed to allow pre-arranged inspections by school officials to confirm his adherence to the conditions."

He is allowed his religious right, while being afforded no greater a lethal potential then saftey scissors.
Seems fair to me.

But this is the US where religous freedom means a right to practice freely, I get that impression about Canada as well, I dont know that France offers the same freedom of practice in the spirit of its freedom of religion.
I cant slam france for how they do it, meh.

But taking the sacred from people always seems to piss them off.

The Kirpan is ceremonial and therefore of no required size.

This same issue was settled in New York.

This is how it was settled:
"During the hearing on Feb 16th Amandeep agreed to wear a smaller kirpan of two inches in length that would be securely fastened under his clothes in a cloth pouch. He also agreed to allow pre-arranged inspections by school officials to confirm his adherence to the conditions."

He is allowed his religious right, while being afforded no greater a lethal potential then saftey scissors.
Seems fair to me.

But this is the US where religous freedom means a right to practice freely, I get that impression about Canada as well, I dont know that France offers the same freedom of practice in the spirit of its freedom of religion.
I cant slam france for how they do it, meh.

But taking the sacred from people always seems to piss them off.

Exactly. It's about finding reasonable compromise so we can move on with our lives.

From the perspective of someone who goes to a Canadian highschool, I can tell you that the thought of someone being allowed to carry around a ceremonial dagger that is important to their religion at my school doesn't worry me in the least.

I've seen ceremonial daggers, I even own one, and in all honesty, the biggest worry I'd have about someone coming at me with that would be if they were going to hit me over the head with it. And really, a textbook'd probably be a better choice for that.


The fact that kids can take anything and turn it into a weapon has been brought up before, and while some of you've scoffed at it, obviously you haven't been to highschool recently. Rulers, protractors, pencils, pens, books, change, I've seen it all used in what could be considered violent ways before. And despite the rules there are people bringing in steak knives and switch blades with the faculty none the wiser.

So if someone wears a ceremonial dagger as part of their religion, good for them, the school's going to know about it, and they'll be watched to make sure they don't abuse that right. That's a hell of a lot safer than other things that are being brought in to school.

Yeah, protractors are big, pointy things.

... So it is just an unnecessary ritualism (in my humble view, that is).

On a hot day, wearing clothes is an unnecessary ritualism as well...

Yes, I have. The word "dagger" brings to mind the word "deadly."

How about a knife? Terrible, evil things.

What, oh what, will I butter my toast with? The spoon just doesn't work as well.

Then there's your handy swiss army knife.

As I recall, a lot of this sikh daggers are short - and so far, no one's stated that they've actually been sharpened.

You know what, fuck it. Your problem, not mine. And I'll laugh when someone gets hurt. I'll laugh my head off. And feel not one ounce of pity, because it was their own damn fault.

And at the next fist-fight?

Next time a kid is tripped, and lands in just the right way to cut his head?

Sikhs are in such a minority in Canada, that these events will hapen more often that a stabbing with a (likely small, and possibly not very sharp) dagger...

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/05/20/sikh-dagger.pub.html

Sikh schoolboy in ceremonial dagger bloodfest

Quebec court rules weapon insufficiently dangerous

by Kieren McCarthy

A Quebec court has ruled that 12-year-old Sikh schoolboy Gurbaj Singh is allowed to wear his ceremonial dagger to school but advised he gets it sharpened before returning to Ste Catherine Laboure school in LaSalle near Montreal.

The dagger, known as a kirpan, is extremely important to Sikhs, with the most devout always carrying it about their person. However, it is little more than a symbol to demonstrate the wearer's spirituality and Mr Singh's dagger is both small and blunt.

And no, that's not a double entendre.

However, the court advised Mr Singh that if did take the dagger to school, he get it sharpened, just in case. "You take a blade to a fight, you make damn sure you know how to use it son," Judge Redneck told the boy. "If someone comes for you, you could never sort them out with that. Try this flick-knife: faster, sharper, cleaner."

Meanwhile, level-headed and well-informed school governor Sylvie Blais told the press: "For me the kirpan represents violence because it's a knife. Since 9 November and the World Trade Centre we realise that we aren't beyond the reach of such acts."

A hysterical spokesman for the Sikh community countered that claim by asking people to try to understand different cultures instead of condemning any difference as wrong before they've considered the other person's view.

Parents of proper white, Christian children are still refusing to let their kids return to school however. One told us: "My Bill isn't going anywhere near that school until that Sikh boy has that lethal weapon taken off of him. Why can't these people understand our culture and give their kids guns instead?"

"Fuck it" :eek:

Sir, must I remind you there are women, children and servants who might be allowed to view the internet our shoulders. What if they were to pick up such language.

...

Just a thought.

Protecting kids from foul language always cracks me up, considering the filth I oozed up in my pores in highschool back in the days when the internet hadn't yet been invented by Gore... ;)

"Originally Posted by Kievan-Prussia
You know what, fuck it. Your problem, not mine. And I'll laugh when someone gets hurt. I'll laugh my head off. And feel not one ounce of pity, because it was their own damn fault."

So, you argue that ceremonial butter knives should be banned as they are dangerous, but that everyone should carry a gun because that makes things safer....

....and you are laughing at us?

:rolleyes:

This should open up an interesting debate. A kirpan is a small dagger that a sikh male has to wear. It is one among the 5 things that a male always has to have with him (the unshorn hair, the dagger, the comb, the underwear, bracelet). More info on that here (http://allaboutsikhs.com/basics/sikhsymbols.htm)

Seems like Canada banned the practice of Sikh kids brining dagger to schools and have now allowed it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm
Canada backs Sikh dagger rights




So what do you think?

At the other extreme is France, which has banned the wearing of external religious symbols of all religions in their schools (the turbans of Sikhs, the burqa of muslims, the skull cap of jews and the big crosses...)

Which approach is better for the society? Is this appeasement or is this freedom of religion?
If my religion required human sacrifice, should it be made legal? No! This isn't religous tolerance. This is idiocy.

I don't see why people should just be able to wave the word 'religion' around and then society bends over backwards to their every whim. I don't think that a person shoud be able to carry something to school that's designed as a weapon (As opposed to some of the more silly examples such as pens or compasses), under any circumstances. If that conflicts with a person's religious beliefs then so be it.
I agree so, and all the more so in public institutions. If one wants to send their child to a religious school, they may do so. If there isn't one, one can be created.

I agree so, and all the more so in public institutions. If one wants to send their child to a religious school, they may do so. If there isn't one, one can be created.

These knives are blunt, wrapped in cloth and in a box in the childs clothing. You might be able to beat someone's head in with one if you hit them for long enough. A sharpened pencil, however, can be shoved into an eye and kill or skin and wound. A protractpr can do the same, but oh so much worse. A blunt and packaged dagger isn't exactly the greatest of dangers.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2002/05/20/sikh-dagger.pub.html

Sikh schoolboy in ceremonial dagger bloodfest

Quebec court rules weapon insufficiently dangerous

by Kieren McCarthy

A Quebec court has ruled that 12-year-old Sikh schoolboy Gurbaj Singh is allowed to wear his ceremonial dagger to school but advised he gets it sharpened before returning to Ste Catherine Laboure school in LaSalle near Montreal.

The dagger, known as a kirpan, is extremely important to Sikhs, with the most devout always carrying it about their person. However, it is little more than a symbol to demonstrate the wearer's spirituality and Mr Singh's dagger is both small and blunt.

And no, that's not a double entendre.

However, the court advised Mr Singh that if did take the dagger to school, he get it sharpened, just in case. "You take a blade to a fight, you make damn sure you know how to use it son," Judge Redneck told the boy. "If someone comes for you, you could never sort them out with that. Try this flick-knife: faster, sharper, cleaner."

Meanwhile, level-headed and well-informed school governor Sylvie Blais told the press: "For me the kirpan represents violence because it's a knife. Since 9 November and the World Trade Centre we realise that we aren't beyond the reach of such acts."

A hysterical spokesman for the Sikh community countered that claim by asking people to try to understand different cultures instead of condemning any difference as wrong before they've considered the other person's view.

Parents of proper white, Christian children are still refusing to let their kids return to school however. One told us: "My Bill isn't going anywhere near that school until that Sikh boy has that lethal weapon taken off of him. Why can't these people understand our culture and give their kids guns instead?"
Wow.

Whoever wrote that doesn't know much about canadian culture and seems to have deceided we're just like americans aparantly.

These knives are blunt, wrapped in cloth and in a box in the childs clothing. You might be able to beat someone's head in with one if you hit them for long enough. A sharpened pencil, however, can be shoved into an eye and kill or skin and wound. A protractpr can do the same, but oh so much worse. A blunt and packaged dagger isn't exactly the greatest of dangers.
I think you guys keep confusing protractors for compasses. Protractors are those little half circles, usually made of plastic. You could do more damage with a ruler.

I wonder where everyone would stand if carrying a small handgun on your person was allowed in school due to religious beliefs.

I wonder where everyone would stand if carrying a small handgun on your person was allowed in school due to religious beliefs.
An unloaded handgun is just a blunt object. And if you wanted to injure some one in school with a blunt object, you would use one of those 5 pound books.

You know what's good for garroting? Crucifix chains.

An unloaded handgun is just a blunt object. And if you wanted to injure some one in school with a blunt object, you would use one of those 5 pound books.

You know what's good for garroting? Crucifix chains.

Yeah but you cant unload a knife. There has to be a line drawn when it comes to safety. What if argument heated up in the boys bathroom and someone lost their temper and just pulled out their knife and slit the other guy's throat in the heat of the moment? I doubt anyone carries a protractor or 3 pencils banded together(or whatever else has been mentioned that could be used as a weapon) around on them all the time.

lol..reminds me of the joke

Paradise - American salary, Chinese cook, British house, Japanese wife
Hell - Chinese salary, British cook, Japanese house , American wife.

The original goes like this:
"Heaven is where the Police are British, the Cooks are French, the Mechanics are German, the Lovers are Italian and everything is Organized by the Swiss.

Hell is where the Police are German, the Cooks are British, the Mechanics are French, the Lovers are Swiss, and everything is Organized by the Italians."

Yeah but you cant unload a knife.
A blunt knife is alot less dangerous than a protractor. And if it is ceremonial, it is definately less dangerous than most school equipment. Ceremonial weapons generally are not made or rated for even light use.

There has to be a line drawn when it comes to safety.
This is a moot issue. Schools is a dangerous place full of really fucking dangerous stuff that you are required to have on you. Certain protractors have just a metal point to an inch long metal spike coming to a very sharp point so it can rotate in place. Books are heavy as hell, you could cause concussions with that shit. Scissors? Even cheap safety scissors are like what? Aluminum razor blades attached to plastic? I will let you in on a little something - no one uses safety scissors in high school, or middle school.

What if argument heated up in the boys bathroom and someone lost their temper and just pulled out their knife and slit the other guy's throat in the heat of the moment?
You couldn't cut wet paper with a dull blade.

Does anyone remember when immigrants *tried* to assimilate?

Does anyone remember when immigrants *tried* to assimilate?
Back when steamboats sailed the seas and dinosaurs ate puppies.

A blunt knife is alot less dangerous than a protractor. And if it is ceremonial, it is definately less dangerous than most school equipment. Ceremonial weapons generally are not made or rated for even light use.


This is a moot issue. Schools is a dangerous place full of really fucking dangerous stuff that you are required to have on you. Certain protractors have just a metal point to an inch long metal spike coming to a very sharp point so it can rotate in place. Books are heavy as hell, you could cause concussions with that shit. Scissors? Even cheap safety scissors are like what? Aluminum razor blades attached to plastic? I will let you in on a little something - no one uses safety scissors in high school, or middle school.


You couldn't cut wet paper with a dull blade.

but you could certainly stab with it.

Back when steamboats sailed the seas and dinosaurs ate puppies.

Yeah. I miss those days.

I guess the concern here is a product of the over reaction people had after Columbine. When I went to high school (I graduated only 6 years ago) most guys carried pocket knives that were probably a hell of a lot sharper than the knives these kids are carrying. And we didn't have police, security guards, or metal detectors. And guess how many stabbings we had? That's right, none.

To me it seems like Canada is taking multiculturalism a bit too far. Someone's religion shouldn't be an excuse for bringing dangerous objects to school. Imagine that my religion imposed the use of an AK-47 or something. They wouldn't forbid me of wearing it in school if I was canadian...

To me it seems like Canada is taking multiculturalism a bit too far. Someone's religion shouldn't be an excuse for bringing dangerous objects to school. Imagine that my religion imposed the use of an AK-47 or something. They wouldn't forbid me of wearing it in school if I was canadian...


Yeah, I thought everyone was so against religion in schools, but here they are allowing people of a certain religion to bring knives to school. A knife is still a weapon, dull or not.

Guys, you're being absurd. Yes, anything can be made into a weapon...but under your logic, we'd have to allow kids to bring guns to school, too. I mean, if everything can be turned into a weapon, we can't reallly do anything about it, right?

Wrong. I'm sorry if the Sikhs get offended, but we have to draw the line. Or I'm going to invent a religion which forces me to wear an AK-47 strapped to my chest wherever I go.

I'm going to invent a religion which forces me to wear an AK-47 strapped to my chest wherever I go.

Can I be a Bishop or something similar in this new religion?

Yeah, I thought everyone was so against religion in schools, but here they are allowing people of a certain religion to bring knives to school. A knife is still a weapon, dull or not.

First of all, in Canada we are not opposed to religion in schools. In fact, minority religious education is guaranteed in the constitution. The original one ... from 1867. Second of all, even if we were, it would be opposition to religious teaching in schools and not wearing religious items.

Can I be a Bishop or something similar in this new religion?

Depends. Can you carry a rocket launcher?

First of all, in Canada we are not opposed to religion in schools. In fact, minority religious education is guaranteed in the constitution. The original one ... from 1867. Second of all, even if we were, it would be opposition to religious teaching in schools and not wearing religious items.

Religious item or not, its still a weapon. If it were mandatory that Methodists carry a switchblade in their pocket, would you not be concerned? If you allow a weapon at school, then you are opening up a can of worms that can result in even more violence than already occurs. What if another group of kids are fearful of their knife toting peers? So they decide to bring a bigger knife, or gun for that matter. It's not a wise idea to allow kids to bring weapons to school.

I dont know how old most of you are , but I know how old I am.


.....Big long anechdotal snip from my life, omitted for sake of thread.....

Be worried about what kind of person is in the school---not what thing is in a pocket.

It is real easy to see the dividing line here--

Place the word "religion" in and the same usual suspects show up and cry foul.
It isnt about any realistic concern for safety or personal liberties.
It is simply about furthering their own opinion as if it should be the law of the land.

Religious tolerance, is supposed to be just that--tolerance.
Accepting what you don not agree with.
Compromising.
Finding a middle ground inspite of your own opinion, not a solution based on it.

Religious item or not, its still a weapon. If it were mandatory that Methodists carry a switchblade in their pocket, would you not be concerned? If you allow a weapon at school, then you are opening up a can of worms that can result in even more violence than already occurs. What if another group of kids are fearful of their knife toting peers? So they decide to bring a bigger knife, or gun for that matter. It's not a wise idea to allow kids to bring weapons to school.

A switchblade is dangerous. A kirpan is not. A kipan has religious significance. A switchblade does not. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

A switchblade is dangerous. A kirpan is not. A kipan has religious significance. A switchblade does not. Stop trying to confuse the issue.


A knife is a knife...a weapon is a weapon. I'm not confusing anything.

A knife is a knife...a weapon is a weapon. I'm not confusing anything.

A non-dangerous dagger whose function is purely ceremonial is obviously quite different than a knife whose primary function is to perform violence.

"Fuck it" :eek:

Sir, must I remind you there are women, children and servants who might be allowed to view the internet our shoulders. What if they were to pick up such language.

Perhaps the American approach would be to protect children from these dangerous butter knives by allowing all kids to carry guns.

Just a thought.

Kievan-Prussia is not American, first of all. He's Australian. Your bias is showing. Secondly, as an educator in an American school I can tell you that weapons are not allowed, no matter how small. No penknives, no laser pointers even.

Laser pointers. I think you'd REALLY have to work hard to hurt someone with one of those, but they are banned. I can't imagine that any Sikh kid who ever let his kirpan be seen in a NY public school would be allowed to keep it on his person.

This one kid brought in a dufflebag full of fireworks and wondered why he was arrested and spent three days in jail-- he only had the equivalent of several sticks of dynamite on him. Add to this that it was a few months after 9/11 and that he was of Middle Eastern origin and you have what I call a 'criminally stupid' situation. Do I honestly think he was going to blow up the school? No. But possession of fireworks in NYC is a crime, and apparently in the quantities that he had, a pretty serious one.

I wonder how it is that this case came up in Canada anyway... if the kirpan is to be worn close to the body and under clothing, how is it that this student came to the attention of the authorities?

I'm all for religious freedom, but I don't think it unreasonable for a parent to be concerned about this. Kids are stupid, and do things without thinking. I could very well see one talking about his kirpan or showing it off and having someone else commit idiocy with it. Also, according to the link about the 5ks, it's said to be ok to use against tyrants and oppressors....

;) Aren't teachers and principals tyrants and oppressors by teen (and younger) definition? (Yes, yes, it's a joke -- but if adults can make ill-advised decisions about using weapons in anger, are we to assume more restraint in aschool-aged child?)

This one kid brought in a dufflebag full of fireworks and wondered why he was arrested and spent three days in jail-- he only had the equivalent of several sticks of dynamite on him. Add to this that it was a few months after 9/11 and that he was of Middle Eastern origin and you have what I call a 'criminally stupid' situation.

Why should it make a lick of difference that the kid was of middle eastern origin? If the fireworks were a threat, they were a threat. Timothy McVeigh was as white as wonderbread and that didn't make him any less dangerous.

A non-dangerous dagger whose function is purely ceremonial is obviously quite different than a knife whose primary function is to perform violence.

Its intended function is irrelevant. As many pointed out in the thread, a Math book could be used to conk someone on the head with, a protractor could be used to stab someone with....neither for its intended purpose. A kirpan is a knife, and whether or not it is a tool of religious ceremony has nothing to do with the fact that weapons should NOT be allowed in school. The person with the kirpan may have no intentions to harm another. But what if some kid who has a vendetta against his History teacher or classmate gets it and uses it to harm another.

These knives are blunt, wrapped in cloth and in a box in the childs clothing.

I might have missed it, but where did this information originate? It was not in the OP's link as far as I can recall....

I might have missed it, but where did this information originate? It was not in the OP's link as far as I can recall....

Kat,

There are many variances in the practice, but typically it is kept inside a sheath and clothes put on over it. Typically it would be ornate and for symbolical purposes than for actual use.

Why should it make a lick of difference that the kid was of middle eastern origin? If the fireworks were a threat, they were a threat. Timothy McVeigh was as white as wonderbread and that didn't make him any less dangerous.

You misunderstand my point. An Irish kid, a Puerto Rican kid, an Italian kid, an Asian kid would have been arrested too. That the child in question brought what, under NY law, is considered explosives to school at that particular time in history really shows a lack of thinking through the consequences....

...which is the only thing I'm really concerned with vis a vis the kirpan anyhow.

Its intended function is irrelevant. As many pointed out in the thread, a Math book could be used to conk someone on the head with, a protractor could be used to stab someone with....neither for its intended purpose. A kirpan is a knife, and whether or not it is a tool of religious ceremony has nothing to do with the fact that weapons should NOT be allowed in school. The person with the kirpan may have no intentions to harm another. But what if some kid who has a vendetta against his History teacher or classmate gets it and uses it to harm another.

So we are banning protractors and math books from schools because they are potentially dangerous too?

A switchblade is dangerous. A kirpan is not. A kipan has religious significance. A switchblade does not. Stop trying to confuse the issue.

Typically made from iron, kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords to tiny knives worn around the neck. It is required that all Sikhs wear the kirpan at all times. To Sikhs, it is a highly important religious symbol; it is never used as a weapon. Nevertheless, the requirement that baptised Sikhs wear the kirpan has caused problems for believers in many areas, especially where the custom clashes with local ordinances against carrying weapons. In cases where safety regulations conflict with wearing the kirpan, such as boarding an airplane or entering a prison, Sikhs are usually advised to comply with authorities.

It was first established as a principle that one must fight for peace. A Sikh should never use the Kirpan in anger or for a malicious attack. However, a Sikh may use it in self-defence 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 circular movements to effectively swing a sword.
So if a 9th grader sees another student getting beat up on -he can use his kirpan to defend the student. Or themselves for that matter.Then why not just arm all students? And give teachers stun guns and nerve gas.


The point is, giving permission to a group of students to carry a weapon, despite its religious ties, can create an environment of hostility. The other students could feel that its not fair that they can carry a weapon simply because of their religion and turn against them. It breeds segregation and possibly fear. Other students may not feel comfortable sitting in front of a student they had an argument with 4 days ago....especially when they have a knife on them.

So we are banning protractors and math books from schools because they are potentially dangerous too?

No because they arent classified as weapons.

So if a 9th grader sees another student getting beat up on -he can use his kirpan to defend the student. Or themselves for that matter.Then why not just arm all students? And give teachers stun guns and nerve gas.


The point is, giving permission to a group of students to carry a weapon, despite its religious ties, can create an environment of hostility. The other students could feel that its not fair that they can carry a weapon simply because of their religion and turn against them. It breeds segregation and possibly fear. Other students may not feel comfortable sitting in front of a student they had an argument with 4 days ago....especially when they have a knife on them.

The quote is ireelevant because the court said they can place size restrictions on the kirpan. They just can't ban it outright.

I don't see what the big fuss is. Oh no, the guy has a small, probably blunt, ceremonial dagger, in a sheath, under most of his clothes. He's a really big threat to all the students who could very well have razor sharp switchblades in their pockets, or have a steel ruler in their hand, or any other of the previous examples.

The quote is ireelevant because the court said they can place size restrictions on the kirpan. They just can't ban it outright.


It seems like anything that differs from your opinion is irrelevant. So I ask you this:

So if they placed size restrictions on it and made it ok for the kirpan to be the size of a pendant worn on a necklace(roughly 1 inch in size) would that be ok? Kind of like someone wearing a cross on their necklace? It is just a religious symbol right? Then there would be no chance of anyone being stabbed with it.

It seems like anything that differs from your opinion is irrelevant. So I ask you this:

So if they placed size restrictions on it and made it ok for the kirpan to be the size of a pendant worn on a necklace(roughly 1 inch in size) would that be ok? Kind of like someone wearing a cross on their necklace? It is just a religious symbol right? Then there would be no chance of anyone being stabbed with it.

Why do you have to reduce it to the size of a christian symbol in order for it to be acceptable to you?

Why do you have to reduce it to the size of a christian symbol in order for it to be acceptable to you?

Unless I'm very much mistaken the mention of a cross around the neck was an example of a religious symbol which students of said religion are allowed to carry. No need to read into it any more than that.

Oh and reduced size so as to pacify those who think it is a dangerous weapon.

Why do you have to reduce it to the size of a christian symbol in order for it to be acceptable to you?


Hmm...I said one inch, the size of lots of things. I used a cross on a necklace as an example of how it could be worn as a religious symbol.

Unless I'm very much mistaken the mention of a cross around the neck was an example of a religious symbol which students ofsaid religion are allowed to carry. No need to read into it any more than that.


Thank you.



And let me be clear on my stance, I am against any policy that ok's any kind of weapon in schools. My objections are for the wellfare of any student. The Sikhs could be harmed just as well by a group of students who wish to gang up on him because of his newly granted freedom to carry a weapon.

It seems like anything that differs from your opinion is irrelevant. So I ask you this:

So if they placed size restrictions on it and made it ok for the kirpan to be the size of a pendant worn on a necklace(roughly 1 inch in size) would that be ok? Kind of like someone wearing a cross on their necklace? It is just a religious symbol right? Then there would be no chance of anyone being stabbed with it.
That sounds fair.
I had a friend who claimed to be an Odinist.

Appearently this required him to armed at all times.

So he did just that, had jeweler make him a sword pendant--a real sword--it came from from the scabard was tang through, very nice work----it was the size of a tooth pick--literally.

The point of the sword represented his willingness to fight and struggle and face adversity on his feet----it didnt have to an actual sword.


I see no reason why the comparison to any other ALLOWED religious symbol should be offensive--as a matter of fact it should be considered.

Suppose the Kirpan can only be an inch--then maybe a cross should not be allowed to exceed that.....hmmmm.

Compromise---anyone who resists some compromise is just impossing their will upon the other party--and deserve the resistance they receive.

So he did just that, had jeweler make him a sword pendant--a real sword--it came from from the scabard was tang through, very nice work----it was the size of a tooth pick--literally.

Religious symbol and a toothpick, sweet. And you could probably clean your nails with it. The Sikhs could learn from this guy.

This is bullshit. Why should one religious group get to carry daggers around, and everyone else not?:rolleyes:

Can somebody tell me Christians, Jewish, and Muslims have ceremonial daggers

:rolleyes:

Can somebody tell me Christians, Jewish, and Muslims have ceremonial daggers


Not as a core part of their religion.

:rolleyes:

Can somebody tell me Christians, Jewish, and Muslims have ceremonial daggers
Hmmm, dont think so.

You could drop a couple dradles in a sock and beat the hell out of someone with it though.

Hmmm, dont think so.

You could drop a couple dradles in a sock and beat the hell out of someone with it though.

lol....

which brings to mind a whole new reference to "Bible bashing"

lol....

which brings to mind a whole new reference to "Bible bashing"

New?
I always took Bible Bahsing literally.


No wonder I'm not allowed back to church.

A dagger?!?

Dammit, I'm gonna start a religious wing of the NRA and claim that my religious tract requires me to carry live grenades with me everywhere. Come on, Canada, you're supposed to wield the common sense in North America.

And everyone else just happens to own the country.
Canada is a home for everyone. Europeans, Asians, Africans, etc.

If they want to carry around weapons, they can go back to India.It's ceremonial daggers, NOT weapons. :rolleyes:

"go back to India"?, heh I dare you to say that in Vancouver. :rolleyes:

A dagger?!?

Dammit, I'm gonna start a religious wing of the NRA and claim that my religious tract requires me to carry live grenades with me everywhere. Come on, Canada, you're supposed to wield the common sense in North America.


How is a grenade comparable in any way to a small blunt ceremonial dagger? Unless they're small, explosive free, ceremonial grenades.

Depends. Can you carry a rocket launcher?

Actually, I'm quite proficient with the AT4 (M136) and am somewhat proficient with an RPG-7.

And everyone else just happens to own the country. If they want to carry around weapons, they can go back to India.

A lot of those Sikhs pay taxes and own land in Canada. You're not being very tolerant, you know. Being permitted to have beliefs and exercise them and whatnot is a civil right. So they're the minority! That doesn't mean they don't have rights like everyone else. If you don't let them wear daggers, you treat everyone the same way and don't allow underage Christians to drink wine in church.

Kiador']. If you don't let them wear daggers, you treat everyone the same way and don't allow underage Christians to drink wine in church.


How about letting them wear their daggers in church, not school. You dont let underage children drink wine at school do you?

No. Because judges are idiots.Idiots because their decision is based on OUR CONSTITUTION?

Thank you.



And let me be clear on my stance, I am against any policy that ok's any kind of weapon in schools. My objections are for the wellfare of any student. The Sikhs could be harmed just as well by a group of students who wish to gang up on him because of his newly granted freedom to carry a weapon.

I could be harmed by a group of students who want to gang up on me for getting into an AP class, or for wearing glasses, or maybe just because they don't like the clothes I wear. Most every other object mentioned in this thread has been used in a violent manner many times more than a kirpan, assuming a kirpan actually ever has been used violently in a school.

How is a grenade comparable in any way to a small blunt ceremonial dagger? Unless they're small, explosive free, ceremonial grenades.
Just how "blunt" are we talking, here? A fatal wound can be made with a butter knife. Aren't the turbans enough?

I could be harmed by a group of students who want to gang up on me for getting into an AP class, or for wearing glasses, or maybe just because they don't like the clothes I wear. Most every other object mentioned in this thread has been used in a violent manner many times more than a kirpan, assuming a kirpan actually ever has been used violently in a school.


Which is why I said in addition to the violence that already occurs in the schools."

And how long have the kirpans been allowed in school? Bullying has existed since mankind has. You need to read the rest of my arguments. My concern is not simply that a Sikh would use their dagger, but someone could take it from him and use it to harm another. Would be the same if any type of knife was allowed at school , no matter what the reason. Those who have them may not be the ones to inflict harm....someone who takes the knife from them could be the one with foul intentions. Why make weapons more available by allowing certain groups to carry them at school?

Which is why I said in addition to the violence that already occurs in the schools."

And how long have the kirpans been allowed in school? Bullying has existed since mankind has. You need to read the rest of my arguments. My concern is not simply that a Sikh would use their dagger, but someone could take it from him and use it to harm another. Would be the same if any type of knife was allowed at school , no matter what the reason. Those who have them may not be the ones to inflict harm....someone who takes the knife from them could be the one with foul intentions. Why make weapons more available by allowing certain groups to carry them at school?

Weapons are already availible enough as is in a school, they can't get a blunt dagger from a Sikh? they can borrow a pen from a friend, they can get a stapler out of a teachers classroom, they can grab a textbook out of their backpack, they can.....

If someone wants a weapon, they'll get a weapon, stopping them from getting their weapon from a Sikh will do naught be harm the Sikhs.

Just how "blunt" are we talking, here? A fatal wound can be made with a butter knife. Aren't the turbans enough?

A fatal wound can be made with the sporks in the cafeteria.

Weapons are already availible enough as is in a school, they can't get a blunt dagger from a Sikh? they can borrow a pen from a friend, they can get a stapler out of a teachers classroom, they can grab a textbook out of their backpack, they can.....

If someone wants a weapon, they'll get a weapon, stopping them from getting their weapon from a Sikh will do naught be harm the Sikhs.

knives can be viewed as threatening whereas staplers are not. I've never seen a 7-11 be held up with a pen or a stapler.

knives can be viewed as threatening whereas staplers are not. I've never seen a 7-11 be held up with a pen or a stapler.

Have you ever seen a 7-11 held up? I ask out of curiousity.

And the only reason they havent is cos people who rob 7-11s are idiots

Just a quick point to make - it is *compasses*, not a protracter. As has already been pointed out, a protracter is the little plastic semi circle used to measure acngles. Compasses are those potentially lethal metal spikes used to draw circles.

Other than that I don' think I have anything to add to the debate at the moment that hasn't already been said several times.

A fatal wound can be made with the sporks in the cafeteria.

Ph34r teh sporks!!! :D

knives can be viewed as threatening whereas staplers are not. I've never seen a 7-11 be held up with a pen or a stapler.

But many a 7-11 has been held up with a spork. There is a lesson to be learned here.

(For lesson, read reply to Dinaverg)

knives can be viewed as threatening whereas staplers are not. I've never seen a 7-11 be held up with a pen or a stapler.

Books can be held as threating, baseball bats can be held as threating, Stapler? Fist sized steel object easy to throw? I've been threating with a shoe, stapler wouldn't suprise me. The reason you don't see 7-11s held up with those items is that most people pick up "gun" or "knife" and automatically think danger, like you, apparently, even though as far as schools go, a kirpan is the least of your worries. However, it's knife-like, and you react accordingly.

Just a quick point to make - it is *compasses*, not a protracter. As has already been pointed out, a protracter is the little plastic semi circle used to measure acngles. Compasses are those potentially lethal metal spikes used to draw circles.

Other than that I don' think I have anything to add to the debate at the moment that hasn't already been said several times.

Actually, I once hurt a kid with a protracter too, the edges usually come to a point at the two corners on the bottom.

Which is why I said in addition to the violence that already occurs in the schools."

And how long have the kirpans been allowed in school? Bullying has existed since mankind has. You need to read the rest of my arguments. My concern is not simply that a Sikh would use their dagger, but someone could take it from him and use it to harm another. Would be the same if any type of knife was allowed at school , no matter what the reason. Those who have them may not be the ones to inflict harm....someone who takes the knife from them could be the one with foul intentions. Why make weapons more available by allowing certain groups to carry them at school?

Sikhs have been allowed to wield daggers in Quebec for quite some time.

No incident, not even a threat, has been reported yet.

Books can be held as threating, baseball bats can be held as threating, Stapler? Fist sized steel object easy to throw? I've been threating with a shoe, stapler wouldn't suprise me. The reason you don't see 7-11s held up with those items is that most people pick up "gun" or "knife" and automatically think danger, like you, apparently, even though as far as schools go, a kirpan is the least of your worries. However, it's knife-like, and you react accordingly.


I automatically think danger because I watch the news and each day there is another death at the hand of a gun or knife....not a stapler. Sure anything can be used as a weapon, even your hands and feet. There is a reason why you cant take guns and knives into certain places. To minimize the potential of an act of violence with a deadly weapon. And we can argue what is and what is not a deadly weapon....a can of cheese whiz, a sharp piece of paper, a pair of tweezers, but then we'd just be reaching wouldnt we...like with office supplies.

I automatically think danger because I watch the news and each day there is another death at the hand of a gun or knife....not a stapler. Sure anything can be used as a weapon, even your hands and feet. There is a reason why you cant take guns and knives into certain places. To minimize the potential of an act of violence with a deadly weapon. And we can argue what is and what is not a deadly weapon....a can of cheese whiz, a sharp piece of paper, a pair of tweezers, but then we'd just be reaching wouldnt we...like with office supplies.

Propably because guns and knives(in some cases) are made to be weapons. The same can't be said of the sikh dagger, as it is a purely ceremonial religious image in the form of a dagger.

No christian with a cross pendant intends to crucify someone with it.

I automatically think danger because I watch the news and each day there is another death at the hand of a gun or knife....not a stapler. Sure anything can be used as a weapon, even your hands and feet. There is a reason why you cant take guns and knives into certain places. To minimize the potential of an act of violence with a deadly weapon. And we can argue what is and what is not a deadly weapon....a can of cheese whiz, a sharp piece of paper, a pair of tweezers, but then we'd just be reaching wouldnt we...like with office supplies.

How many of those knives on the news are religous, blunt and sheathed? and how often are these events on the news happening in a school? I've yet to see a kirpan do anything on the news, if that's how you make your decisions. Banning kirpans won't reduce the potential of anything, except maybe having Sikhs attened the school. Most anything in a school can and have been demonstrated to be far more dangerous than a kirpan, and yet we only ban the knife looking one?

Propably because guns and knives(in some cases) are made to be weapons. The same can't be said of the sikh dagger, as it is a purely ceremonial religious image in the form of a dagger.

No christian with a cross pendant intends to crucify someone with it.

With a bit of filing and a good toss, David's Star could make a nice shruiken. And imagine how many vampire students might be harmed by a cross?

With a bit of filing and a good toss, David's Star could make a nice shruiken. And imagine how many vampire students might be harmed by a cross?

We're also discriminating against vampire students by having classes on during the day and holding them back for all eternity because they never age.

No because they arent classified as weapons.

What does it matter what they are classified as? Are they dangerous or not?

Propably because guns and knives(in some cases) are made to be weapons. The same can't be said of the sikh dagger, as it is a purely ceremonial religious image in the form of a dagger.

No christian with a cross pendant intends to crucify someone with it.


Again, just because it isnt meant to be used as a weapon doent mean that it wont be used as a weapon. You know, you could be the safest driver in the world yet still be involved in a fatal car accident. Its the other guy you have to look out for. Just because those of you saying "well its ok-its just a small knife and no one intends to hurt someone with it" believe that no harm could come from it, thats just not so. It could. You let one group bring weapons to school, then another gets riled up and animosity builds, peple get mad and before you know it, someone ends up physically hurt. If it is of such great importance, then why not send them to a private school that does allow it. Which is what some of the Sikhs do. Weapons, no matter how dull or blunt or harmless you say they are, are not a good idea in school. Not every student exercises self control. You have to look at the big picture and that picture is allowing weapons at school due to a small groups religious beliefs is not fair. You are asking students who may see it as a threat to just deal with it.

How many of those knives on the news are religous, blunt and sheathed? and how often are these events on the news happening in a school? I've yet to see a kirpan do anything on the news, if that's how you make your decisions. Banning kirpans won't reduce the potential of anything, except maybe having Sikhs attened the school. Most anything in a school can and have been demonstrated to be far more dangerous than a kirpan, and yet we only ban the knife looking one?

I said any knife...not just the kirpan.

Hmm...I said one inch, the size of lots of things. I used a cross on a necklace as an example of how it could be worn as a religious symbol.

Your own quote said how long the weapon was required to be.

Thank you.



And let me be clear on my stance, I am against any policy that ok's any kind of weapon in schools. My objections are for the wellfare of any student. The Sikhs could be harmed just as well by a group of students who wish to gang up on him because of his newly granted freedom to carry a weapon.

Even if the weapon is purely ceremonial and is no more dangerous than a protractor or a math book?

Again, just because it isnt meant to be used as a weapon doent mean that it wont be used as a weapon. You know, you could be the safest driver in the world yet still be involved in a fatal car accident. Its the other guy you have to look out for. Just because those of you saying "well its ok-its just a small knife and no one intends to hurt someone with it" believe that no harm could come from it, thats just not so. It could. You let one group bring weapons to school, then another gets riled up and animosity builds, peple get mad and before you know it, someone ends up physically hurt. If it is of such great importance, then why not send them to a private school that does allow it. Which is what some of the Sikhs do. Weapons, no matter how dull or blunt or harmless you say they are, are not a good idea in school. Not every student exercises self control. You have to look at the big picture and that picture is allowing weapons at school due to a small groups religious beliefs is not fair. You are asking students who may see it as a threat to just deal with it.

It could. It could. It could. Anything could. Oh, well, let's just separate them off into other schools, but they'll be the same, so they wont be losing anything. Let's just segregate a bit.

I may see a rather large shoe as a threat, anyone who wants to wear over size 10 must go barefoot or go to a special school just for them.

What does it matter what they are classified as? Are they dangerous or not?


How old are you?

It matters because books and pencils are legal. They are legal to bring into a school, an airplane, a courthouse,etc. Knives and guns arent. Why bring knives into the schools when the better part of the last decade has been spent on ridding the schools of them?

Just how "blunt" are we talking, here? A fatal wound can be made with a butter knife. Aren't the turbans enough?

Lets ban butter knives then. And anything else that is potentially dangerous ... including protractors and math books.

I said any knife...not just the kirpan.

Maybe Kirpans fit a slightly different definition than "knife"? and still, you want the kirpan gone, and not a textbook, or pens.

Your own quote said how long the weapon was required to be.


What? I have no idea what you are saying here. I have no idea what the requirements on the kirpan are.

How old are you?

It matters because books and pencils are legal. They are legal to bring into a school, an airplane, a courthouse,etc. Knives and guns arent. Why bring knives into the schools when the better part of the last decade has been spent on ridding the schools of them?

Because the knives are ceremonial and are not dangerous. Obviously kirpans are legal because the court just said they are.

How old are you?

It matters because books and pencils are legal. They are legal to bring into a school, an airplane, a courthouse,etc. Knives and guns arent. Why bring knives into the schools when the better part of the last decade has been spent on ridding the schools of them?

Nothing wrong with your stance on knives, kirpans hold a slightly different standard.

Actually, I once hurt a kid with a protracter too, the edges usually come to a point at the two corners on the bottom.

In which case; touche my friend, touche indeed.

But people were going on about metal spikes etc, which aren't normally found on protracters - apart from those ones used for dealing with especially dangerous angles. Acute ones in particular can be pretty lethal in a tight corner (ba-zing!) - don't let their diminuitive size fool you, they're like... uuuuh... Ghurkas. (Wow, I actually thoguht up a valid example. Quite chuffed with that.)

Maybe Kirpans fit a slightly different definition than "knife"? and still, you want the kirpan gone, and not a textbook, or pens.

Yes I want anything considered to be an illegal weapon out of schools. And the Kirpan is a dagger the article said?

dag·ger ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dgr)
n.
A short pointed weapon with sharp edges.
Something that agonizes, torments, or wounds.
Printing.
See obelisk.
A double dagger.


http://www.dtfbooks.com/shop/images/Khanda%20Kirpan%203D%20Pearl.jpg

That looks kinda sharp to me. In any case, it looks like you could stab me with it, or intimidate me into doing something against my will. If you tried to use a stapler to scare me in an attempted rape, well I'm likely to laugh at you and end up being bludgeoned with it. The image of intimidation exists with a dagger....be it short, long, dull, sharp. It is a weapon no matter how you look at it. It's used to remind them to fight for justice and against oppression. If nothing else it gives them maybe a greater sense of security than a student who is not carrying a knife. Its not just the physical effects, but the mental as well.

Ceremonial knife? I doubt they will be conducting any ceremonies at school.

Because the knives are ceremonial and are not dangerous. Obviously kirpans are legal because the court just said they are.


The court system says a lot of things that I dont believe in and I'm sure you agree with that as well. I'm not in Canada, so I am voicing my opinion based on if this was going on in the US. If the US makes ANY kind of dagger legal in the schools then I will gladly take it up with my gov't.


If they are not dangerous, then let me stab you in the eye with one. If you can still see afterwards and experience no pain or fear, then I will concede.

The court system says a lot of things that I dont believe in and I'm sure you agree with that as well. I'm not in Canada, so I am voicing my opinion based on if this was going on in the US. If the US makes ANY kind of dagger legal in the schools then I will gladly take it up with my gov't.



Fair enough. My point was just that simply because an object is legal or illegal does not make it bad or good or dangerous or safe or anything else.


If they are not dangerous, then let me stab you in the eye with one. If you can still see afterwards and experience no pain or fear, then I will concede.

But you could also take out my eye with a protractor or a pencil or a thousand other objects you are allowed to take to school. I'm not saying they are not dangerous at all, just that they are no more dangerous than those objects, and not worthy of a blanket ban.

Fair enough. My point was just that simply because an object is legal or illegal does not make it bad or good or dangerous or safe or anything else.



But you could also take out my eye with a protractor or a pencil or a thousand other objects you are allowed to take to school. I'm not saying they are not dangerous at all, just that they are no more dangerous than those objects, and not worthy of a blanket ban.

I could take your eye out with that rectangle of cheese they serve at school if I tried hard enough. That school cheese should be illegal as well.

I could take your eye out with that rectangle of cheese they serve at school if I tried hard enough. That school cheese should be illegal as well.

Should they ban that too then?

Should they ban that too then?


I was being humorous but since you ask.... Yes ban that dredful cheese.

but you could certainly stab with it.
And you could stab with a protractor with a half inch to inch long metal spike, or two.
And you could garrote some one with a crucifix chain.
And you could stab some one with the binding wire on a notebook.
And you could jump out of the window and fly to the roof.. you could..

I think there might be a thousand or so Sikhs at my university, and I've never seen any of them wear a kirpan...maybe they're afraid people will think they're terrorists, what with the turban and all.

Anyways, I don't think these are particularly dangerous. Some of them seem to be so curved that you could barely do more than cut someone's skin.

Are they used for any rituals that require the blades to be sharp, by the way?

And you could stab with a protractor with a half inch to inch long metal spike, or two.

Oh come on! Good grief! The spikey metal things are compasses!! The plastic-y semi circular (usually) things are protracters!

Oh come on! Good grief! The spikey metal things are compasses!! The plastic-y semi circular (usually) things are protracters!
Tell that to Google!

And you could stab with a protractor with a half inch to inch long metal spike, or two.
And you could garrote some one with a crucifix chain.
And you could stab some one with the binding wire on a notebook.
And you could jump out of the window and fly to the roof.. you could..


We've beat this one to death dear.

Tell that to Google!

Huh? What meanest thou, thou rogue that thou art?

*Please excuse the somewhat archaic, and probably grammatically appalling, language, I have absolutely no idea why I used it.*

We've beat this one to death dear.
Not according to page 13.

Yes I want anything considered to be an illegal weapon out of schools. And the Kirpan is a dagger the article said?

dag·ger ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dgr)
n.
A short pointed weapon with sharp edges.
Something that agonizes, torments, or wounds.
Printing.
See obelisk.
A double dagger.

So if a policy mandated a Kirpan that was blunt with blunt edges, it would not meet this definition, and the article could be amended to say "dagger-shaped religious icon".

As to "If I stab you in the eye with it, it will hurt", that standard of ban-worthiness has been pretty effectively refuted by counter-examples(Despite the confusion with the angular-measuring semi-circle protractor, which I've honestly seen a student use to cause a laceration (not a stab wound, I guess) by clutching the straight part and swinging across into another student).

As to the "image of intimidation", once its explained to the student body that the "dagger" in question is demonstrably less dangerous than common items (whose lack of lethal design impetus is surely less relevant than their actual efficacy as such), any remaining intimidation or weapon-envy would be unreasonable and not worthy of accomodation.

I think the axiomatic "no weapons in school" issue could be addressed by a more pragmatic definition of weapon as "something that is more dangerous than common items that are permitted, AND also serves no authentic utility or expression of protected right".

Under that definition, a gun could be excluded because it is more dangerous than common items. A battle-club could be excluded because, while its no more dangerous than a baseball bat, it serves no authentic purpose. Members of a battle-club-toting religion could carry small, light balsa clubs that are no more dangerous than a ruler.

We can be practical, safe, and accommodating within limits, it seems.

I think there might be a thousand or so Sikhs at my university, and I've never seen any of them wear a kirpan...maybe they're afraid people will think they're terrorists, what with the turban and all.


It could be concealed. And many don't wear it too. I have seen both cases, when I used to work in a factory in north India. There are Sikhs without hair cut normally. It depends on the family/local community traditions.


Are they used for any rituals that require the blades to be sharp, by the way?

AFAIK, no.

Not according to page 13.

Well you kinda prove my point. We've rehashed how everything except a kleenex can be used to harm someone on pages 13-15. Hence we have beaten it to death

So if a policy mandated a Kirpan that was blunt with blunt edges, it would not meet this definition, and the article could be amended to say "dagger-shaped religious icon".




Hey the articles about Sikhs and their Kirpans label it as a dagger. I was only showing a picture of one and showing the definition. I didnt name it a dagger , they did.

As to "If I stab you in the eye with it, it will hurt", that standard of ban-worthiness has been pretty effectively refuted by counter-examples(Despite the confusion with the angular-measuring semi-circle protractor, which I've honestly seen a student use to cause a laceration (not a stab wound, I guess) by clutching the straight part and swinging across into another student

And I said what I said about stabbing him in the eye to refute his statement of "they are only ceremonial knives and not dangerous."

Well you kinda prove my point. We've rehashed how everything except a kleenex can be used to harm someone on pages 13-15. Hence we have beaten it to death

In which case, just for the sake of completeness, a kleenex could be forced down someones throat and brutally suffocate them. Fear the awesome lethal power of the kleenex.

Well you kinda prove my point. We've rehashed how everything except a kleenex can be used to harm someone on pages 13-15. Hence we have beaten it to death

Is it dead to the point that we may agree that a Kirpan could be designated such that its true capacity as a "weapon" is less than or equal to that of common items?

Of course, the complications of the "image of a weapon", and the percumbent mentality, would remain at issue.

Hey the articles about Sikhs and their Kirpans label it as a dagger. I was only showing a picture of one and showing the definition. I didnt name it a dagger , they did.



And I said what I said about stabbing him in the eye to refute his statement of "they are only ceremonial knives and not dangerous."


Then let us say that a dagger as described in the article would not be permitted, but a small, blunt religious icon could be?

May we modify the statement to say "they are not more dangerous than commonly available items"?

Is it dead to the point that we may agree that a Kirpan could be designated such that its true capacity as a "weapon" is less than or equal to that of common items?

Of course, the complications of the "image of a weapon", and the percumbent mentality, would remain at issue.


I cant say what each and every student of any given school would deem as a threat or a weapon..... Nor can the Judicial System. Thats why I dont think its fair to allow these daggers/knives/whatver you guys want to call them at school.

Then let us say that a dagger as described in the article would not be permitted, but a small, blunt religious icon could be?

May we modify the statement to say "they are not more dangerous than commonly available items"?


I suggested they allow them to wear small ones (an inch, maybe two in length) in pendant form similar to the way others wear a cross on a necklace. If wearing it is merely symbolic, then that should be ok?

I cant say what each and every student of any given school would deem as a threat or a weapon..... Nor can the Judicial System. Thats why I dont think its fair to allow these daggers/knives/whatver you guys want to call them at school.

Can any policy hope to satisfy each and every interpretation, particularly that of children?

In order to do so, it would have to be so broad and draconian, the satisfaction of the universal minima and maximas of interpretation would surely infringe more pervasively on the many in between...

I suggested they allow them to wear small ones (an inch, maybe two in length) in pendant form similar to the way others wear a cross on a necklace. If wearing it is merely symbolic, then that should be ok?

How much functional danger are we drawing between two inches and three?

Could they wear a 2 1/2 inch blunt one on a belt in a sheath?

Perhaps the Sikh gurus (or whoever interprets their canon) would be agreeable to some kind of "peace-tied" requirement, like at ren-fairs.

I lived in a state, once, where by statute, a 3-inch knife was a tool, and a 3.001 inch knife was a weapon, criminal to be concealed. A line must be drawn, but I think we can render the Kirpan functionally impotent yet still symbolically sound.

Check out the Kirpan as one of the "Five Ks" at this Canadian site:

http://www.kirpan.ca/

I'm glad the Sikhs have such a devout and principled faith.

However, if school rules dictate that nothing resembling a weapon is allowed in school, then everyone has to play by those rules. The rules weren't created to discriminate against Sikhs. It doesn't matter whether you ropinion is that those who tout the rules are silly because they can't allow for a serious religious artifact to be worn on someone's person OR if you think the need to wear the artifact is itself silly. The rules are the rules. If Sikhs wish an exception, then they need to petition the school board (or whatever the school governance is like in Canada) like anyone else seeking change or exception.

According to the site, it's a "sheathed blade" whose "length cannot be restricted". I don't know a school in the country that would allow that in their building.

Now personally, I think the turbans are enough (hell, some schools have a "no hats" policy that would make the turbans an issue...). God won't get pissed because you're obeying the rules while at school.

Can any policy hope to satisfy each and every interpretation, particularly that of children?

In order to do so, it would have to be so broad and draconian, the satisfaction of the universal minima and maximas of interpretation would surely infringe more pervasively on the many in between...


Not just the children, but parents as well. I would have a considerable amount of concern if this law passed in the states suddenly allowing a group to carry "ceremonial/religious knives" to school.


edit: Ive stated this before but just to be clear :*allowing anyone to carry a knife/dagger/etc to school

I suggested they allow them to wear small ones (an inch, maybe two in length) in pendant form similar to the way others wear a cross on a necklace. If wearing it is merely symbolic, then that should be ok?
That's a very wise and reasonable suggestion.

Someone mentioned the phrase "dagger-shaped religious symbol" earlier. Isn't a Christian cross dagger-shaped?

That's a very wise and reasonable suggestion.

Someone mentioned the phrase "dagger-shaped religious symbol" earlier. Isn't a Christian cross dagger-shaped?


But, heres where the compromise part comes in. People keep saying we have to compromise but no ones actually willing to do so.

AFAIK, no.
So, you have a blunt piece of metal that is shaped like this:
http://www.kirpan.ca/kirpan1.jpg

And people outlawed it? WTF?!

Perhaps the Sikh gurus (or whoever interprets their canon) would be agreeable to some kind of "peace-tied" requirement, like at ren-fairs.


There were only 10 Sikh gurus and the last one Guru Gobind Singh was martyred in their struggle against the Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah. Hiis sons were martyred earlier by the Moghul emperor Aurangzeb.

So Guru Gobind Singh made their scripture (complied by the fifth guru) as the guru from then on. That is why their scripture is known as Guru Granth Sahib.

The book and the traditions of the gurus are the guiding lights for Sikhs.

So, you have a blunt piece of metal that is shaped like this:


And people outlawed it? WTF?!

:confused:

I answered no for this question

" Are they used for any rituals that require the blades to be sharp, by the way?"

But, heres where the compromise part comes in. People keep saying we have to compromise but no ones actually willing to do so.
Because you have no compromise, you keep going off on it because it is called a dagger, which you are taking to mean knife. You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction to the term and considering no logical factors in the argument.

But, heres where the compromise part comes in. People keep saying we have to compromise but no ones actually willing to do so.

I'm sorry, I feel this is unfair. I've proposed several compromises.

:confused:

I answered no for this question
So basically the blades could be blunt, and it wouldn't make a difference. Plus, they are shaped in a way that would make it difficult to really inflict injuries.

So my take on all this is that they aren't weapons. And therefore the only reason to outlaw them would be in a French-style war on religious symbols at school.

Because you have no compromise, you keep going off on it because it is called a dagger, which you are taking to mean knife. You are exhibiting a knee-jerk reaction to the term and considering no logical factors in the argument.

My arguments have been nothing but logical. I suggest you reread them. And when did the term dagger stop meaning knife?
Among the five symbols of the Sikh faith, which set male Sikhs apart from all other men, none has generated as much controversy in recent times as the kirpan, which in English is translated as knife, dagger, or sword.

A dagger is a weapon isnt it? Symbolic or not...it is what it is. What if a religious group stated that they must carry 5 things on them at all times...a rope, a bar of soap, a toothpick,a religious book of their choosing and a loaded gun(oh but just a small one...a Derringer)? Whats the difference?

You cant have it both ways. It is important to them because it reminds them to fight against oppression and injustice.....fight....clearly meaning the Kirpan is to be viewed as a weapon.

A sword that is "ritually constrained" is a sword that is bound to do only the work of justice, to be drawn on behalf of the oppressed and the weak, to be offered only in defense. The sword can be employed only when all other avenues have been explored and exhausted, and indeed failure to do so at that time would be tantamount to complicity in acts of evil and oppression

While this is a noble belief and I respect their rights, I do not believe they should have privelages to bring their symbolic weapons to school. No one should be allowed to bring their weapons to school.

Not just the children, but parents as well. I would have a considerable amount of concern if this law passed in the states suddenly allowing a group to carry "ceremonial/religious knives" to school.


edit: Ive stated this before but just to be clear :*allowing anyone to carry a knife/dagger/etc to school

And then there are the parents and children that think a ban on a religious instrument such as the Kirpan is bloody stupid.

I wonder if there could be an exemption for wearing the Sgian Dubh on Robbie Burns Day.

Well, I have seen lots of Sikhs without them, but I really like the idea anyway as I am of Scots ancestry and we like a claymore strapped to oor side. Next up: bagpipes and haggis in the school cafeteria. What sort of religion considers a weapon sacred anyway? Hoots mon.


Oh, sorry - I forgot about the Mayans.

In Shinto, there are three objects held above all others in terms of how sacred they are (and are considered symbols of the Imperial line, the highest priest in Japan): the mirror, the jewel, and the sword.

My arguments have been nothing but logical. I suggest you reread them. And when did the term dagger stop meaning knife?
[/B]

You posted a definition of dagger that included sharp edges. If we blunt them, it no longer meets your definition of dagger, so dagger's being a subset of knives doesn't apply.

No one should be allowed to bring their weapons to school.
But you can't hurt anyone with the thing. It's not a stabbing weapon, and apparently it doesn't have to be sharp either, meaning that most parents would probably give their kids blunt versions anyways.

You gotta judge these things on a case-by-case basis.

You posted a definition of dagger that included sharp edges. If we blunt them, it no longer meets your definition of dagger, so dagger's being a subset of knives doesn't apply.


did you not see the picture of it? The tip is anything but blunt. The blade itself may not be sharpened but the tip is not blunt.And its not my definition.



here:

http://www.dtfbooks.com/shop/images/Khanda%20Kirpan%203D%20Pearl.jpg

A dagger is a weapon isnt it? Symbolic or not...it is what it is. What if a religious group stated that they must carry 5 things on them at all times...a rope, a bar of soap, a toothpick,a religious book of their choosing and a loaded gun(oh but just a small one...a Derringer)? Whats the difference?

You cant have it both ways. It is important to them because it reminds them to fight against oppression and injustice.....fight....clearly meaning the Kirpan is to be viewed as a weapon.

While this is a noble belief and I respect their rights, I do not believe they should have privelages to bring their symbolic weapons to school. No one should be allowed to bring their weapons to school.

So, again, if we could designate a Kirpan that has blunt edges (outside your posted definition of a dagger), and , as a weapon, is as impotent as common items, and its suggestively martial imagery could be explained in the context of the religion, is that not compromise?

I wish I could understand all the furor raised over this. It's a knife. So what!?

Maybe living in Montana (where everyone carries a knife of some sort) for half my life has dullened me to some part of these things that other people apparently find offensive.

But you can't hurt anyone with the thing. It's not a stabbing weapon, and apparently it doesn't have to be sharp either, meaning that most parents would probably give their kids blunt versions anyways.

You gotta judge these things on a case-by-case basis.


Leon, look at the thing. It may be small and puny, but I could hurt you badly.Very badly. I could stab you in the main artery in the groin area and youd bleed to death before anyone could call 911.

And if we start this case by case basis thing with 'weapons(yes i said weapons) then what if some yahoo gets a small gun approved in school? Then what? Derringers are ok but not 9mm? Where exactly are the lines?

did you not see the picture of it? The tip is anything but blunt. The blade itself may not be sharpened but the tip is not blunt.And its not my definition.
here:

http://www.dtfbooks.com/shop/images/Khanda%20Kirpan%203D%20Pearl.jpg

So, we can amend the definition you posted to exclude the sharpened edges.

If a blunted Kirpan, differing from your posted picture, we're agreed upon, would that satisfy this point?

(With the understanding that, once blunted, its less dangerous than other common items. This is repeated because its important).

Leon, look at the thing. It may be small and puny, but I could hurt you badly.Very badly. I could stab you in the main artery in the groin area and youd bleed to death before anyone could call 911.

So, the comparative effectiveness of the Kirpan to other items, previously thought beaten to death, is resurrected by necessity...


And if we start this case by case basis thing with 'weapons(yes i said weapons) then what if some yahoo gets a small gun approved in school? Then what? Derringers are ok but not 9mm? Where exactly are the lines?

The line would be a standard of "dangerousness" that recognizes the potential danger of everyday items, and excercises that perspective.

A gun would clearly exceed such a standard, the Kirpan, less clearly so.

So my take on all this is that they aren't weapons. And therefore the only reason to outlaw them would be in a French-style war on religious symbols at school.

You are right.

They aren't weapons, they were never used as weapons and they are not supposed to be used as weapons.

Would you do me a favor and find out if the Sikhs in your Uni wear it or not?

We used to have a Sikh boy at my school. He didn't mind not being able to carry this dagger thingy. His parents respected the fact that it was not permissible under school rules and education department policy. So should this family. Otherwise, how can we stop students from bringing switchblades and samurai daggers to school?

So, again, if we could designate a Kirpan that has blunt edges (outside your posted definition of a dagger), and , as a weapon, is as impotent as common items, and its suggestively martial imagery could be explained in the context of the religion, is that not compromise?


If its small enough and blunt enough not to hurt anyone,thus removing its weapon form, then certainly. If you make it pendant size like I suggested, then not only would it be small enough, but then they could wear it in the open with pride. I mean if its so symbolic, why should they wear it hidden away?

If its small enough and blunt enough not to hurt anyone,thus removing its weapon form, then certainly. If you make it pendant size like I suggested, then not only would it be small enough, but then they could wear it in the open with pride. I mean if its so symbolic, why should they wear it hidden away?

Would 2 to 2.5 inches meet "pendant sized", and if they so choose to wear it on a belt, in a scabbard, and conceal it as a matter of preference, could that be allowed?

My concern is, I don't want to tell them, "We wear our symbols around our necks as pendants, you must do the same".

We used to have a Sikh boy at my school. He didn't mind not being able to carry this dagger thingy. His parents respected the fact that it was not permissible under school rules and education department policy. So should this family. Otherwise, how can we stop students from bringing switchblades and samurai daggers to school?

Because where Sikh boy's are taught about Kirpans and know that it's only a religious symbol, I can't see any reason for a kid to bring a switchblade to school but to harm, threaten or to seem 'cool'. Two of these reasons are harmful activities, and one doesn't bear consideration.