# The Kirpan court decision



## SHELLDRAKE!! (2 Mar 2006)

In order to avoid senseless comments I would ask that readers become informed on the Kirpan at http://www.sikhs.ca/kirpan/ before commenting. I would like to know what the opinion of others is on this subject and weather or not you think Canadian society will benefit or be hurt by religiouse practices being incorporated into Canadian schools etc.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (2 Mar 2006)

I've been upto date with the court hearings in the paper and just dont think its a smart idea to have a weapon no matter what it means to that person or the faith in a school.


----------



## Guy. E (2 Mar 2006)

I recall a subject on this on TV a wile back. I believe it was the CBC.

The solution to the matter at the time was to have a "Kirpan" in a leather? sheath sewn together. So the person who wares it cannot access it to use it as a weapon.

I am infact listening to this on CBC Radio 1 RIGHT NOW.

You don't like weapons in school? how do you feel about scissors and pens? both of those can be used as weapons just as effectively as a kirpan.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> I've been upto date with the court hearings in the paper and just dont think its a smart idea to have a weapon no matter what it means to that person or the faith in a school.



Were you also aware that the kirpans in many cases were purely ceremonial?  I say keep them.  A high school student playing bagpipes at a school function would wear a sgian dugh - why would it be ok for him, but not a Sikh?  besides which, why not introduce students to the cultures of other people - sounds like a great conversation piece other than the usual "hey look at the dude with the towel on his head."


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (2 Mar 2006)

I am in no way insinuating that a person has ever or would ever used the Kirpan for violence but whats to stop another student from taking it away. In my opinion if the Kirpan was never in the school to begin with, the possibility would not exist.

 Although Canada is the result of many different cultures living together, I believe we as Canadians need to set some distinctly Canadian guidelines. After all, whats practiced in another country, doesn't always work in Canada.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> I am in no way insinuating that a person has ever or would ever used the Kirpan for violence but whats to stop another student from taking it away. In my opinion if the Kirpan was never in the school to begin with, the possibility would not exist.
> 
> Although Canada is the result of many different cultures living together, I believe we as Canadians need to set some distinctly Canadian guidelines. After all, whats practiced in another country, doesn't always work in Canada.



What's to stop

a) a kid from using a ballpoint pen as a murder weapon
b) a kid from stealling someone's lunch money

In other words, using "what if it is stolen" as an argument for not allowing them is very weak.

At last year's Stampede display, I was told not to wear the bayonet on my tac vest because "someone might steal it."


----------



## Bobbyoreo (2 Mar 2006)

Hey sorry if you disagree with me. I just don't think we should in anyways let a kid bring a knife into a school no matter what it is wrapped in. Knifes are weapons (yes I know of the ceremonial meaning) scissors and pens are not meant to be weapons. Knifes are. I got nothing again these people or their beliefs so please don't take it that way.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> A high school student playing bagpipes at a school function would wear a sgian dugh



Some would argue that the offensive action is in playing the bagpipes...


----------



## Guy. E (2 Mar 2006)

The point is that these are not meant to be weapons just as scissors are not meant to be weapons, the kirpans are a symbol of the Seek (sp) faith.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (2 Mar 2006)

Your typical Canadian student will look at a Kirpan as a weapon simply because they are ignorant to its true meaning.

 What I am suggesting is that as Canadians, we need to draw the line somewhere. I recall a lady in Toronto (I think) who went to court because she couldn't get her drivers liscence photo taken while wearing a burkha.

 Just as we as Canadians don't openly eat or drink during ramadan when in Afghanistan, I believe our rules and values should be respected here in Canada.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Your typical Canadian student will look at a Kirpan as a weapon simply because they are ignorant to its true meaning.



And your cunning plan to educate them is to keep them hidden at home?


----------



## Guy. E (2 Mar 2006)

Then specifically, what is "Canada"? 


I can only see them doing this because the seek religion is a minority in Canada. They sure as hell aren't doing this in India.


UPDATE: Supreme Courts say it is legal to have a Kirpan at school.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And your cunning plan to educate them is to keep them hidden at home?



The plan is to issue every child a Kirpan until some kid brings said Kirpan to a gun fight outside of shop class. In order to deal with the problem, shop class and guns will be banned from public schools.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (2 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And your cunning plan to educate them is to keep them hidden at home?



 Yes it is. Its my opinion that the average junior high/high schooler doesn't have the maturity to understand cultural differences and the likelyhood of an incident occuring is great.

 With a country like Canada, we can't honestly say that every culture of the world will get along peacefully by bringing all their customs and traditions into one society. Being born in Canada I grew up understanding that certain laws were put in place for my own safety. Why then should someone moving to Canada be entitled to change the laws because thats what they did in their country of origin?


----------



## The Anti-Royal (2 Mar 2006)

It may be argued that the likelihood of an incident occurring is not great.  Sikhs have been in Canada for well over one hundred years and a _kirpan_, to my knowledge, has never been used as a weapon in a school setting.  It is a symbol of faith, and its use as a weapon runs counter to that faith.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (2 Mar 2006)

I agree, the likelyhood of violence from the carrier of the Kirpan is not great but its the ignorance of others that may become the problem.

 Wouldn't it just be easier to say "In Canada, no guns or bladed instruments of any sort are allowed in schools."

 In my opinion, if you move to Canada you should follow the rules of society. Maybee there will never be an incident involving a Kirpan but what will we have achieved as Canadians if there is?


----------



## Gayson (2 Mar 2006)

Just let them use a Kirpan that is not sharp, thus making it no more lethal than a pen.


----------



## DSB (2 Mar 2006)

Some thoughts:

I wore a kirpan in school and  when I first joined the CF, (I took it off a few years after my JNCO because I was no longer following the Sikh Rehat….code of conduct).   Hopefully soon I will be in the right mind set to become an amritdhari Sikh again.

I’m also a teacher in a middle school in Peel.  We have several students who wear kirpans.  Everyone knows this, and no one, (staff, student, parent), has questioned the policy; at least where I work.  The students don’t flash them or even discuss them.

Amritdhari Sikhs, (‘devout’ Sikhs…the ones with the 5 K’s), will only bow to two things in life: the Guru Granth Sahib, (Sikh Scripture), and Shastar, (‘weapons’).  Both can help humanity fight oppression and injustice.  

Amritdhari Sikhs do not treat kirpans like tools.  They are revered and respected.  If someone is putting them on they will know this.

DSB


----------



## DSB (2 Mar 2006)

J. Gayson said:
			
		

> Just let them use a Kirpan that is not sharp, thus making it no more lethal than a pen.




This is what people do.  I don't know anyone who lets their kids run around with sharp knives.

DSB


----------



## Pte_Martin (2 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> I agree, the likelyhood of violence from the carrier of the Kirpan is not great but its the ignorance of others that may become the problem.
> 
> Wouldn't it just be easier to say "In Canada, no guns or bladed instruments of any sort are allowed in schools."
> 
> *In my opinion, if you move to Canada you should follow the rules of society. Maybee there will never be an incident involving a Kirpan but what will we have achieved as Canadians if there is?*



I agree with your point! Follow our rules, if you don't like them why did you move here in the first place?


----------



## DSB (2 Mar 2006)

RHFC said:
			
		

> I agree with your point! Follow our rules, if you don't like them why did you move here in the first place?



I didn't move....I was born here.....as was most of my family.  

My in-laws have been living in the UK for over 4 generations.  My great grandfather was fighting with the British in Basra before WW1.  Both my wife’s grandfathers were POWs after the fall of Singapore in WW2.  Sikhs are not a recent addition to the western world.

As stated earlier, Sikhs have been in Canada for more than 100 years.  In Brampton 3 of the 4 MPs are Sikhs, (two of which have Turbans).  One of those MPs wears his Kirpan in the House of Commons.

Somehow I see this degenerating in the discussion on Canadian identity.

DSB


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Mar 2006)

Careful DSB or I'll stab you with the pointy end of my cross..... 

KEEP IT ON TOPIC PEOPLE!!


----------



## Conquistador (2 Mar 2006)

The Sikhs I know are responsible, level headed people, and I wouldn't even know if they were wearing a kirpan. Personally, I'm okay with it as long as it's not like 3 feet long. But what I do have a problem with, is if some dumbass "converts" and sticks a knife in his pants and walks into school, or any other place, then cries discrimination when he's called out on it.


----------



## QV (2 Mar 2006)

Conquistador said:
			
		

> The Sikhs I know are responsible, level headed people, and I wouldn't even know if they were wearing a kirpan. Personally, I'm okay with it as long as it's not like 3 feet long. But what I do have a problem with, is if some dumbass "converts" and sticks a knife in his pants and walks into school, or any other place, then cries discrimination when he's called out on it.



But what if it was 3 feet long?  Would there still have been the same ruling from the SCC?  Like you said though I think this court decision just opened up a boat load of trouble because now non-practicing sikhs _could_ carry the knife and make the religeous claim. 

No need for knives in schools, IMHO.  I don't care whose religeon it is.  There are a lot of religeous practices in the world that would be considered unsafe or unacceptable to others.  It shouldn't always be the country of Canada bending this way and that for minority rights, its give and take.  Having said that though, the kid in the court decision moved to another school when he couldn't carry at the first one.  So why is it even a big deal?  Do they want to carry in ALL schools?  If I don't like the way a particular institution is run, I will move on.


----------



## Taylor187 (2 Mar 2006)

Withdrawn


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2006)

Taylor187 said:
			
		

> Just like Islam means peace, and Islam should peach peace eh?
> 
> I'm not going to play the weapon card. I believe Sihk young men understand thier faith and thier own laws on the use of thier Kirpan. I'l jump into the frying pan of religion. In a public school, it has absolutly no place, as do giant crosses hanging from walls or statues and busts of jesus. Canada is a multicultural mix match land. Unlike other countrys, we encourage our new legal and illegal citizens to keep thier own faiths and ideals which is wonderful for them, they can keep them inside thier places of worship or homes not in a public school. This isnt a racist comment towards any one religion or people, its towards all. Doesnt matter if its jesus, budda, allah. It has no place in our schools.



Just out of curiosity, I'd like to see your proposal for the banning of cross pendants and how you would convince the nation that it is in out best "Canadian" interests to abolish breaks spcifically tailored around Easter and Christmas.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2006)

We've already done that by calling it "the holliday season", and "annual chocolate eggs 'n' bunnies days", haven't we?


----------



## Taylor187 (2 Mar 2006)

Withdrawn.


----------



## Slim (2 Mar 2006)

Taylor187 said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about abolishing anything Michael O'Leary. Religion will always be apart of many peoples lives, but isnt it obvious that religion while helping many people live the life they want to live, causes conflict everywhere it goes? Teens are already screwed up enough, adding the element of religious divisions in a school is just another thing to keep thier minds off learning something useful other then how to roll a proper joint or how to pronouce ebonix words.



Lets be careful with the pointy finger please...

Keep it happy.

Staff


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Mar 2006)

taylor187,

In your earlier post you advocated keeping all religion out of schools, now you support it in principal for the balance it can bring to the lives of those who desire it. It would seem that Sikhs only wish that same quiet freedom to practice elements of their faith.


----------



## Taylor187 (2 Mar 2006)

My apoligies, I dont have the mental stamina, patience or level head as most of you have to wade into this argument.


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Mar 2006)

The Anti-Royal said:
			
		

> (...)a _kirpan_, to my knowledge, has never been used as a weapon in a school setting. (...)



Before 9/11, nobody had used planes as missiles in the Western world. What's your point?

The whole thing stinks, to me. We took crosses out of school for a reason. We wanted a religious-free school. How does allowing different faiths to bring prominent symbols of their faiths make school more religion-free?

And also, the "race/religion" card is played so much by all the minority groups, I can't help but feel sickened by it. I remember the story of the high school (?) kid who was "assaulted" at a basketball court and had his hair cut, and said it was a hate crime and the cops were all over it. Turns out nobody had attacked him and he'd cut his own hair. People like that ruin it for other people.

Also, one thing I couldn't help but notice, was how the media said the kirpan kid was speaking only in English because he was forced to get out of a French public school and went to an English private school. That's bullshit. He could've gone to a French private school; there are lots of those. I digress, though.

I guess my point is that we, Canada, have decided to not allow religion in schools. Like other people pointed out, all elements of Christianity has been taken out. Why allow other religions in? Seems to me like the Supreme Court, like most of Canada, has a problem putting it's pants on and saying "THAT'S ENOUGH."


----------



## Slim (2 Mar 2006)

Taylor187 said:
			
		

> My apoligies, I dont have the mental stamina, patience or level head as most of you have to wade into this argument.



Of course you do...Anyone does have the right to express their views about a given subject here. What you have to remember is to try to present a factual, non-emotional argument that does not single out others or reply to other posts with sarcasm. Sometimes its not an easy thing to do and we have lots of practice at it.

If Mike O'Leary is wrong about something he owns up to it...But he's very careful and knows how to keep emotion and fact separate.

maybe read more and post less for the next little while until you get the hang of it.

Cheers

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Redeye (2 Mar 2006)

You would think this would be a no-brainer.  Kirpans are small, ornamental daggers.  I know numerous Sikhs who carry them, and they're not even visible normally.  They're no more dangerous than a lot of things you'd find in a school.  There's no reason to suspect allowing them to be carried out of sight creates any more danger.  If someone screws it up for everyone, so be it, but to presume it's going to cause problems isn't right.


----------



## DSB (2 Mar 2006)

A tangent



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> And also, the "race/religion" card is played so much by all the minority groups, I can't help but feel sickened by it. I remember the story of the high school (?) kid who was "assaulted" at a basketball court and had his hair cut, and said it was a hate crime and the cops were all over it. Turns out nobody had attacked him and he'd cut his own hair. People like that ruin it for other people.



A Dumbass…one who was universally recognised.



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> I guess my point is that we, Canada, have decided to not allow religion in schools. Like other people pointed out, all elements of Christianity has been taken out.



In Peel
Religion has not been taken out of schools.  It is not taboo; it is not the boogie man.  Christianity has NOT been taken out.  It is there in the curriculum,(our history, our language, our charter, federation), and in the festivals we celebrate.  It is celebrated, like all faiths and traditions are.  Most of our holidays are Christian holidays.  No one is pushing or hiding Christianity in our schools.


----------



## DSB (2 Mar 2006)

QV said:
			
		

> But what if it was 3 feet long?  Would there still have been the same ruling from the SCC?  Like you said though I think this court decision just opened up a boat load of trouble because now non-practicing sikhs _could_ carry the knife and make the religeous claim.



A lot of boards have size restrictions which have been in place for years.  I think this is in-line with the SCC ruling.


----------



## Slim (2 Mar 2006)

> Most of our holidays are Christian holidays.  No one is pushing or hiding Christianity in our schools.



Just out of curiousity what is happening with Christmas, Easter and what-not these days in the Peel school system?


----------



## DSB (2 Mar 2006)

Slim said:
			
		

> Just out of curiousity what is happening with Christmas, Easter and what-not these days in the Peel school system?



There are still there Slim.  I think they may refer to Christmas holidays as Winter break.  Easter is still Easter.  The Board is really trying hard to talk about everything.  

It has to do with making all students feel valued and appreciated.  Last time I checked there are a lot, (majority), of Christian/Catholic students.

We celebrate everyone.  They have announcements on Ramadan, Eid, Visakhi, Diwali, Easter, Lent, Hanukah you name it.  The board posts huge lists of holidays and even recognises some Wiccan(sp?) festivals.

Believe or not every school I’ve worked in has had Christmas trees, (and the area I teach in is less than 50% Christian).    The media blows the idea of death of ‘religion’ in schools way out of proportion.


Glad to know your still tick'n Slim.  Kos is gonna be a teacher too!


----------



## armchair (2 Mar 2006)

Kipan have been allowed in the schools of many Provinces B.C. Alberta,Sask and Ontario for up to ten years now.
I do not see that the court decision as bad thing.It is in keeping with  Nation policy of Muti Culturism and Rights under
the Canadian Constitution.We as Canadian should be happy the system is working.Some many think this contrary
to Canadian tradition.But as Canadian we are evolving.We have more ethnic diversity now.I see this as a benefit
to Canadian Society as a whole.


----------



## FredDaHead (2 Mar 2006)

DSB said:
			
		

> In Peel
> Religion has not been taken out of schools.  It is not taboo; it is not the boogie man.  Christianity has NOT been taken out.  It is there in the curriculum,(our history, our language, our charter, federation), and in the festivals we celebrate.  It is celebrated, like all faiths and traditions are.  Most of our holidays are Christian holidays.  No one is pushing or hiding Christianity in our schools.



I call bullshit. Ever hear of a "holiday tree" or the "winter break" replacing a "Christmas tree" and the "Christmas break"? The days off are Christian-based, yes, just like most Christian holidays are pagan holidays the Christians took over. Basically, the anti-religion crowd is basically doing to Christians what Christians have done to pagans: steal their holidays and make them their own.

As far as "our history, our language, our charter, federation", you're so far out in the left field I'm not even sure I want to touch it. There is religion in our history, but for a good chunk of it, it played a marginal part. (It was there, but most people used it as a pretext if they talked about it at all) As for language, where's the religion in French and English? Except for most French curse words, I don't see it. Our charter specifically says all religions are cool, and doesn't specify that Christianity is different. And Federation? Please.

Now, I'm going to assume you meant that our CULTURE is not taken out of schools. There you would be right, at least in part. But as far as religion is concerned, Christianity is probably the most taboo religion in schools. Except for Satanism, maybe.

Now, I don't want to hijack this thread too much. So, mods, if you think I'm digressing too much from the topic at hand, feel free to delete/move this. I'd appreciate if you tell me, though. 

(You posted while I was writing, so I'll just add my new comments down here)

Easter is still called "Easter" only because "Chocolate-and-Rabbits weekend" isn't catchy enough. It doesn't signify anything anymore, it just happens to be a name that has a religious background. It's like St. John's (the city). Sure, it's called by a Christian name, but there's nothing inherently Christian about it.

You said yourself it recognizes "some" Wiccan (yes you got the spelling right) festivals. Why doesn't it recognize all of them? Might sound silly, but if we're recognizing everything everybody does, it has to be applied completely. So let's start bringing forth Satanist rituals, and Rastafarian (not sure on the spelling) holidays and whatnot.

Also, something unrelated to what DSB has said, but that I find interesting, is how people are labelled as ignorant if they call the kirpan a weapon. That's as if I called everyone ignorant because they don't understand the intricacies of the KKK. Yes, they're a violent group (and I don't agree with them) but the burning crosses and hoods and such aren't inherently violent/racist/whatever. So I guess the KKK really are ok, right? After all, they have the "right to assemble" and the "right to demonstrate" and "freedom of speech", do they not?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Yes it is. Its my opinion that the average junior high/high schooler doesn't have the maturity to understand cultural differences and the likelyhood of an incident occuring is great.



And you don't give Canadians nearly enough credit - perhaps the newer generations are more open-minded than you apparently are.  But since DSB has effectively and elegantly shut you and your "arguments" down, I don't think there is anything else to say in this thread.

Well done, DSB.  And thanks.


----------



## Slim (2 Mar 2006)

OK...

It seems that people have some real credible and non-inflamitory posts to contribute so I'm taking the lock off for now.

Play nice or it goes right back on again.
Cheers

Slim
STAFF


----------



## clasper (4 Mar 2006)

I don't have a problem with people carrying innocuous little blades in school (personally, I carried a Swiss Army Knife all through high school- it would have made a much better weapon than the pen that someone was referring to earlier).

However, I do have a problem if little Johnny the atheist gets sent home from school for carrying the same blade that little Kamaljeet the Sikh is allowed to carry.  If there is a reasonable safety rule for the students (like no dangerous weapons in class), then it should be followed by all.

DSB:  I've never actually seen a Kirpan up close, and I don't think I've met someone who carries one.  I've always assumed that it was just a small dagger, but still sizeable enough that it wouldn't be allowed in all situations (like for example, on an airplane).  Are Sikhs required to remove their Kirpans for air travel?  I would guess that a Kirpan would be a more dangerous weapon than the file from my toenail clippers.


----------



## DSB (4 Mar 2006)

Before 9/11 they would ask some people and not others.  My grandparents were never asked.  I used to just check mine in my luggage.  Nowadays most Sikhs will put theirs in their luggage. Some Sikhs refuse to do that. Once in a while people set up flight chartered by Amritdhari Sikhs in order to get around that.

People leave their Kirpans on when they shower and bath, (they’ll wear the same on or a different one).  You sleep with it, play with it, it’s always there.

DSB


----------



## DSB (4 Mar 2006)

I’m not interesting in flaming anyone just some quick points for Frederik G.

a) I have worked in three schools in Peel for the last 5 years; the last two having 65-75 teachers.  We’ve always had a Christmas tree up in December.  Its put up and decorated by students and kept in the front entrance.  I have never ever heard it referred to as a ‘holiday tree’.

b) Missionary work, religious oppression, and religious education are huge parts in the formation of Canada.

c) Schools recognise as many holidays and celebrations as they can.  The school I work at is about 45% south Asian, (maybe more).  We celebrate about 5-6 South Asian festivals.  Schools look at their demographics and then focus on celebrations that might acknowledge those students, (by that I mean displays, assemblies, announcements).

Often they group holidays together in themes, (to celebrate commonalties).  An example is the Festivals of lights, (Christmas, Hanukah, Diwali, there are a few more that tie into this).

d)  The majority of Peel is Christian/ Catholic.  The board is not silly enough to push those children aside and not value them.

e)  Rastafarians can grow their dreads and wear their ‘hats’ in schools.  I’ve seen a Rasta teacher.

f)  There is no room for hate in schools.  Be that racial based, gender based, sexual orientation based.    A good example is Gay rights.  I’ve been at schools were the community is really anti-gay, (often for religious reasons).  If children use slurs like fagot or homo they would have been suspended.  That’s why I see the KKK having no place in schools, (do they have a positive agenda in anyway?).

g) There is no freedom of speech in schools.  You can not say what you want when ever you want: I agree with this.


Schools are an environment to show our children what an ideal society might look like.  One where everyone plays together, uses appropriate language, and behaviour: one where kids try to understand each other, and are not afraid to ask questions.  It can be a real a positive environment, (at least in middle schools).  It’s unfortunate that society isn’t always that way.

DSB


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Mar 2006)

DSB,

 I agree with everything you have said however it bothers me that there is still school systems that cater to what they believe is right.

 With the Kirpan ruling, one faiths religiouse beliefs are now defended by a court decision but what about a final court ruling for all the other faiths?

 We should be able to have our kids yearly callendar printed up with every religiouse holiday on it and no one should have to tell us we can't use words like Christmas.

 Personally I think Religion has no place in public schools, thats what private schools are for. But now it seems the Kirpan is the only clearly accepted symbol allowed in our school systems.

 Just a thought.


----------



## DSB (4 Mar 2006)

They do have calendars made like that, and at least some of the kids have them.  I do admit schools do shy away from elaborate religious discussion, (rightly so).  The discussions they do have are often are framed with cultural awareness in mind.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

What I find disturbing is the amount of unregulated expermentation that school boards conduct under the guise of  de' jour sensitivities . The Kirpan is a none issue you should not be able to carry a weapon to school regardless of religion or beliefs , it sets a dangerous precidence . Societies will not bend its rules to accomidate everyone , this is valuable lesson that childern should learn early in life via the education system  so it is not a surprise later in life .


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Mar 2006)

Quote,
_But now it seems the Kirpan is the only clearly accepted symbol allowed in our school systems_.

I disagree, its the only one that required someone to go to court to wear it.......

As long as it is rendered useless[ or close to it], whats the difference between it and a long cross or a sharp star of David?


----------



## DSB (4 Mar 2006)

Cannonfodder said:
			
		

> What I find disturbing is the amount of unregulated expermentation that school boards conduct under the guise of  de' jour sensitivities . The Kirpan is a none issue you should not be able to carry a weapon to school regardless of religion or beliefs , it sets a dangerous precidence . Societies will not bend its rules to accomidate everyone , this is valuable lesson that childern should learn early in life via the education system  so it is not a surprise later in life .




The Kirpan is allowed in all work places, (the two exceptions are airplanes, and some court rooms).  Universities have no problem, (even in the states), the army includes them in the dress regs, many Canadian Police officers wear them.  What false reality are we preparing these kids for?  In this case anyway,  I see no surprises popping up.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Mar 2006)

Or would it not serve a better purpose to keep public schools religion free so that all faiths (or lack thereof) would not have these problems. As mentioned before, the student in question with the Kirpan simply chose a school that catered to his religion.

 I have nothing against any faith but it bothers me that a simple solution could be to set up one set of rules that will apply to all faiths in schools instead of constantly making ammendments.



			
				DSB said:
			
		

> The Kirpan is allowed in all work places, (the two exceptions are airplanes, and some court rooms).  Universities have no problem, (even in the states), the army includes them in the dress regs, many Canadian Police officers wear them.  What false reality are we preparing these kids for?  In this case anyway,  I see no surprises popping up.



 Again I believe the issue here is the immaturity of grade school kids when dealing with the issue of Kirpans. Not accusing the carriers of Kirpans but maybee more so the school bully that may see stealing a Kirpan as a fun thing to do.


----------



## Cannonfodder (4 Mar 2006)

I guess if they are rendered inert they would be okay , afterall an innocent baseball bat could be used as a weapon and they can be found in schools . My comments were more geared to other movements in the education system not the Kirpan .


----------



## Michael Dorosh (4 Mar 2006)

SHELLDRAKE!! said:
			
		

> Again I believe the issue here is the immaturity of grade school kids when dealing with the issue of Kirpans. Not accusing the carriers of Kirpans but maybee more so the school bully that may see stealing a Kirpan as a fun thing to do.



You keep harping on this - are you a school teacher?  How many schools have you physically set foot in during the last 20 years?  I'm curious. Seems to me like you're building a straw man.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2006)

Just go with the touchy feely freedom machine. Just be ready to drag it all back out, if and, when someone gets stabbed at school with a Kirpan. Only then will you have a legitimate beef. 

Don't forget, Rasta's have a legitimate, recognised religion also. However they can't hold meetings in the city park, and toke away on humongous splifs.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (4 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> You keep harping on this - are you a school teacher?  How many schools have you physically set foot in during the last 20 years?  I'm curious. Seems to me like you're building a straw man.



 I am a parent who has dealt with situations in which students at my kids school have brought box cutters(because they saw them on the news), handguns and other items to school because (in their defence statements) "they didn't know better."

 I would suggest you re read these and any other of my posts, and maybee you would notice I am giving a personal opinion rather than your attitude of assuming only yours counts.

 The purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss matters based on facts and actual experience, alot of which IN MY OPINION you lack.


----------



## SoF (4 Mar 2006)

This is such waste of time for the courts. That kid needs to stfu, put his frickin knife...er i mean kirpan in his dam closet, go to school and do his fricken homework. In cases like these, religion should not overrule school law. What if my religion sais I need to carry a balisong with me at all times eh or someother persons religion sais he needs to carry a 9mm with him. It's crap like this that pisses me off.


----------



## chanman (4 Mar 2006)

I find school regulations on knives or sharp/pointy objects in general to be rather odd, given the scalpels in the science classrooms, the various saws in woodwork, the multitude of knives in the cooking classes, the paper cutters and the knives in art classes.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Mar 2006)

I've seen Kirpans as small as 1 inch long, I was even given one as a gift. At Christmas of all times. Schools are still allowed to limit their size and sharpness. If a one inch pretend knife pisses you off that much get a life. What a tempest in a teacup.


----------



## Pte_Martin (5 Mar 2006)

SoF said:
			
		

> This is such waste of time for the courts. That kid needs to stfu, put his frickin knife...er i mean kirpan in his dam closet, go to school and do his fricken homework. In cases like these, religion should not overrule school law. What if my religion sais I need to carry a balisong with me at all times eh or someother persons religion sais he needs to carry a 9mm with him. It's crap like this that pisses me off.



i totally agree with you it's not that a knife offends me, but once you start letting one religion do want they want then what's stopping the other ones


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Mar 2006)

Both of you shake yer friggin heads and then tell what symbol of your religion you can't wear to school.....


----------



## DSB (5 Mar 2006)

SoF said:
			
		

> This is such waste of time for the courts. That kid needs to stfu, put his frickin knife...er i mean kirpan in his dam closet, go to school and do his fricken homework. In cases like these, religion should not overrule school law. What if my religion sais I need to carry a balisong with me at all times eh or someother persons religion sais he needs to carry a 9mm with him. It's crap like this that pisses me off.



This post infuriates me.  To me your attitude bleeds ignorance.  My Canada does not ask people to check their faith at the door.  

The kirpan is different than a lot of western religious symbols.  The Kirpan is part of the Sikh uniform.  You wear it when you become Amritdhari.  It would be akin to asking Catholics/Christians to refuse baptism to come to school. 

Wearing a cross is very different than wearing a Kirpan, (and in no means do I want to take away form the symbolism and importance the cross has for Christians).


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Mar 2006)

Why is this even an issue?  I remember the kirpan coming up when I was in high school in Scarborough in 1983?  I though this was all settled.  
I have never heard one story of a Sikh pulling one out and doing anything with it.  If there were incidents like this, I think they would have come to light by now.  Just for fun, walk up to someone and ask to see it.  There is no way they will wheel it around lightly. 
It is an exception.  Like every other privilege we have in this country, once someone screws up they may loose some of those freedoms of religion.  Seems to me, the seriousness of using a kirpan would make a young man wearing one turn to use just about anything else in order to avoid using it.  If someone really puts their mind to it, we all know that killing a guy does not depend too heavily on weapons at hand. 
Besides, I would be more worried with the one toothed comb some of the guys keep on them to help tuck the hair back under the turban.  Looks like an ice pick (at least the one our Sikh buddy in school had did).


----------



## warrickdll (5 Mar 2006)

While many might agree with the SCC decision, specifically that it was unreasonable to deny the student the ability to wear the kirpan in the compromise manner (limited length, visibility, edge, and accessibility) that the student’s parents and the school had already agreed to.

Where the decision errors (opinion starts here) is that it doesn’t have a final check that would ensure it wasn’t giving someone (or some group) special privileges above other Canadians. 

This can be shown be now asking:
	Can other students now wear a knife-like object in the same manner (limited length, visibility, edge, and accessibility)?
	They can’t. And so the decision is in error because it allows more freedoms to someone (or some group) solely based on their religion. 

Other Canadians should not now be considered criminals (or at least in violation of the rules) for the same actions but while holding different religious views.

Another dangerous part of the SCC decision was where it touched upon the student’s true beliefs. In fairness it only mentions that this did not play a part in the decision because the school board never called it into question. However this puts the SCC in a position it shouldn’t let itself be put into – an arbiter of what is (or what is not) a true religion and who is (or who is not) a true believer.


----------



## danny1222 (5 Mar 2006)

DSB,  thank you for sharing your knowledge on this topic,  maybe could you post a picture or two of what a kirpan looks like?

as for the issue of bringing a knife to school,  IIRC minors are not allowed to possess knives..   what about 18yr olds that can purchase knives, and going out on a limb here; have the justification to bring them to school?


----------



## Guy. E (5 Mar 2006)

For everyone here who does not know what one looks like here you go:












here is something about it:



> The kirpan is the ceremonial dagger carried by Sikhs, as a reminder to fight for justice and against oppression. It is one of the five khalsas, or dress rituals. The word kirpan has the literal meaning of weapon of defence, as opposed to the talwar, the weapon of offence.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan
> 
> ...




And for those people who think you can just make up your on religon and carry what you like, be it a machine gun or grenades... Geta  life, do a little research. I havent the time to do it right now because I need to get fire wood for the house today.

I think you will find that what your saying is just ignorant.


----------



## SoF (5 Mar 2006)

A knife has one purpose, and thats to cut something. No one should carry a knife to school, regardless of whatever the hell your religion is. The only people that should be carrying knifes are law enforcement and cab drivers.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (5 Mar 2006)

danny1222 said:
			
		

> as for the issue of bringing a knife to school,  IIRC minors are not allowed to possess knives..   what about 18yr olds that can purchase knives, and going out on a limb here; have the justification to bring them to school?



There is nothing unlawful about any knife, unless it is a prohibited weapon, such as a butterfly knife or a bladed kubotan etc.  Age is not an issue.  
Maybe stop thinking of the kirpans as being knives (which implies usage) and think of them as religious symbols.  Hell, if  people really want to push the pocket, give your kid a foot long cross on a chain made of stainless steel.  Then they could use it as a club, or as a chain flail.  
Love that religion!!


----------



## FredDaHead (5 Mar 2006)

DSB said:
			
		

> The kirpan is different than a lot of western religious symbols.  The Kirpan is part of the Sikh uniform.  You wear it when you become Amritdhari.  It would be akin to asking Catholics/Christians to refuse baptism to come to school.



Baptism doesn't imply wearing a weapon. It's just a ceremony, and a piece of paper. Unless you plan on doing the "death by a thousand cuts" thing, a piece of paper can't really hurt anyone. Neither does a ceremony.



> Wearing a cross is very different than wearing a Kirpan, (and in no means do I want to take away form the symbolism and importance the cross has for Christians).



For someone whining about ignorance and claiming other people are wrong, you sure know how to make people feel like you consider their faith as being less "good". (I know I should say "worse" but it doesn't convey the same nuances.)

If a Kirpan is a 100% pure religious object, completely abstracting the fact that it's a weapon, then it's no different than a cross. Both are religious symbols some people who choose a certain faith are supposed to wear. There is no difference. Well, there is one difference: one is a weapon and one isn't, but other than that they're both basically the same.


----------



## DSB (5 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Baptism doesn't imply wearing a weapon. It's just a ceremony, and a piece of paper. Unless you plan on doing the "death by a thousand cuts" thing, a piece of paper can't really hurt anyone. Neither does a ceremony.
> 
> For someone whining about ignorance and claiming other people are wrong, you sure know how to make people feel like you consider their faith as being less "good". (I know I should say "worse" but it doesn't convey the same nuances.)
> 
> If a Kirpan is a 100% pure religious object, completely abstracting the fact that it's a weapon, then it's no different than a cross. Both are religious symbols some people who choose a certain faith are supposed to wear. There is no difference. Well, there is one difference: one is a weapon and one isn't, but other than that they're both basically the same.




For Sikhs taking Amrit is a very serious occasion.  We dont get a piece of paper, we are initiated into the Khalsa.   

I am not whining, (I am however perplexed by some peoples ignorance).  I have never stated that my faith is better than yours. My faith is just that, mine.  There are many paths: your path is yours to walk, and I have my path to walk.  I have not used the words worse, or good with respect to religion.  I have stated that some things are different.  Please dont put words in my mouth.

The difference at least for me between the cross and the Kirpan is that the Kirpan is part of the Sikh uniform.  When you are confirmed a Sikh you must wear a Kirpan, (along with the four other Ks).  I dont believe Christians are mandated to always wear a cross at all times as a sign of their faith, (I could be wrong about this).

DSB


----------



## Pte_Martin (5 Mar 2006)

DSB said:
			
		

> I don’t believe Christians are mandated to always wear a cross at all times as a sign of their faith, (I could be wrong about this).
> 
> DSB



nope your right we don't have to wear a cross some people do but i know a lot of people that don't


----------



## Northern Touch (6 Mar 2006)

Got here a bit late but I'll keep it short.

I personally disagree with the SCC.  I understand exactly what a Kirpan is and how serious it is to a Sikh, but I still see it as a weapon and that does not make me iggnorant.  If another student brought a similiar object to school, with no intention of using it what so ever they would still be suspended immediatly, no questions asked, for bringing a weapon to school.

If a student were to wear a gerber to school, they wouldn't be allowed to because of the knife inside it.  So how can we say one student can't wear a multi tool because its a weapon, but we can let another student wear a dagger because of their religion?  I think the real problem lies with actually definition of rules and the exceptions made for them.  If no knives are allowed in schools, then that should be the rule, no ifs and or buts about it.  If a Kirpan can be viewed as a knife or a dagger, and those aren't allowed in schools, then regardless of religion, they shouldn't be allowed either.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Mar 2006)

My home town has (had?) a large Sikh community, and I'd say 30% of my high school were Sikhs.

They all wore these things, and it was never a problem.

The place could get pretty rough sometimes, and not ONCE did one of these daggers ever get pulled.

DG


----------



## Michael Dorosh (6 Mar 2006)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> Got here a bit late but I'll keep it short.
> 
> I personally disagree with the SCC.  I understand exactly what a Kirpan is and how serious it is to a Sikh, but I still see it as a weapon and that does not make me iggnorant.


 LOL!!



> If another student brought a similiar object to school,



Such as what?



> If a student were to wear a gerber to school, they wouldn't be allowed to because of the knife inside it.  So how can we say one student can't wear a multi tool because its a weapon, but we can let another student wear a dagger because of their religion?  I think the real problem lies with actually definition of rules and the exceptions made for them.  If no knives are allowed in schools, then that should be the rule, no ifs and or buts about it.  If a Kirpan can be viewed as a knife or a dagger, and those aren't allowed in schools, then regardless of religion, they shouldn't be allowed either.



I see no rationale here besides sour grapes, petty jealousy and irrational fear.  Did you actually have a reason for this opinion or did you just like the way the keyboard feels under your fingers?


----------



## 2 Cdo (6 Mar 2006)

Michael others here might be afraid to ask but are you going to contribute anything but insults to this thread? ???The holier than thou attitude is tiring. 

Personally, I think it is much ado about nothing. Ten + years without an incident in Ontario seems to be proof enough, but remember all it takes is just ONE incident for this to really blow up!


----------



## Thirstyson (6 Mar 2006)

Time for a little introspection. Kirpans are allowed on BMQ's, where all knives are prohibited. Should the CF remove this exception?


----------



## kcdist (6 Mar 2006)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> I see no rationale here besides sour grapes, petty jealousy and irrational fear.  Did you actually have a reason for this opinion or did you just like the way the keyboard feels under your fingers?



Michael, I am attracted to this Forum due to it's high level of reasonable, rationale debate. Posts such as your most recent one contribute very little. Perhaps if you have nothing thoughtful to post, consider not posting.

That said, it should be noted that in a recent (Centre Left) Globe and Mail poll, 75% of over 20,000 responders were not in favour of the recent Supreme Court decision. I think many rationale Canadians recognize the folly of a decision that allows minors to introduce edged weapons into an otherwise weapons free environment. Although I realize almost anything can be used as a weapon, a knife is considerably more dangerous than, say, a pencil or a chair.

The Young Offenders Act exists because Canadian society accepts that children are often far less reasonable and rationale that adults. Therefore, although crimes committed by youth are punished, they are generally held less accountable than if they were adults. However, someone who is stabbed or slashed to death by a Kirpan used by a student is not any less dead or injured.

A number of negative scenarios come to mind, however here is a simple one that many could understand. A baptized Sikh youth is tormented, for whatever reason (too smart, too fat, too ugly, too nerdy) by a group of similarly immature youth. The Sikh youth does not show restraint, and finds himself engaged in a fight. Somehow, the Kirpan is unsheathed and is used to cause grievous bodily harm or death to one of the combatants. Although this scenario has never or rarely ever happened in Canada, it would be cold comfort for the parents of the dead or injured child if it did.

Although many youth carry weapons outside of school, schools must be considered as sanctuaries of safety for all those who attend. The simple fact that Kirpans are not allowed on commercial aircraft is recognition by government and society as a whole that they do indeed pose a safety risk if they are in the wrong hands.

Every religion has whack jobs. Timothy McVeigh....The Taliban....the Orthodox, Muslim and Catholic Serbs, and of course, the Air India bombers. The simple fact that a Kirpan should never be used in anger or during a period of irrationality doesn't mean that it won't. I'm sure that even Baptized Sikhs suffer from schizophrenia.

Two questions that I don't have the answer to:

1.    What do Kirpan wearing Sikhs do when faced with commercial air travel? Do they abstain and take ground and sea travel only? 

2.    Is there a size limit to Kirpans. Can they come in miniaturized form? Could the Swiss make a 1 cm long, fully functioning Kirpan that could be worn around the neck? Or, does the Kirpan have to be large enough to hurt someone if required? If the answer is the latter, I think it's all the more reason that a child should not be allowed to bring one into an institution of learning.


----------



## warrickdll (6 Mar 2006)

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Time for a little introspection. Kirpans are allowed on BMQ's, where all knives are prohibited. Should the CF remove this exception?



To quote myself (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40476/post-345675/topicseen.html#msg345675):


> While many might agree with the SCC decision, specifically that it was unreasonable to deny the student the ability to wear the kirpan in the compromise manner (limited length, visibility, edge, and accessibility) that the student’s parents and the school had already agreed to.
> 
> Where the decision errors (opinion starts here) is that it doesn’t have a final check that would ensure it wasn’t giving someone (or some group) special privileges above other Canadians.
> 
> ...




I can't see the CF running counter to the SCC on this. But the government should make the changes required so that a Just decision can be made. To reiterate though: I think the compromise was correct but the fact that the decision does not apply to others is reprehensible.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (6 Mar 2006)

Does anyone have an example of where the kirpan has been used in ANY circumstance in Canada, justified or otherwise?

You can't say that we don't make allowances for religion.  Various religious affiliation will get you out of school or work.  Mennonites don't have to pay auto insurance in Ontario.  Jo Ho's can refuse blood transfusions for their kids despite their imminent death.  People who have alcohol stipulations against consuming alcohol can still take the sacramental wine.  
If there were a host of kirpan related accidents and deaths in Canada, I might be persuaded to say that they are an issue.  But kids have been wearing them in school for as long as Sikh's have been in Canada.  I am also under the impression that while in the general public, the kirpan is kept out of site and not very accessable.  If the schools have recently changes their rules, then I don't see it as being fair that someone whose faith is centuries old has to be affected by it.  Kind of like a grandfather clause.  

I have to deal with violence and weapons every day, and I have no issue with these ceremonial daggers.

[As an aside, can we get "kirpan" added to the spell checker?  Seems like a word that is going to be around a bit]


----------



## DG-41 (6 Mar 2006)

> A number of negative scenarios come to mind, however here is a simple one that many could understand. A baptized Sikh youth is tormented, for whatever reason (too smart, too fat, too ugly, too nerdy) by a group of similarly immature youth. The Sikh youth does not show restraint, and finds himself engaged in a fight. Somehow, the Kirpan is unsheathed and is used to cause grievous bodily harm or death to one of the combatants. Although this scenario has never or rarely ever happened in Canada, it would be cold comfort for the parents of the dead or injured child if it did.



Straw man argument.

Like I said, I grew up in a northern BC town with a large Sikh population. A large proportion of the students in my high school were Sikhs. And this was a rough place; me and my friends got into our fair share of fights.

As a matter of fact, I believe the gentleman who was the first ever RCMP officer to wear the turban was posted to my hometown, probably because of the relaticvely large Sikh population.

Anyway, I once saw a friend of mine - a Sikh, and a weightlifter to boot - pick up a guy by the scruff of the neck and the ass of his pants and grate him against a chain-link fence like a piece of cheese. Another Sikh friend of mine kept a couple of golf clubs and a hockey stick in his car - and he didn't play sports, if you catch my drift.

But not once did I ever see or even hear about one of these daggers being drawn in a fight. We knew they all had them... but for whatever reason, no matter how badly the fight might have been going, they were never ever pulled.

Not being Sikh, I can't really say why - maybe it was religious taboo, or maybe the thing is more akin to a butter knife than an effective weapon. But I do know that I saw plenty of guys who carried them, under... extreme duress... and they never chose to pull it.

And that was, ye gods, 20 years ago. So well over 20 years of these things being in schools with no problems.

DG


----------



## Pte_Martin (6 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> Straw man argument.
> 
> Like I said, I grew up in a northern BC town with a large Sikh population. A large proportion of the students in my high school were Sikhs. And this was a rough place; me and my friends got into our fair share of fights.
> 
> ...



I've never really thought of i that way, If it's been going on for so long and nothing has happened i see nothing wrong with it. And there are a lot of easier ways of killing or injuring people ie) guns.


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> And that was, ye gods, 20 years ago. So well over 20 years of these things being in schools with no problems.



That just pushed the credibility of your argument way down. Just because things happened a certain way twenty years ago doesn't mean it still is the same today. Twenty years ago the AIDS virus wasn't as prominent as it is now, and people weren't wearing condoms as much. Twenty years ago, we didn't have shooting sprees in schools. Twenty years ago... you get the idea.

My point is, while your argument seems valid, the fact is that you're basing it on things that happened before those kids were born.

By that same token, I could say all Germans are Nazis because 60 years ago, most of them were. I could also say Russians are lying commie bastards, because fifteen years ago, they were. But it wouldn't be a very convincing argument, now would it?

Like I said, valid point, probably, but the reasoning behind it seems flawed.



			
				RHFC said:
			
		

> I've never really thought of i that way, If it's been going on for so long and nothing has happened i see nothing wrong with it. And there are a lot of easier ways of killing or injuring people ie) guns.



Sure, a gun is generally more efficient at killing than a knife. But a knife is more efficient than a pen. And a pen is more efficient than a popsicle stick. Ok, I'm pushing it, but you know what I mean, right?


----------



## Pte_Martin (6 Mar 2006)

[quote ]
Sure, a gun is generally more efficient at killing than a knife. But a knife is more efficient than a pen. And a pen is more efficient than a popsicle stick. Ok, I'm pushing it, but you know what I mean, right?
[/quote]

yes i understand, but, I'm just guessing, that this knife isn't extremely sharp. And as said on this post that it is worn under clothing and is hard to get it, Wouldn't it be easier just to grab that pen or pencil and use it, or a bat something that they wouldn't have to "dig" at to get at


----------



## Guy. E (6 Mar 2006)

OK Kids, from now on, we use plastic scissors, crayons, cardboard rulers, play dough in wood working and easy bake ovens in home-ec because you can stab or cut people with pens, wood/ steel rulers, hand saws/ chisels, kitchen knives and silver ware.

We are sorry for the inconvenience. we hope you will have a nice and normal child hood.

You know, I have herd more stories of my dad getting together with his friends when he was about 10 and shooting each other with bb guns in the bush then I have of kirpan incidents in schools.


----------



## kcdist (6 Mar 2006)

RecceDG said:
			
		

> Straw man argument.



Perhaps.

However, when is the last time a commercial plane has been highjacked in Canada? Never? If so, why do we bother with security screening? Does anyone really think there is any reasonable chance that a Westjet flight between Edmonton and Fort McMurray will ever be highjacked by terrorists? Of course not. But the scenario exists, and we spend major bucks to take preventative action on the extremely unlikely possibility that it _COULD_ happen.  

I would suggest my scenario is far more likely to occur sometime in the next 20 years.

RecceDG...were any of your Sikh friends mentally unstable? Probably not, but would the likelihood of them using their Kurpan have increased if they were? Trust me, there are mentally unstable Sikhs as there are mentally unstable people of every religion. Add the immaturity consistent with youth and you've got an even greater likelihood of a problem.

In my short life, I've dealt with Drunken Muslims (taboo), Pedophile Church workers (double taboo), and a thieving Cop (off the scale). To tell me a Baptized 14 year-old Sikh would _NEVER_ draw his Kirpan in anger while at school is simply not believable. And if the possibility even remotely exists, full size, lethal Kirpans should not be allowed in schools.
(As mentioned previously, I'm okay with a miniaturized version)


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Mar 2006)

Frederick,

You've skipped a step in your logic.

RecceDG wrote "20 years of these things being in schools with no problems". - That's twenty continuous years without issues.

He did not say that because, at one point in time, 20 years ago, there was no issue, therefore there is none today.  He was calling upon 20 full years as his example.

Your counterpoints fail because:

 - although there were Nazis 60 years ago; Germans have not been Nazis for the past 60 years, the counterpoint lacks the comparative continuity of example of the original point.

 - although 20 years ago there was not the awareness of AIDS and its precaustions, those precautions came into common use only after the recognition of the risk; it was a longterm societal change as a result of understanding that the problem was real.  Nobody said 20 years ago that AIDS 'might happen' therefore 'we must take all measures to avoid it.'

I now return you to your regularly scheduled emotional argument.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Mar 2006)

> Twenty years ago the AIDS virus wasn't as prominent as it is now, and people weren't wearing condoms as much. Twenty years ago, we didn't have shooting sprees in schools.



False analogy, aka "comparing apples and oranges".

These things have been in the school system for well over 20 years. Nobody can identify a single time during that 20 years where they have been used as a weapon in a school. I personally witnessed Kirpan-bearing Sikhs in situations of extreme personal duress that might have encouraged the use of the Kirpan as a weapon, but they chose not to. It is safe to say that Sikhs have been placed in similar situations of extreme personal duress in the intervining years, and they too have chosen not to use their Kirpans as weapons as well.

That does not automatically preclude any Sikh from using the Kirpan as a weapon in the future, but it does suggest that Kirpan weapon-use in Canadian schools is so exceptionally rare that it has never happened. Conversely, I have seen a chain-link fence used as a weapon in a Canadian school (and by a Sikh no less). Does that mean that chain-link fencing should be banned?



> RecceDG...were any of your Sikh friends mentally unstable?



Clinically? I don't know. A couple were a little touched... but then that described most of us. Try growing up in the middle of nowhere with 10 months of winter and two months of crappy skiing and see how sane YOU stay.

But I offer you that somebody truly mentally unstable is a potential danger no matter WHAT is at hand. If somebody snaps, all you need is a handy rock. And in a high school, there are scissors, craft knives, screwdrivers... any number of potential lethal weapons readily available if one is truly motivated to use them.

You make a better argument for mental stability screening than for banning a Kirpan.


DG


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Mar 2006)

RHFC said:
			
		

> yes i understand, but, I'm just guessing, that this knife isn't extremely sharp. And as said on this post that it is worn under clothing and is hard to get it, Would it be easier to just grab that pen or pencil and use it, or a bat something that they wouldn't have to "dig" at to get at



While I don't think a random person could do much damage with a pen (yes, it would hurt, but not to the level of a stabbing with an actual knife) I agree with you on that one. Though I don't think most people have a bat on hand most of the time. 



			
				Guy. E said:
			
		

> OK Kids, from now on, we use plastic scissors, crayons, cardboard rulers, play dough in wood working and easy bake ovens in home-ec because you can stab or cut people with pens, wood/ steel rulers, hand saws/ chisels, kitchen knives and silver ware.
> 
> We are sorry for the inconvenience. we hope you will have a nice and normal child hood.
> 
> You know, I have herd more stories of my dad getting together with his friends when he was about 10 and shooting each other with bb guns in the bush then I have of kirpan incidents in schools.



If I had the mindset of a Liberal pinko-commie (not saying you're one or anything) I'd say the only reason we haven't heard of Kirpan incidents is because of the Sikh lobby on the government and the Tamil Tigers giving big bucks to our leaders.

Fortunately, I'm not blind to reality. However, I still stand by what I said previously and will say again that just because something hasn't happened, does not mean nothing will. Before Munich, people didn't think a hostage situation could turn this bloody. Before Marc Lepine went into Polytechnique and shot a whole bunch of women, nobody thought something like that would happen in Canada. Before 9/11, nobody thought terrorists would use planes as missiles. Until some Sikh kid kills another kid with his dagger, people will say "oh, it's not gonna happen."

I don't agree with your (I hope) exaggeration of taking any danger away from kids. Obviously we must have some measure of restraint. I do think, however, that the line must be drawn at items which are primarily weapons being brought in schools. While you can hit someone with a baseball bat, stab someone with a pen, or burn yourself on an oven, the chance of maliciously injuring someone with those, compared to the overwhelming use of those items, is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

Mr. O'Leary, I'll admit I misread RecceDG's post. However, we've had airplanes going around for many, many years before they got turned into missiles. Like I said earlier, just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't.

RecceDG, like it was pointed out earlier, just because something that's not primarily a weapon can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean it should be banned. However, something that IS primarily a weapon, should be. Or at least it should be restricted, IE firearms.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2006)

Quote,
_While I don't think a random person could do much damage with a pen (yes, it would hurt, but not to the level of a stabbing with an actual knife)_

Very wrong thinking......


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> If I had the mindset of a Liberal pinko-commie (not saying you're one or anything) I'd say the only reason we haven't heard of Kirpan incidents is because of the Sikh lobby on the government and the Tamil Tigers giving big bucks to our leaders.



Thank you, invoking the conspiracy theory angle, even if you do it in a sideways manner, always lends credibility to a good debate.



			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> Mr. O'Leary, I'll admit I misread RecceDG's post. However, we've had airplanes going around for many, many years before they got turned into missiles. Like I said earlier, just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't.



Although I do believe we still allow them in our airspace, perhaps based on the low probablity of further occurrences.


----------



## DG-41 (6 Mar 2006)

> While you can hit someone with a baseball bat, stab someone with a pen, or burn yourself on an oven, the chance of maliciously injuring someone with those, compared to the overwhelming use of those items, is so low as to be statistically insignificant.



Where are you from?

Sports equipment gets used in real-world fights all the time. Baseball bats, hockey sticks, golf clubs... hell, I know of a case where a guy threw a DISCUS at someone (he missed).

The use of sports equipment in school fights happens all the time. The use of Kirpans in schoolfights has, to the best of anybody's knowledge, never happened. There's a FAR better chance of being hit by a baseball bat than being stabbed by a Kirpan in a Canadian school.

And you want to ban the Kirpan?

DG


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Mar 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _While I don't think a random person could do much damage with a pen (yes, it would hurt, but not to the level of a stabbing with an actual knife)_
> 
> Very wrong thinking......



I didn't say there was zero chance of hurting someone with a pen. I'm just saying getting stabbed with a knife has a bigger chance of causing life-threatening than being stabbed with a pen. Both can be dangerous, of course. I never said the opposite.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Thank you, invoking the conspiracy theory angle, even if you do it in a sideways manner, always lends credibility to a good debate.



I was just saying it before a real conspiracy crackpot comes around and says something about it. Might as well throw in some humour into this dry debate.



> Although I do believe we still allow them in our airspace, perhaps based on the low probablity of further occurrences.



We also put forward stricter restrictions and regulations to help avoid a repeat of 9/11. I don't see any such restriction on Kirpans, at least not in precise terms or any actual verification of the enforcement of those restrictions.



			
				RecceDG said:
			
		

> Where are you from?
> 
> Sports equipment gets used in real-world fights all the time. Baseball bats, hockey sticks, golf clubs... hell, I know of a case where a guy threw a DISCUS at someone (he missed).
> 
> ...



Where are _you_ from? Growing up, I was involved in fights, and some people threatened each other with bats and whatnot, but nobody ever started hitting each other. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that it doesn't happen as often as you would like us to believe.

And yes, I want to ban the Kirpan because it's a weapon. Like someone else pointed out, kids can't carry a gerber or a swiss army knife in school, because it has a blade (which is usually about as sharp as a butterknife). A lot of my friends had swiss army knives when I was a kid, but nobody ever stabbed someone with one.

So if, because a certain weapon (a Kirpan) is seldom/never used in a fight, it's fine to carry one around, what about other potential weapons that are seldom/never used in fights? Can someone carry a katana to school, because he lives the Ninjutsu (sp?) or Bushido way? (I'm a bit fuzzy on terms.. feel free to correct me on the proper term to use.) After all, I don't think there are many, if any, cases of people in a schoolyard fight using a katana.


----------



## Guy. E (6 Mar 2006)

HAHA, so your saying that because people aren't aloud to have them at school knives don't show up? where have you been the past few years? If anyone wants to bring a knife to school, they will do it. I know lots of guys who did in shop class, even I did.

Saying "No" wont stop anything form happening in the future. The basic fact is if you want to hurt someone or kill them, it will happen. I personally can accept someone in my school with one no problem.


----------



## Scott (6 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> HAHA, so your saying that because people aren't aloud to have them at school knives don't show up? where have you been the past few years? If anyone wants to bring a knife to school, they will do it. I know lots of guys who did in shop class, even I did.



So because we have people who will still do it is a great reason to abandon law and order now and for the future? Absurd. Glad you're proud that you decided to help the situation by bringing your own sharps to school : I know that it will probably always happen but that doesn't make it _right_.



			
				Guy. E said:
			
		

> I personally can accept someone in my school with one no problem.



I am glad that you can accept it, how many do you think will agree with you? My bet is you're speaking for the minority.


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Mar 2006)

Guy. E said:
			
		

> HAHA, so your saying that because people aren't aloud to have them at school knives don't show up? where have you been the past few years? If anyone wants to bring a knife to school, they will do it. I know lots of guys who did in shop class, even I did.



I specifically stated, in my post, that people go into their school with knives. However, like Scott said, it's not a good reason to abandon law and order.



> Saying "No" wont stop anything form happening in the future. The basic fact is if you want to hurt someone or kill them, it will happen. I personally can accept someone in my school with one no problem.



So you'd be cool with someone, say, bringing a machete to school?


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Mar 2006)

The likelihood of a devout Sikh using his kirpan as a weapon, is about as likely as a Trappist monk strangling someone with his rosary, I would think.


----------



## FredDaHead (6 Mar 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The likelihood of a devout Sikh using his kirpan as a weapon, is about as likely as a Trappist monk strangling someone with his rosary, I would think.



If we were talking about adults, I'd agree fully. However, we're talking about kids and teenagers. And we all know kids and teens are impulsive as hell.

To compare a kid to a monk is to compare apples to steel rivets.


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Mar 2006)

But to compare reverence for the symbols of the chosen faith is not...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> While I don't think a random person could do much damage with a pen (yes, it would hurt, but not to the level of a stabbing with an actual knife) I agree with you on that one.



Ever see Grosse Pointe Blank (1997), with John Cusak?  ;D


----------



## Michael OLeary (6 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I was just saying it before a real conspiracy crackpot comes around and says something about it. Might as well throw in some humour into this dry debate.



And I was trying to defuse it before your "real conspiracy crackpot" decided he's been offered an opening in this thread.  Opening the floor to disruptive tangents does not support credible debate.




			
				Frederik G said:
			
		

> We also put forward stricter restrictions and regulations to help avoid a repeat of 9/11. I don't see any such restriction on Kirpans, at least not in precise terms or any actual verification of the enforcement of those restrictions.




http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kirpan/



> March 2, 2006:
> The Supreme Court of Canada rules 8-0 that a total ban of the kirpan in schools violates the Charter of Rights because it infringes on the Charter’s guarantees of religious freedom. *But it does allow school boards to impose some restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety.*
> 
> "Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron writes in the unanimous decision. "A total prohibition against wearing a kirpan to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others."
> ...



The SCC seems to have met your requirement of additional controls, and as far as we know, there hasn't even been an incident yet.


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Mar 2006)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ever see Grosse Pointe Blank (1997), with John Cusak?  ;D



I heard that movie wasn't worth renting. But I'll assume it involves someone sticking a pen through someone?


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Mar 2006)

Ban the pillows too.


----------



## Whiskey_Dan (7 Mar 2006)

I think it is safe to assume that very few of you, or even none of you go to
school where A LOT of people where the kirpan. Well I do, I live in Surrey BC,
which is renowned for the number of Indo-Canadians that live here, in fact, we
have the highest concentration of Sikhs outside of the Punjab, and I believe
the Kirpan is no more a weapon then a pen or scissors. Sure knives can be used
as weapons, but Anything can be. And a Kirpan isn't just a knife, its also a very
ceremonial and religious symbol. None of the Sikhs I know that wear it would
ever use it as a weapon, but believe me, I've seen a few of them fight well
enough with their fists. And trust me on this one, its not like other students
don't already bring worst concealed weapons to school.
Just my $0.02

Dan


----------



## DSB (7 Mar 2006)

Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2006scc006.wpd.html


paragraph 129 which deals with the principle of 'reasonable accomodation' and which explains how the law tries to balance an individual's constitutional freedom with the environmental constraints that are imposed on it

Read it for yourself


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Mar 2006)

I wonder how the decision affects Wiccan practitionners, who could potentially want to bring their ceremonial knife/sword (I can't remember the name for it, I apologize) to class/work/etc? Seeing it's a religious symbol as well, there _should not_ be restrictions, but I bet if someone tried to pull it off they'd pay for it.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I wonder how the decision affects Wiccan practitionners, who could potentially want to bring their ceremonial knife/sword (I can't remember the name for it, I apologize) to class/work/etc? Seeing it's a religious symbol as well, there _should not_ be restrictions, but I bet if someone tried to pull it off they'd pay for it.



Please cite the principal Wicca reference that states it is to be carried on their person at all times.

Frederick, your attempted counter-arguments thus far have failed to stand up to critical examination.  Please try to develop a complete argument before throwing out any more red herrings.

Thank you.


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Mar 2006)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Please cite the principal Wicca reference that states it is to be carried on their person at all times.
> 
> Frederick, your attempted counter-arguments thus far have failed to stand up to critical examination.  Please try to develop a complete argument before throwing out any more red herrings.
> 
> Thank you.



I was just "wondering aloud" so to speak. As for the "principal Wicca reference", it is my understand that it doesn't exist. Wicca is a much more free-form religion than Christianity or Sikh...ism (?) therefore citing one particular reference would be useless and simplistic. I also don't have access to the few books I own about Wicca, right now, so I can't do further research into the matter.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Mar 2006)

Okay, I'll bite.

http://groups.msn.com/-WiccanMoon-/theathame.msnw

*The Athame (or magickal knife) is not actually used for cutting purposes in Wicca, but for casting circles (Spheres of personal power in which rituals are preformed), and directing energies we raise in rituals and spells. It usually is double edged, with a black handle used for absorbing and storing energies we choose to use or re-use at a later time. It is usually associated with the element of Fire. The Athame rests upon the Gods portion of the altar towards the bottom right hand side.*

So unless the school has a wiccan alter to cast spells at (I'm betting: NO) then there is no reason to have one of these things.  And I'm sure it can be "cleansed and charged" somewhere other than a school yard.

No case.


----------



## Michael OLeary (7 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> I was just "wondering aloud" so to speak. As for the "principal Wicca reference", it is my understand that it doesn't exist. Wicca is a much more free-form religion than Christianity or Sikh...ism (?) therefore citing one particular reference would be useless and simplistic. I also don't have access to the few books I own about Wicca, right now, so I can't do further research into the matter.



Well, to my understanding, the expectations placed upon a Sikh regarding the Kirpan are very clearly documented and I suspect, formed a significant contribution to the SCC's decision making process.  Your mention of Wicca, like mentioning conspiracy theories, and comparing this situation to development of AIDS awareness and to Nazism in 1930s/40s Germany, are all red herrings.  You throw these "theories" out looking for a response, perhaps for someone else to jump on and support, and then back away when they are shown to be flaccid arguments unworthy of comparison to the case supposedly under discussion.   If you don't agree with the decision, just say so and then either present a case worthy of debate, or move on with your life.


----------



## DSB (7 Mar 2006)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> Sikh...ism (?)



Sikhism is correct,

Sikhism is the faith, a person who follows that faith is called a Sikh, (pronounced Sh-ick)


----------



## FredDaHead (7 Mar 2006)

DSB said:
			
		

> Sikhism is correct,
> 
> Sikhism is the faith, a person who follows that faith is called a Sikh, (pronounced Sh-ick)



Thanks for the note.  I always thought it was supposed to sound something like "seek" though. Stupid mass media!


----------

