[UK] Sikh.. .. criticises banning of Kirpan

DinoFlintstone

"There can be only one!"
#1
Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian judge has said.
There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.
Sir Mota Singh QC has now criticised schools, in particular, over the issue.
"Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right," Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.
'No objection'
Last year, a Sikh police officer, who had been told to remove his turban during riot training, won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police.
A schoolboy was also banned from wearing his Kirpan at a school in Barnet, London. ... ... ...

BBC News - Sikh judge Sir Mota Singh criticises banning of Kirpan
Bear in mind, it's illegal to carry weapons in public in the UK, is it not highly irresponsible for an immigrant to expect a nation to change their laws just to suit a minority? Especially a law judge?
'When in Rome, do as the Romans do.'
I'm yet to see much, if any evidence where Westerners and/or Christians could get away with making Middle East laws make exceptions to suit them [and live.]

Scottish men can't wear a 'sgian dubh' [black knife] in their kilt stocking in public any-more, because it's a safety thing. It's an offensive weapon. Whether you agree or not... it's the law.
Also bear in mind, 'knife crime' is massive in the UK. Off the top of my head, I think knives and dogs are the weapon of choice here.
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#2
Bear in mind, it's illegal to carry weapons in public in the UK, is it not highly irresponsible for an immigrant to expect a nation to change their laws just to suit a minority?
What about naturalised sikhs? Do they have a right for the law to suit them or is it only applicable to "immigrants"?

DinoFlintstone; said:
When in Rome, do as the Romans do.'
I'm yet to see much, if any evidence where Westerners and/or Christians could get away with making Middle East laws make exceptions to suit them [and live.]
I personally dont like to base my societies principles on a comparative nature of others. Just because they do, does not excuse that we do.

....btw Sikhism originated in India where its fair to say Christianity (and esp Britain) has had a significant impact of not obeying the "when in Rome policy".

DinoFlintstone; said:
Scottish men can't wear a 'sgian dubh' [black knife] in their kilt stocking in public any-more, because it's a safety thing. It's an offensive weapon. Whether you agree or not... it's the law.
Its NOT the law. The sgian dubh constitutes a costume. The only reason it is ever disallowed is on the discretion of local authority where "zero tolerance" is rigourous.... and these areas its usually because the populous are so unruly its for their own safety.

DinoFlintstone; said:
Also bear in mind, 'knife crime' is massive in the UK.
As is media sensationalism and scaremongering...... knife crime is only marginly more prolifient in the UK mainly due to the near absence of gun crime. Its not half the problem people make it out to be. Maybe a few London, Manchester and Glaswegian suburds are the exception to this but they are the exception to most things civilised.


DinoFlintstone; said:
it's illegal to carry weapons in public in the UK
The law is designed that it is illegal to carry a weapon in public, so the answer is dont make it a weapon. As I already mentioned as an attribute to a costume it is within the law. Or...if it serves a lawful purpose.

A little thinking outside the box and it is easy not to work around laws but work well within them. The laws are designed to make criminal activity harder, people often miscontrude the gun and knife laws to infringe on their own liberties, when simple truth is they dont have too. For example I carry a knife well within the law, yet the chavvy kid can carry the same knife and it would be against the law. I go shooting regularly within the law yet most Brits have never even seen a gun. IMO if people are not wise enough to realise what they can do lawfully then they are not fit to do it lawfully.

The only thing I do agree with in the article is the banning of kirpans in schools, I dont think this should be law but at the discretion of the local authority and a sikh school can do what they want. There should be work arounds though in public schools, possibly some kind of proxy kirpan to fit with the religious side of wearing it.
 

DinoFlintstone

"There can be only one!"
#3
What about naturalised sikhs? Do they have a right for the law to suit them or is it only applicable to "immigrants"?
I count them in this context as 'immigrants' same as 'naturalised' Westerners might still be called 'white settlers.'
The law should and does apply to all regular members of the public.



I personally dont like to base my societies principles on a comparative nature of others. Just because they do, does not excuse that we do.
....btw Sikhism originated in India where its fair to say Christianity (and esp Britain) has had a significant impact of not obeying the "when in Rome policy".
I don't know a great deal about that side of history, but from what I know, 'Britishness' was confined within the Army, and there is still a lot of British, especially 'Scottish' influence in the Indian Army. Whether that has rolled-out into civilian life... I don't really know. It's nothing I've really thought about.



Its NOT the law. The sgian dubh constitutes a costume. The only reason it is ever disallowed is on the discretion of local authority where "zero tolerance" is rigourous.... and these areas its usually because the populous are so unruly its for their own safety.
The 'loop-hole' is that the blade is less than 3.5" or you use a fake blade, such as a comb or whatever.



As is media sensationalism and scaremongering...... knife crime is only marginly more prolifient in the UK mainly due to the near absence of gun crime. Its not half the problem people make it out to be. Maybe a few London, Manchester and Glaswegian suburds are the exception to this but they are the exception to most things civilised.


The law is designed that it is illegal to carry a weapon in public, so the answer is dont make it a weapon. As I already mentioned as an attribute to a costume it is within the law. Or...if it serves a lawful purpose.
A little thinking outside the box and it is easy not to work around laws but work well within them. The laws are designed to make criminal activity harder, people often miscontrude the gun and knife laws to infringe on their own liberties, when simple truth is they dont have too. For example I carry a knife well within the law, yet the chavvy kid can carry the same knife and it would be against the law. I go shooting regularly within the law yet most Brits have never even seen a gun. IMO if people are not wise enough to realise what they can do lawfully then they are not fit to do it lawfully.

The only thing I do agree with in the article is the banning of kirpans in schools, I dont think this should be law but at the discretion of the local authority and a sikh school can do what they want. There should be work arounds though in public schools, possibly some kind of proxy kirpan to fit with the religious side of wearing it.
Why ban them in School but not the regular public?
Do the people in School not wander about in public?
 

Bjarki

Registered Member
#4
Call it a religious tradition and you can get away with anything.. well, in Britain for sure..

On the continent several countries have adopted laws to ban not just the burqa, but also regular headscarves in schools. How many muslim girls dropped out because of it?
I'd say the number approaches zero..

Same will happen with these sikh's, just ban the knives.

Or rather, create a religion that explicitly bans the wearing of any knives by any person within the country of Great Britain.. if you want to have any chance of success. :urp:

Totally nuts they are over there.

Lesson #1: give into one demand and a million more will follow.

(and that's not a warning for the future, it quite accurately sums up what's been going on for a decade).
 

DinoFlintstone

"There can be only one!"
#5
'Almost' Off-topic, therefore in a 'spoiler.'
To quote myself...
I don't know a great deal about that side of history, but from what I know, 'Britishness' was confined within the Army, and there is still a lot of British, especially 'Scottish' influence in the Indian Army. Whether that has rolled-out into civilian life... I don't really know. It's nothing I've really thought about.
Mind you... ... ... I remember seeing video's and pictures of MANY Indians, in India with Scottish surnames, however, in the videos, I saw zero evidence of Western culture in the living families with Scottish surnames.
Again, me going off on one here, but there are very few Indians in my neck o' the woods, and the ones I know have next to no knowledge at all of their ancestry other than what they might have learned in School and media just like the rest of us. Even if they did stick to their culture and religion, it would only be at the very least common countries to adapt it accordingly to fit in with their environment.