Canada allows students to carry daggers to schools

Sleepy

BBC Website wrote:

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.

"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."

As a parent, is the life and safety of a child more important than religious freedom? I think so said Claude Bouchard of the Quebec Federation of Parents' Committees.

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.

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.

Originally posted at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4770744.stm]Canadian

Does this worry anybody else? This really seems to be an insane ruling to me. Surely the safety of students is more important than the rights of a minority to practice such ridiculous religious beliefs?

seamus

How many people have been stabbed by kirpans in Canadian schools in the last 20 years?

I have no problem with it, so long as it's secure - that is, it couldn't easily be removed or stolen by another student.

lostexpectation

not so sure about this one, 8 inches (the knife he was banned from carrying) is a bit excessive, I presume part of the tradition is for the knife to real and sharp. I think he is being allowed carry a smaller one now.

My religion demands that I bring notes into exams with me. If you object to me doing that you're an intolerant neo-nazi bigot.

Sleepy

seamus wrote:

How many people have been stabbed by kirpans in Canadian schools in the last 20 years?

I have no problem with it, so long as it's secure - that is, it couldn't easily be removed or stolen by another student.

How many Irish students have been shot in the last 20 years?

Would you be okay with a staunch republican carrying a baretta to school because it's 'a symbol of power' in their belief system?

Dave!

Ridiculous, some people are too unwilling to offend these days

Laguna

I went to School with many Sikhs, I didn't get stabbed once. It's part of their religion to carry this, I can't see why anyone would have a real problem with this, it's not as if they added this part of their religion in to allow their youths to stab mofo's in school. Be wary of the person carrying the knife, not the knife itself..

Boston

Sleepy wrote:

How many Irish students have been shot in the last 20 years?

A damn site more then have been stabbed by kirpans in Canadian schools in the last 20 years I'd wager. Banning them is false security anyway.

biko

Sleepy wrote:

Does this worry anybody else?

No, not really.

rubadub

Surely this allows all students to carry knives?
Anybody could just claim they are a Sikh, no?

How long does a religion have to be around for it to be accepted. They carry these since the 17th century. If I start up a religion where I carry a machine gun or knuckle duster as a symbol of power and truth how long will it take before my son can bring one to school.

I don't have a real problem with it BTW, just questioning the logic.

Dades

Sleepy wrote:

Surely the safety of students is more important than the rights of a minority to practice such ridiculous religious beliefs?

Do you really consider a Sikh with a ceremonial dagger a threat or are your fears really that we have become too tolerant?

Whether or not a belief is ridiculous is subjective surely. Some might suggest the idea of a people walking about town last Wedneday with ash smudged on their foreheads is ridiculous.

Sleepy

What's the difference between allowing an Orthodox Sikh to carry a kirpan or allowing an Atheist to carry a bowie knife?

Unless you're a religious fundamentalist, or view fundamentalism as an acceptable thing in modern society, there is none. Both are weapons which can potentially kill another student. I never felt hard done by for the fact I couldn't carry my swiss army knife into school (which has a blade less than half the length of the kirpan in this case).

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

Do you really consider a Sikh with a ceremonial dagger a threat or are your fears really that we have become too tolerant?

Ceremonial or not, a six inch blade can do serious damage to the human body and is not something that children should be in posession of in a school.

Some might suggest the idea of a people walking about town last Wedneday with ash smudged on their foreheads is ridiculous.

They'd be right imho but smudging ash on one's forehead, or indeed wearing a turban to school, isn't putting children at risk. Allowing other children to carry knives into school is.

Catsmokinpot

rubadub wrote:

Surely this allows all students to carry knives?
Anybody could just claim they are a Sikh, no?

How long does a religion have to be around for it to be accepted. They carry these since the 17th century. If I start up a religion where I carry a machine gun or knuckle duster as a symbol of power and truth how long will it take before my son can bring one to school.

it doesnt really, you cant just say your a sikh your going to be found out, im sure that a local spiritual leader would have to sign a paper saying MR.X/Y/Z is a sikh. i think it should have been allowed without people making a fuss over it, making a fuss draws attention, puts ideas in peoples minds and can only make things worse.

machine guns are slightly different, they are specifically designed for killing people, knuckle dusters the same, the sikh's are taught from a very early age, that this dagger, is a symbol of peace, and should never be used with anger or malice, only to defend themselves or others,

The word kirpan means of weapon of defence

the word talwar means weapon of offence

Catsmokinpot

Sleepy wrote:

Ceremonial or not, a six inch blade can do serious damage to the human body and is not something that children should be in posession of in a school.

knives dont kill people, people kill people, if a child is taught correctly from an early age, then i think their should be no problem, not allowing people to practice their faith, isnt going to stop a kid from bringing a knife into school if they want to....

infact i remember a place in america called columbine.... they seemed to have no problem bringing guns into school, mowing down a load of people, they weren't sikhs..... surely if sikhs were going to do this they would have done it by now?

Dades

Sleepy wrote:

What's the difference between allowing an Orthodox Sikh to carry a kirpan or allowing an Atheist to carry a bowie knife?

Atheists patently do not have a centuries old culture of carrying a symbolic dagger. But then I think you know this.

Sleepy wrote:

Ceremonial or not, a six inch blade can do serious damage to the human body and is not something that children should be in posession of in a school.

Then maybe they should ban cutlery in the canteen while they're at it.

MrPudding

The Atheist wrote:

Atheists patently do not have a centuries old culture of carrying a symbolic dagger. But then I think you know this.

Then maybe they should ban cutlery in the canteen while they're at it.

I can kill a man with a bic biro. This is a skill I intend to pass on to my children. Should I warn their school first so they can ban pens?

MrP

bonkey

Sleepy wrote:

Would you be okay with a staunch republican carrying a baretta to school because it's 'a symbol of power' in their belief system?

I wasn't aware that Republicanism was a recognised religion. Is it? If not, then I would indeed have a problem with any allowance being made to it on the basis of the weight my (or any other) government put behind religious freedom.

What's the difference between allowing an Orthodox Sikh to carry a kirpan or allowing an Atheist to carry a bowie knife?

Unless you're a religious fundamentalist, or view fundamentalism as an acceptable thing in modern society, there is none.

Nice assertion, but its incorrect. There most cerrtainly is a difference. I think you may be confusing "Orthodox" and "Fundamentalist", despite their being two entirely seperate things. Or are you going to suggest that the various forms of Orthodox Catholicism are all unacceptable too?

An Orthodox Sikh carrying a kirpan is a requirement under his religion, and therefore is an action which must be considered with respect to the weight my (or any other) government put behind religious freedom.

An atheist (there is no capitalisation) carrying a bowie knife is not something which can be classified in a similar light, and thus the laws of freedom of religion do not have any sway here.

They'd be right imho but smudging ash on one's forehead, or indeed wearing a turban to school, isn't putting children at risk. Allowing other children to carry knives into school is.

Can you quantify this risk?
Can you show why this risk is or should be of greater import than freedom of religion?
Can you show that discriminating against a single religion in the name of safety would yield a net reduction in overall risk?
Can you show that it - at the least - wouldn't lead to an increase in risk due to the (perception of) discrimination?

The mere fact that you have to refer to "children carrying knives" in the general indicates that you probably can't. The fact is that there is a ban on "children carrying knives", but that Sikhs carrying kirpans have been adjudged not to fall under the remit of this.

If you like, you can see the law as recognising that when carried by a Sikh, a kirpan is not considered a weapon in the same sense that a knife is......and that children are banned from carrying knives and other similar weapons.

Also note that the exemption only allows the knife to be worn under clothes. If the child so much as moves it into plain sight even while still sheathed, then he can be kicked out of school immediately. I'm surprised there wasn't a requirement to peace-bond the thing as well, though.

What I'm really interested in seeing is what happens when a Rastafarian gets nabbed for marijuana usage in Canada

Sleepy

bonkey wrote:

I wasn't aware that Republicanism was a recognised religion. Is it? If not, then I would indeed have a problem with any allowance being made to it on the basis of the weight my (or any other) government put behind religious freedom.

Nice assertion, but its incorrect. There most cerrtainly is a difference. I think you may be confusing "Orthodox" and "Fundamentalist", despite their being two entirely seperate things. Or are you going to suggest that the various forms of Orthodox Catholicism are all unacceptable too?

Orthodox/Fundamentalist I see little difference tbh, both describe people who follow religious practices invented by ignorant people centuries before...

An Orthodox Sikh carrying a kirpan is a requirement under his religion, and therefore is an action which must be considered with respect to the weight my (or any other) government put behind religious freedom.

An atheist (there is no capitalisation) carrying a bowie knife is not something which can be classified in a similar light, and thus the laws of freedom of religion do not have any sway here.[/QUOTE]
So you believe it's okay to discriminate on the basis of religion?

Can you quantify this risk?

Of course not. However it doesn't take a genius to realise that a school where students are allowed to carry knives is more at risk of having a student stabbed than one where there aren't any knifes.

Can you show why this risk is or should be of greater import than freedom of religion?

A single life is more important than freedom of religion to my mind. If we hold the seperation of church and state to be a good thing (and it's hard to argue against it without sounding like a nut) you can't then start to allow the law to discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion.

Can you show that discriminating against a single religion in the name of safety would yield a net reduction in overall risk?

Expecting the members of a religion to follow the laws of a state is not discriminating against them. Allowing members of a particular faith to ignore aspects of the law is discriminating against everyone else.

Can you show that it - at the least - wouldn't lead to an increase in risk due to the (perception of) discrimination?

See my above point. In allowing this, the Canadian state is upholding discrimination.

The mere fact that you have to refer to "children carrying knives" in the general indicates that you probably can't. The fact is that there is a ban on "children carrying knives", but that Sikhs carrying kirpans have been adjudged not to fall under the remit of this.

If you like, you can see the law as recognising that when carried by a Sikh, a kirpan is not considered a weapon in the same sense that a knife is......and that children are banned from carrying knives and other similar weapons.

The fact is, a kirpan is a knife, whether it's carried by a Sikh, an Atheist, a Christian or a Muslim:

Also note that the exemption only allows the knife to be worn under clothes. If the child so much as moves it into plain sight even while still sheathed, then he can be kicked out of school immediately. I'm surprised there wasn't a requirement to peace-bond the thing as well, though.

Will kicking the child out of school be much use if another child is dead? Or if the kirpan is taken off the child and used against him by another student will it then be re-classified as a knife? We're talking about children here, in this particular case a teenager who, while going through puberty will have all kinds of hormones flying around inside his system. Hormonal teenagers and knives are a dangerous mix.

What I'm really interested in seeing is what happens when a Rastafarian gets nabbed for marijuana usage in Canada

If this sort of pandering to religion continues, I'll be growing dreads

Dades

Sleepy wrote:

A single life is more important than freedom of religion to my mind. If we hold the seperation of church and state to be a good thing (and it's hard to argue against it without sounding like a nut) you can't then start to allow the law to discriminate against citizens on the basis of religion.

I fail to see what this has to do with the separation of church and state.

Sleepy wrote:

Expecting the members of a religion to follow the laws of a state is not discriminating against them. Allowing members of a particular faith to ignore aspects of the law is discriminating against everyone else.

Are we that sensitive that we need to shout DISCRIMINATION when one religious group is given a consession? That's all it is - a consession. They assessed the risk, the importance of the requirement to Sikhs and decided that they were responsible enough to be allowed wear the item. I think it shows a level of common sense above all else.

rubadub

Catsmokinpot wrote:

it doesnt really, you cant just say your a sikh your going to be found out, im sure that a local spiritual leader would have to sign a paper saying MR.X/Y/Z is a sikh.

Does that really happen, can you not simply pronounce yourself as being a religion? would I have to get a catholic priest to prove I am catholic if questioned in a job interview (I have heard of religion being questioned in the north in interviews)

Catsmokinpot wrote:

machine guns are slightly different, they are specifically designed for killing people, knuckle dusters the same, the sikh's are taught from a very early age, that this dagger, is a symbol of peace, and should never be used with anger or malice, only to defend themselves or others,

The word kirpan means of weapon of defence

the word talwar means weapon of offence

So if I invent another word for knuckle duster and claim it means "weapon of defence" in my religion I founded yesterday, how long before I am allowed give one to my son to bring to school? he will have it hidden at all times.
Again, I am not against the Sikhs having these but am just questioning how people could deny my right if I was to try something similar, without those people appearing hypocritical. I do hope these truely are just symbolic and are blunt knives, I wonder if any child has fallen and injured themselves.

bonkey wrote:

What I'm really interested in seeing is what happens when a Rastafarian gets nabbed for marijuana usage in Canada

Well cannabis is tolerated in some parts of Canada, and why not. Heres one article on ceremonial drug use, there are plenty more stories like this but I won't clutter the thread

Supreme Court OK's Hallucinogenic Tea
By Gina Holland
February 21, 2006 - AP

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Tuesday that a small congregation in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God.

Justices, in their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice. Federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church, Roberts wrote in the decision.

The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies.

New Justice Samuel Alito did not take part in the case, which was argued last fall before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor before her retirement. Alito was on the bench for the first time on Tuesday.

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

I fail to see what this has to do with the separation of church and state.

Are we that sensitive that we need to shout DISCRIMINATION when one religious group is given a consession? That's all it is - a consession. They assessed the risk, the importance of the requirement to Sikhs and decided that they were responsible enough to be allowed wear the item. I think it shows a level of common sense above all else.

Allowing the law of the land to make 'concessions' to a groups religious beliefs that put children at risk is allowing religious beliefs to interfere with the law of the land. How is that not a breech of separation of church and state?

If deciding that an entire religious sect are "responsible enough" to allow under-age members of that sect carry lethal weapons (and a six inch blade is very much a lethal weapon) to school is showing common sense is your idea of common sense I think we won't find any level of agreement on this subject.

It is utterly irresponsible to make judgement calls on an entire religion of people. This is akin to saying that all Muslims are potential bombers or that all Catholic priests are (un)safe to be left unsupervised with children imho. Even if we could safely make this assumption about all Sikh children, what's to stop a child of another faith from taking the Kirpan from them and using it on someone?

Catsmokingpot mentioned Columbine. Surely this was a good example of a reason not to allow teenagers own weapons (never mind bring them to school!).

the real ramon

sorry for joining in late.

I accept the religious sybolism of a ceremonial dagger, but is it in any way a problem for religious freedom or intolerant if he can't bring it to school and just carry it at other times.

Personally I think religions have to accept laws of countries (with reason - you could choose to, on Christian grounds, say give a lift to a Jew if some Nazi government said you couldn't).

Church and state is a thorny issue, but on balance I'd say any person or organisation - even a religious one - should be equal under laws of the state as any one else - no special treatment IMO.

Dades

rubadub wrote:

Does that really happen, can you not simply pronounce yourself as being a religion? would I have to get a catholic priest to prove I am catholic if questioned in a job interview (I have heard of religion being questioned in the north in interviews)

Why do people always do this? Make comparisons that have no resemblance whatsoever to the sitution being discussed? I think to pass yourself off as Sikh requires more than a pronouncement.

Sleepy wrote:

Even if we could safely make this assumption about all Sikh children, what's to stop a child of another faith from taking the Kirpan from them and using it on someone?

The fact is if a student really wanted to bring a weapon into school they could. Unless the school has metal detectors on the doors, or body searches how difficult is it? Columbine is a good example of this too.

Sleepy wrote:

I think we won't find any level of agreement on this subject.

I concur.

rubadub

The Atheist wrote:

Why do people always do this? Make comparisons that have no resemblance whatsoever to the sitution being discussed?

There is a resemblance, I was saying that every student could carry the knife as they could claim to be Sikh, I could not imagine the schools (or a job interviewer) asking for proof as that is probably policitically incorrect or would cause offence.

The Atheist wrote:

I think to pass yourself off as Sikh requires more than a pronouncement.

Really? what do you think they would need to do? There are caucasian Irish people who are Muslims, do they need special ID cards to prove this?
I am questioning the fundamental legalities of this, they cant just say "jaysus, he doesn't even have a turban, he can't be a Sikh".

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

The fact is if a student really wanted to bring a weapon into school they could. Unless the school has metal detectors on the doors, or body searches how difficult is it? Columbine is a good example of this too.

Maybe so, but should any child be encouraged or even permitted to carry a weapon into school?

Even if we could agree that there is zero possibility of a Sikh child using their kirpan against another student (a frankly proposterous thesis imho) the fact remains that the other children could still take the kirpan from them and, not having received the same instruction as to how this is a 'sacred symbol' rather than a weapon, hurt (or kill) themselves or other children with it.

Now, don't get me wrong, life isn't without it's risks and I know we can never make the world entirely safe for our offspring but placing them at even minor risk of death unnecessarily seems ludicrous to me. Especially when it's being done in the name of religion, a belief system that any educated person realises should have no place in the forming of law.

rubadub

Here is a site that answers one of my questions, can the child bring a blunt knife, which I hope they do, what if the child were to fall and sustain an injury.

This says

The Rahit does not prescribe the minimum or maximum size for the kirpan, nor does it specify how sharp or pointed it should be.

http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/hreb/Religion/Nijjar.htm

In effect the kirpan could be a simply necklace with a mini symbolic blunt knife, like a crucifix

Catsmokinpot

rubadub wrote:

Does that really happen, can you not simply pronounce yourself as being a religion? would I have to get a catholic priest to prove I am catholic if questioned in a job interview (I have heard of religion being questioned in the north in interviews).

if they didnt have some system like that then indeed anyone could say they were sikh, i cant imagine them not doing something like that. i mean if i can think of it surely they would have put some sort of measure in place... were not talking about a catholic in a job interview. but i can see where your coming from

ill answer the other part of what you said but i got a half day in work so ill do it when i get home yipeeeeeeeee

Eoin

rubadub wrote:

Really? what do you think they would need to do? There are caucasian Irish people who are Muslims, do they need special ID cards to prove this?
I am questioning the fundamental legalities of this, they cant just say "jaysus, he doesn't even have a turban, he can't be a Sikh".

It actually looks like this is the case; from this site
"In Sikhism, the turban is a religious necessity to cover the hair, which is required to remain uncut from birth, out of respect to the design of the human body by the Creator."

The "5 Ks" they must adhere to would probably let you know quite soon if someone really is a Sikh or not.

I don't know if Columbine is a good example (I'm not quoting your post rubadub). Presumably guns and explosives were against the school rules, yet they were used. Also, I very much doubt that Canada has anywhere near the same amount of high-school murders that the USA does.

the real ramon wrote:

I accept the religious sybolism of a ceremonial dagger, but is it in any way a problem for religious freedom or intolerant if he can't bring it to school and just carry it at other times.

Yes, it is a problem - from what I can tell, their religion doesn't allow it to be left at home on schooldays.

I don't know if it is actually relevant, but having looked at the wikipedia entry on Sikhism, it looks like an incredibly tolerant and peaceful religion, and I would find it hard to believe that a follower would be prone to stabbing another school child. Though admittedly, this part is a loophole I presume "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"

the real ramon

eoin_s wrote:

Yes, it is a problem - from what I can tell, their religion doesn't allow it to be left at home on schooldays.

I don't know if it is actually relevant, but having looked at the wikipedia entry on Sikhism, it looks like an incredibly tolerant and peaceful religion, and I would find it hard to believe that a follower would be prone to stabbing another school child. Though admittedly, this part is a loophole I presume "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"

I suppose if they can't leave it behind on schooldays it wouldn't really be a problem if a compromise was reached whereby a small blunt knife could be carried

The allowance of their religion to use it in self-defence or to help a person in need could pose a problem at some stage, as I doubt they're all incrediibly tolerant and peaceful, you'll always get a few nutters you know. I recall at some stage in the 1980's Indira Ghandhi's Sikh bodyguards assassinated her setting of religious rioting.

Sikhism though wopuld also be in my mind a relatively peaceful religion but there are a lot of weirdo brainwashing cults out there these days, and if you make allowance for one religion must you not always have to make similar allowances for all...some of those cults need to be called to book before they commet mass suicde or embarking on a battle with whoever for whatever reason

Dades

the real ramon wrote:

if you make allowance for one religion must you not always have to make similar allowances for all...

You can be sure they looked up the book on world religions to see if there were any other religious groups one of whose core tenets was to carry a weapon, to ensure there were no other "similar allowances" required.

No doubt there are "groups" that advocate carrying weapons and someone will google one, but they none will be even close to establishing the same genuine credentials as the Sikh faith. And none are likely to be as readily verifiable as Sikhs either.

Sleepy

I find it extraordinary that an Atheist could support discrimination based on creed.

Eoin

Sleepy wrote:

I find it extraordinary that an Atheist could support discrimination based on creed.

Why can't an athiest still have respect for a religion and the associated beliefs, even if s/he doesn't believe in it?

Dades

eoin_s wrote:

Why can't an athiest still have respect for a religion and the associated beliefs, even if s/he doesn't believe in it?

Indeed. Sleepy is really describing an antitheist, rather than an atheist.
Live and let live, I say.

Also I just don't see it as discrimination (the much abused buzzword that it is).

rubadub

The Atheist wrote:

Also I just don't see it as discrimination (the much abused buzzword that it is).

What is your definition of discrimination? this falls under every definition I have ever seen.

The most abused buzzword is "racist" IMO. Only thing I see people doing with discrimination is to automatically presume it is wrong or inferring something is not fair.

Eoin

rubadub wrote:

What is your definition of discrimination? this falls under every definition I have ever seen.

The most abused buzzword is "racist" IMO. Only thing I see people doing with discrimination is to automatically presume it is wrong or inferring something is not fair.

Some definitions of the word explicitly state that it is unfair treatment. Many people also automatically infer a negative quality to the word. That is why the term "positive discimination" has to be labelled so - to explicitly state that the discimination is made for positive reasons.

I think a better description is that an exception was made.

Dades

rubadub wrote:

The most abused buzzword is "racist" IMO. Only thing I see people doing with discrimination is to automatically presume it is wrong or inferring something is not fair.

Maybe so, about racism. However I think we can assume that any inferrance of discrimination in the this thread is inferring something is not fair. In other words it is suggested in a legal context rather than a scientific one.

rubadub wrote:

What is your definition of discrimination? this falls under every definition I have ever seen.

To me discrimination denotes the unfair treatment of a person, or group on the basis of a characteristic. Not the unfair treatment of everyone bar a particular person or group.

Perhaps then this case falls under the remit of "positive discrimination"? IMO however PD requires that someone else can be seen to suffer as a direct result of the positive action for the accusation to hold any water. There are no such direct results this case.

Perhaps where there are conflicting rights there is no right answer. Only the least wrong one.

Sleepy

The Atheist wrote:

Perhaps then this case falls under the remit of "positive discrimination"? IMO however PD requires that someone else can be seen to suffer as a direct result of the positive action for the accusation to hold any water. There are no such direct results this case.

But people do suffer in this case! The safety of the majority of students is being put at risk in favour of the religious wishes of a tiny minority.

Perhaps where there are conflicting rights there is no right answer. Only the least wrong one.

Surely the 'least wrong' answer is the one which provides the most utility (to use the economic term) to the majority not the one which 'benefits' a tiny minority?

The only way to argue in favour of this ruling is to say that the religious beliefs of a minority outweigh the right to safety of the majority. Which, to me, is ridiculous. This is not 'live and let live', this is 'place your children at increased risk in order to respect someone else's religious beliefs'. That, in my opinion is too much to ask of anyone.

I respect someone's religious beliefs as long as they don't have a negative influence on others. (e.g. I respect someone's right to believe in creationism, but couldn't stand by while it was taught in state-run schools).

Dades

Sleepy wrote:

The only way to argue in favour of this ruling is to say that the religious beliefs of a minority outweigh the right to safety of the majority. Which, to me, is ridiculous. This is not 'live and let live', this is 'place your children at increased risk in order to respect someone else's religious beliefs'. That, in my opinion is too much to ask of anyone.

Perhaps I have too much faith in human nature, or perhaps you have been fed too much media hype regarding disimilar, isolated incidents in schools...

You see a risk to all children of these schools whereas I don't.

According to what I can read this case came about from someone trying to stop the right to wear kirpans on the basis of a potential risk. This right had already been long in practice without issue in several schools.

The case also mentioned the fact (that people here keep ignoring) that schools are full of weapons already in the form of baseball bats, scissors and such like.

Eoin

The Atheist wrote:

Perhaps I have too much faith in human nature, or perhaps you have been fed too much media hype regarding disimilar, isolated incidents in schools...

You see a risk to all children of these schools whereas I don't.

According to what I can read this case came about from someone trying to stop the right to wear kirpans on the basis of a potential risk. This right had already been long in practice without issue in several schools.

The case also mentioned the fact (that people here keep ignoring) that schools are full of weapons already in the form of baseball bats, scissors and such like.

I also see little to no risk - I think the whole thing is a non-story that has been blown out of proportion. It's sort of like a news flash about how kids are allowed to drive to school in 6 litre SUVs that could crush another kid to death if used improperly.

I don't have the statistics to hand, but I doubt that Canada has a high school murder rate, let alone a high school murder rate by Sikhs. It is important to distinguish between the USA and Canada, because the Canadians probably didn't feel that they had the massive problem with school murders that the States suffer. If they did have that problem, then maybe the outcome would have been different.

sleepy wrote:

Surely the 'least wrong' answer is the one which provides the most utility (to use the economic term) to the majority not the one which 'benefits' a tiny minority?

I am pretty sure that I paraphrasing someone famous: a society can be judged by how it treats it's minorities. Just because they don't number more, doesn't mean that they should have their deep-routed religious beliefs ignored.

Actually, the fact that they are such a minority surely lessens the "risk"?

the real ramon

The Atheist wrote:

No doubt there are "groups" that advocate carrying weapons and someone will google one, but they none will be even close to establishing the same genuine credentials as the Sikh faith. And none are likely to be as readily verifiable as Sikhs either.

This brings up the question as to how you decide whether a group has genuine credentials or not or how long it has to be up and running to be afforded that respect, and also who decides that (surely the state in some way?) This makes me err in favour of the European way of having state recognised religions rather than the US one of anything goes, does anyone know which way Canada deals with this problem of decided whats a religion and what isn't? If it's a European way then I think it's probably made the right decision in this matter, If it is more like the absolutism of the US then it could have a few problems down the road with groups other than Sikhs.

I wouldn't personally be worried about Sikhs bringing kirpans to school, the risk appears to be extremely minimal, and there are plenty of other weapons available as you have noted, its other, less stable shall we say, groups I'd be worried about. I'd imagine though that Canada is a bit more like Europe and uses some common sense when making decisions and doesn't make decisions solely on absolutist grounds like the US seems to do even when common sense tells you "that would be a stupid thing to decide"

SteveS

I can't speak for Canada, but US courts would not likely rule in favor of this student. If religious freedom conflicts with a genuine safety issue, the safety wins. There have been several cases where students have played the religion card after they were suspended for carrying some type of knife and they have always lost.

For what its worth, I remember students carrying pocket knives when I went to school. As long as you didn't threaten anyone, you were allowed to. Unfortunately, schools are hyper-sensitive to safety issues. School murders, though tragic, are still incredibly rare. More students die from heart attacks in school than from armed assailants, but it is the shooters that get all the media coverage.

rsynnott

This is a bit silly. Simply making weapons available increases the risk of their use.