Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Canada allows students to carry daggers to schools

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,150 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


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


  • Options
    #33
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #35
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,373 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #36
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #38
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,150 ✭✭✭✭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).


  • Options
    #39
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    Eoin
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 21,238 CMod ✭✭✭✭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"?


  • Options
    #41
    the real ramon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 121 ✭✭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"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    SteveS
    Registered Users Posts: 149 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #43
    rsynnott
    Registered Users Posts: 4,003 ✭✭✭rsynnott


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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement