Sikh judge criticises banning of Kirpan in UK schools etc

[Krumplenump]

I wonder what people think of this.

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, who is retired, has criticised schools 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 the Compton School in Barnet, north London.

And, in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against her school after it excluded her for breaking its "no jewellery" rule for wearing a Kara (steel bangle), which is another symbol of Sikh faith.
The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.
"I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who's been baptised, being allowed to wear their Kirpan if that's what they want to do," said Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8500712.stm

I think that no-one should be allowed to profess their faith in a state institution with overt symbols like headscarves and certainly not a dagger, otherwise we'll have people going to school in black robes wielding light sabers stating they have the right on religious grounds. Again, it's religion being given extra rights and treated like it's above the law.

Of course, the issue of less obvious symbols - like a crucifix necklace for example - come into play then, and whilst they're not overt or obvious, people would cry blue murder were they not also banned from schools, so I'd say get rid of them too. It's really not that much to ask that for around 6 hours a day a kid has to conform to a set of rules regardin appearance that applies across the board, but so much political time and money is spent on debating this issue. Human rights gone too far again.

 

[Roger]

I can explain this very well. I have one family who are SIKH. But i am not. I know them very well and their purpose to keep kirpan and other religious things.

It is their religion. Sikhism. I think we should respect it. How we respect our religion. Same manner should be followed with them. I don't think they all are harmful. It is for their protection. Only for protection. I don't know, why people take it wrong. Many other religious beliefs from their SIKHISM.

 

[Roger]

Faith is the main part for any religion and for any religious people. It is not good thing put ban on it.

After reading poll thing i edited out this.

 

[Krumplenump]

I can explain this very well. I have one family who are SIKH. But i am not. I know them very well and their purpose to keep kirpan and other religious things.

It is their religion. Sikhism. I think we should respect it. How we respect our religion. Same manner should be followed with them. I don't think they all are harmful. It is for their protection. Only for protection. I don't know, why people take it wrong. Many other religious beliefs from their SIKHISM.

I see, but the suggestion is not that the wearers of the dagger would attack people, it's that in a school environment it's hardly appropriate, ESPECIALLY because it shows other kids that 'that kid is allowed to wear a dagger' as though he has some special rights over the standard pupil. The confusion and difficulties this would give rise to in fairly governing a school full of different religious symbols and personal items is hardly worth it for the sake of simple 'respect'. If everyone was treated the same in state institutions then disrespect wouldn't even be an issue.

 

[TinyBubbles]

i agree that just isn't right, it's not as if they are going to be using it as a weapon, it's just a custom, like wearing the kara. people are oversensitive these days towards differing religious beliefs.

 

[Roger]

Yes, you have point. People may be attacking and very bad minded. They can do anything. No doubt it. I think, they should be advised not to use it for harm cause. Sikhism never says to harm anyone. If he is harmful to anyone, then yes apply laws on him.

 

[Shai Gar]

I don't give a shit about his religious rights in this instance.

He wants to wear a weapon. If he's allowed that right, then all children should be allowed to wear a weapon.
Obviously they don't want that, so no weapons.

I don't care what their religious qualifications for it are, it can be used, very simply, to kill someone, or grievously injure someone, without effort.

 

[Shai Gar]

Or it could be taken from him to kill him with. Or just taken from him to kill another kid.

 

[Shai Gar]

Satanism has a traditional magic dagger that is used for various rites.

If that kids allowed a dagger, I can imagine many children converting to a new form of Satanism that allows children, so they can have weapons too.

 

[Krumplenump]

Satanism has a traditional magic dagger that is used for various rites.

If that kids allowed a dagger, I can imagine many children converting to a new form of Satanism that allows children, so they can have weapons too.

Precisely.

 

[Puck]

I'd take the middle ground on this, that people should have the liberty to display religious symbolism, as long as it doesn't impact on the liberties of anyone else. The UK is not a Sikh country. Yes , Sikhs live here, and they're very welcome in my book, but there has to be a mutual level of respect. As in, they can't expect that the way they would live in a Sikh country would be automatically carried over into life in the UK. They, and their beliefs should be respected, and they should have freedom, but not licence. A kirpan is, after all a dagger. It looks like a weapon, and could, in reality be used as one. I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to be carrying a dagger around, because there is a chance it could be used for harm, by or against the bearer - and especially in a school environment. It is not only a safety issue. It marks the bearer out as special - as someone to whom the usual rule does not apply, and that has the potential for creating both arrogance and resentment. If it is just about the symbol, then I could see no harm in allowing a lapel badge in the shape of one.

 

[Krumplenump]

I'd take the middle ground on this, that people should have the liberty to display religious symbolism, as long as it doesn't impact on the liberties of anyone else. The UK is not a Sikh country. Yes , Sikhs live here, and they're very welcome in my book, but there has to be a mutual level of respect. As in, they can't expect that the way they would live in a Sikh country would be automatically carried over into life in the UK. They, and their beliefs should be respected, and they should have freedom, but not licence. A kirpan is, after all a dagger. It looks like a weapon, and could, in reality be used as one. I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to be carrying a dagger around, because there is a chance it could be used for harm, by or against the bearer - and especially in a school environment. It is not only a safety issue. It marks the bearer out as special - as someone to whom the usual rule does not apply, and that has the potential for creating both arrogance and resentment. If it is just about the symbol, then I could see no harm in allowing a lapel badge in the shape of one.

I can't see any real harm either, but the potential issue with allowing even small deviations in personal appearance in schools is that it provides fertile ground for further demands made by pupils that in todays climate of lack of common sense in high places would end up with all kinds of 'minor' deviations.

I just think setting a single standard for schools saves so much headache, umming and ahhing and what might be construed as favouritism.

 

[DefectiveCreative]

I agree with Shai, a dagger is quite overtly a potential weapon, and as such, like all other overtly potential weapons, should not be permitted on school grounds for issues of safety.

It's really not that much to ask that for around 6 hours a day a kid has to conform to a set of rules regardin appearance that applies across the board,...

Regarding this specific point, I've mentioned elsewhere on this site my views on the school system, to which I'll just add this: It's been argued that uniforms exist to prevent poorer students, unable to afford clothes of a quality equal to their peers, from being bullied by more well-off students.

I do not agree with this argument. IMO when you look at the history of schools it's clear that uniforms were introduced as an attempt to create a visual reinforcement of the basic underlying philosophy of the school system itself, that of homogenised, unthinking, unquestioning conformity.

As such, I think that demanding that a child act as a slave to this conformity for even one second is demanding too much, to demand that they do it for 6 hours every day is, IMO, an atrocity.

Granting students the right to openly display their individuality, whether that be in terms of their religion or not, would IMO go far to creating a greater sense of familiarity with viewpoints and beleifs that differ from the "norm". This greater familiarity would in turn and in time lead to a greater level of understanding of these differences, and this understanding would in turn help to inspire a greater degree of tolerance, acceptance and arguably compassion for and amongst people from many varied walks of life.

 

[Krumplenump]

I think your perception of students having to wear a single uniform as 'acting as a slave to conformity' is a perfect example of misuse of a very emotive word, or rather an exaggeration of an issue that need not be an point of contention at all. Comparing conformity in appearance in state institutions to subservience and a curtailment of 'thinking' is imo a drastic exaggeration and quite honestly an insult to what slavery REALLY was! (and unfortunately still is in many places)

When you say 'granting students the right to openly display their individuality' you are evidently assuming I mean more than just curtailing freedom of appearance. I do not. A student can and should openly verbally and mentally profess their opinions on ANYTHING in school, thus scuppering your statement that uniforms reflect a curtailment of thinking. What sort of clothing they are wearing should not be the focal point of their expression of opinion or individuality.

Despite not really being related to religious attire in schools, the reason uniforms were brought about is besides the point since regardless of their initial purpose they certainly do go along way in staving off bullying for appearance,

 

[illi]

IMO weapons should have no place at school, religious or not. There's always the chance a student less responsible could get a hold of it etc. it's not just accusing the wearer that they may use but other's who may acquire it it's a matter of general safety, in that case I feel it is not discriminatory.

I think it's fair enough to let students wear head scarves etc. if it's outright required for them by their religion to do so. Although in professions such as law enforcement I can see how jewelry/extra items that are worn could be could put them at an added risk during work.