Sikh question

[Walsingham]

I have a question for anyone on the forum who is sikh concerning the kirpan. I'm asking here because it may be a bit daft and I'd rather work out my ignorance in absentia, so to speak.

[jaguars4ever]

I have a question for anyone on the forum who is sikh concerning the kirpan. I'm asking here because it may be a bit daft and I'd rather work out my ignorance in absentia, so to speak.

Are you sure?

 

Because I think you forgot to ask your question.

[Walsingham]

I figured I'd wait to see if anyone was actually sikh before flaunting my stupidity.

 

The question arose because of the struggle British authorities are having with the kirpan, a ceremonial dagger, which is a required object sikh men must carry as part of the faith. Clearly there are problems with legislation which forbids such objects as weapons.

 

My question was whether the blade itself has to be accessible. Having been 'stabbed'once by a fellah who failed to draw his knife effectively the thought occurred that the solution is a sheath which doesn't come off. The blade is still perfectly functional and ornate, and worthy of respect, but it's bound in solid ballistic nylon.

[jaguars4ever]

You got stabbed by an angry Sikh dude? What did you do, Walsy - bone his girl? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that would impugn the honor of his code. That's a pretty universal rule, man.

Edited February 9, 2010 by jaguars4ever

[Moose]

No I'm sorry, no knives. If that offends you, practice your religion elsewhere.

[jaguars4ever]

Weapons don't kill people. Islamic fundamentalists kill people.

[Humodour]

Fully sick mate.

[Walsingham]

The reason I'm interested is multi-layered.

 

1. Thousands of sikhs have died for this country, which surely should at least mean we consider their perspective

2. The sikh religion is emphatic that the kirpan only be used to defend others - circumstances under which I would use a weapon myself

3. It raises deeper questions about intenet under law. An issue I'd have expected any true Englishman to be sensitive to. Because our legal tradition is one of insisting on intent as a component. It is only through our European influences and American contacts (not to mention the crappiness of most MPs) that intent is being increasingly ignored.

4. I see a potential engineering solution to the problem which ought to prove relatively simple.

[Gorgon]

Sepoys fougth at the battle of Monte Casino, if I remember correctly.

[Gfted1]

Once you boil away the cultural incidentals, what your left with is an armed person. Why a sikhs would be legally able to carry a dagger, you know, to defend someone else, and a regular citizen wouldnt be afforded the same rights kinda answers itself doesnt it?

[Trenitay]

Well, how armed are they really if they can't even use the weapon?

[Walsingham]

Once you boil away the cultural incidentals, what your left with is an armed person. Why a sikhs would be legally able to carry a dagger, you know, to defend someone else, and a regular citizen wouldnt be afforded the same rights kinda answers itself doesnt it?

 

If it comes to that, why allow a plumber to carry a knife? Or a chef? We accept as commonplace that certain individuals are - by reason of profession or assumed temperament - unlikely to commit acts of violence. Yet surely a committed sikh, who has received some instruction in honour and self-control should be acorded the same?

[Moose]

The reason I'm interested is multi-layered.

 

1. Thousands of sikhs have died for this country, which surely should at least mean we consider their perspective

 

True... true. Though millions of non sikhs have died for this country. I guess the issue's not about who's died for what, but should we allow children to carry around knives, and assume they're responsible to do so. Originally this issue came up because faith schools were told it was up to them to decide whether or not pupils could carry around knives.

 

2. The sikh religion is emphatic that the kirpan only be used to defend others - circumstances under which I would use a weapon myself

 

I mean if there's a genuine need here for Sikhs to carry knives to defend others, then we should all be carrying knives. Personally I think that's a bad idea, and luckily the law agrees with me. Is the subtext here that Sikhs are to be trusted above the average guy on the street? If I had to bet on it then I'd probably do so, but then we're effectively saying nobody's equal under the law - a very slippery slope.

 

 

3. It raises deeper questions about intenet under law. An issue I'd have expected any true Englishman to be sensitive to. Because our legal tradition is one of insisting on intent as a component. It is only through our European influences and American contacts (not to mention the crappiness of most MPs) that intent is being increasingly ignored.

 

I take your point, but then if we're out to protect our culture, why give in to others? We never needed to carry knives before. Do we have to bend over backwards to every religion? What's more important, preserving common sense or appeasing a few bearded people that happen to believe in nonsense (hey but good luck to them)? If it's no big deal for them to carry knives, then I say maybe it's no big deal for them not to.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Moose

[Hurlshort]

I have quite a few Sikh students and I have asked them about the ceremonial dagger on occasion. Maybe they are just too Americanized, but none of them have an issue with not bringing it to school when the time comes for them to wear it. One of my students also said he has a wooden dagger to wear around the house and at community events, which seems like a pretty reasonable substitution.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I wonder how they fly on airplanes?

[Hurlshort]

I wonder how they fly on airplanes?

 

Most of the time they check them in. Some also wear symbolic pendants or bracelets that fill the requirement.

 

I just read that in California they can legally wear them to school if they are dulled and riveted into the sheath.

[Walsingham]

3. It raises deeper questions about intenet under law. An issue I'd have expected any true Englishman to be sensitive to. Because our legal tradition is one of insisting on intent as a component. It is only through our European influences and American contacts (not to mention the crappiness of most MPs) that intent is being increasingly ignored.

 

I take your point, but then if we're out to protect our culture, why give in to others? We never needed to carry knives before. Do we have to bend over backwards to every religion? What's more important, preserving common sense or appeasing a few bearded people that happen to believe in nonsense (hey but good luck to them)? If it's no big deal for them to carry knives, then I say maybe it's no big deal for them not to.

 

I'm glad I made some kind of sense, but i'm saying that our culture is to side with the sikhs, not against them. Our culture is one of honour and special circumstance. All this piffle about everyone equal before the law... Man to man, is everyone actually the same? Of course not. If the principle of equality is untrue how can it be justice? Surely justice is the search for truth?

 

We may be speaking to the same spirit but crossed purpose. You say nonsesne is to give in to bearded chaps. I say the real nonsense is to give in to pasty faced law nerds.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Walsingham

[Pidesco]

Our culture is one of honour and special circumstance.

 

British culture is one of dividing to conquer, stoking strife, attacking other cultures for money and glory while acting posh and generally being hypocritical about it. The British Empire wasn't one of the greatest of all time by accident.

 

The Sikh could teach the English a thing or four about honour.

[Tigranes]

Pidesco you troll.

 

The thing that always strikes me about these kind of debates, where there is an intersection or conflict between religion/culture/tradition and law is... many people take it as granted that law supercedes them all. It's as if it was a core requirement of a rational Westernised human to naturally place the rationality of law over the rationality of any culture or religion... except for particular instances in which the rationality of the majority culture or religion is pervasive enough to already be a part of the rationality of law, which makes the whole thing even more, ah, irrational. That's not to say it's wrong. I just don't see why we have to foreclose the whole issue and suggest that of course law prevails.

 

The most pragmatic compromise would be to take what Hurlshot says and just present pendants, wooden daggers and whatnot as alternatives. If it so happened that the Sikhs themselves adapted to the changing times and decided the wearing of daggers is not quite so sensible an option these days, and made such a compromise, it would be the best. But if it has not yet happened with the Sikhs as a whole, is it right for the law, and of the law, to force it to come about?

 

Oh, that wasn't an ironic question. I don't know.

[Humodour]

Our culture is one of honour and special circumstance.

 

British culture is one of dividing to conquer, stoking strife, attacking other cultures for money and glory while acting posh and generally being hypocritical about it.

 

Maybe in the past. These days British culture seems to be mainly about self-deprecation and cynicism.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Krezack

[Moose]

Let's cut the BS here, this is about thinking or evidently in some minds knowing Sikhs are superior to all of us. They're more honourable and trustworthy. They should be allowed to carry around knives because we can rest in piece knowing they won't be stabbing anyone. More importantly it's about admitting our own culture is the only culture capable of generating murderers, psycopaths and other deviants. Rubbish. We have good common sense laws, and no real reason to change or make exception to them.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Moose

[Pidesco]

I was complimenting the British, actually. Their devious ways are what made them great.

 

 

As for the knife carrying, I'd imagine all the gun freedom loving Americans should be for it not against it, on account of consistency. And the opposite for everyone else.

[Walsingham]

Let's cut the BS here, this is about thinking or evidently in some minds knowing Sikhs are superior to all of us. They're more honourable and trustworthy. They should be allowed to carry around knives because we can rest in piece knowing they won't be stabbing anyone. More importantly it's about admitting our own culture is the only culture capable of generating murderers, psycopaths and other deviants. Rubbish. We have good common sense laws, and no real reason to change or make exception to them.

 

There's no functional hypocrisy here. As I already mentioned we accept that individuals with given training can be allowed to carry offensive weapons. The police do so routinely, yet as the recent court case proves the police are hardly saints across the board. The average workman also carries an array of sharp edges, bludgeons etc.

 

I do not defend the Empire, I defend the every day principles of Britain which is that certain liberties are consistent with the possession of an honourable disposition. I believe that sikhism constitutes a determined, structured, and largely successful attempt to inculcate just such an honourable disposition. I do not pretend all sikhs are honourable. Merely that being a sikh should be grounds to extend the benefit of the doubt over their intentions in carrying an object which need not be considered a terribly effective weapon. It's not like they are asking to carry around a Glock 17.

 

Moreover as you may have noticed I BEGAN THIS THREAD by suggesting a compromise. So you might consider the possiblity that I am not talking about compulsory arming of all sikhs either.

[Walsingham]

An example of the terrifying threat posed by an armed sikh:

 

[Moose]

They come in different sizes and styles:

 

 

And effectively they're the scale of a sword in the hands of a child.