Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Kirpan Policy for Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs Introduced for B.C. Courthouses


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:41 AM

As of Friday April 12, 2013 Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs will be allowed to wear one of their articles of faith, a kirpan (small sheathed dagger/sword used in self-defence that symbolizes a Sikh's duty to come to the defence of those in peril and is one of the "5 K's" which also include Kesh (unshorn hair covered with a turban), Kanga (wooden comb), Kara (iron bracelet), and Kachhera (cotton breeches). ) in the public areas of BC courthouses.

This brings BC into line with many other jurisdictions and complies with Supreme Court of Canada decisions on this issue. In most public places in Canada a kirpan is allowed, although there have been some court cases involving the carrying of the object on school premises. In the 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys the court held that the banning of the kirpan in a school environment offended Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, nor could the limitation be upheld under s. 1 of the Charter.

There are restrictions on the size of the kirpan and it must be declared to courthouse security and examined to ensure the person is an Amritdhari Khalsa Sikh.

Here is the report:


B.C. Sikhs have let out a sigh of relief since the government announced they no longer have to compromise their faith when entering provincial courtrooms.


According to a Ministry of Justice release, as of Friday Amritdhara Khalsa Sikhs will be able to wear their kirpans — a small stylized sword, part of their five articles of faith — when visting public areas of a courthouse.


“It’s a relief,” said Sukhvinder Kaur Vinning, executive director of the World Sikh Organization of Canada.


“I can focus on being a good civic citizen and I don’t have to worry about compromising my faith, so that’s a huge burden that’s been lifted.”


Having to testify in court can be a stressful situation, and for Sikhs having to remove the kirpan made it worse, said Vinning.


“To take it off, that’s a painful thing to ask,” she said. “It eats away at a person.”


“[It was like] kind of being torn in two … practicing Sikhism and being a good citizen.”


The kirpan, as part of the Sikh code of conduct, is supposed to be worn — sheathed — at all times. The kirpan itself symbolizes the Sikh duty to stand against injustice.


“It’s very sacred, it’s an extension of who we are — we wear it all times,” said Vinning. “Taking it off – it’s hard.”


So the government and WSO worked together to create the new policy.


According to director of Abbotsford’s Sikh Heritage Museum, Satwinder Bains, the policy is “the next step” for Sikhs.


“But I still think there’s a lot of work to be done,” she said, adding dialogue outside the Sikh community is needed.


“The conversation about what the kirpan means to Sikhs needs to happen,” she said. “People don’t have all the information — the first thing that comes to mind is, ‘Oh my goodness, this is a sword, this is a dagger.’”


According to the union representing sheriffs, members “are not concerned with kirpans in the courtrooms, [because] these are longheld religious beliefs and our members respect them.”


“It’s something that they’ll have to monitor and just another issue that they have to deal with in the courtrooms,” said Dean Purdy, spokesman for the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union.

Similar kirpan accommodation policies already exist in the Parliament of Canada, as well as in Alberta and Toronto courthouses.


For an Amritdhari Sikh to attend a B.C. courthouse with a kirpan, the sheriff must be informed and the person must identify himself as an Amritdhari Sikh.


The sheriff will then assess potential risk factors, and has the right to refuse someone with a kirpan on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.vancouverdesi.com/news/sikhs-hail-kirpan-agreement-for-b-c-courts/534423/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Here is the news release from the BC Ministry of Justice:

Kirpan policy introduced for B.C. courthouses



Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs will soon be able to wear a Kirpan, a small stylized sword, while visiting courthouse public areas following a security assessment by B.C. sheriffs.


British Columbia is making the policy change effective April 12 in keeping with other jurisdictions, as well as in response to human rights and Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Kirpan accommodation policies are already in effect in the Parliament of Canada buildings, the provincial court of Alberta, and in Toronto courthouses.


Any person wishing to enter a B.C. courthouse with a Kirpan must inform the sheriff that they are wearing one and identify themselves as an Amritdhari Sikh. There are size restrictions in place for Kirpans allowed in the courtrooms. The Kesh and the Kara must also be available for proof of the person's Khalsa Sikh status, and government-issued photo identification may also be requested.


In addition to physical evidence and identification, the sheriff will assess potential risk factors by asking questions such as the reason for the visit, the type of court proceeding they wish to attend, and the person's relation to the case. Sheriffs maintain the discretion to refuse or admit a Kirpan into the courthouse on a case-by-case basis.


The Kirpan symbolizes spiritual wisdom and the duty to stand against injustice. The Khalsa (Amritdhari) Sikh code of conduct requires the Kirpan to be worn at all times with four other articles of faith. The other articles of faith are the Kesh (unshorn hair covered with a turban), Kanga (wooden comb), Kara (iron bracelet), and Kachhera (cotton breeches).

http://www.newsroom....ourthouses.html
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#2 Strawberries

Strawberries

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined: 24-February 09

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:49 AM

Don't see an issue with this , good on the courthouses.
  • 0
Posted Image

#3 Tanev

Tanev

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 05

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:06 AM

Don't see an issue, but I can see someone trying to be a wise guy and creating a religion where guns are holy...
Would be interesting to see how that pans out.
  • 0

#4 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:37 AM

Don't see an issue, but I can see someone trying to be a wise guy and creating a religion where guns are holy...
Would be interesting to see how that pans out.

In Canada it would not "pan out".
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#5 HTania

HTania

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Joined: 09-April 13

Posted 11 April 2013 - 07:29 AM

Don't see an issue, but I can see someone trying to be a wise guy and creating a religion where guns are holy...
Would be interesting to see how that pans out.


Agree.
  • 0

#6 hsedin33

hsedin33

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,714 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 10

Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:57 AM

Don't see an issue, but I can see someone trying to be a wise guy and creating a religion where guns are holy...
Would be interesting to see how that pans out.


They did, it's call 'Murica.













...it didn't turn out very well..
  • 0

#7 vavoom

vavoom

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 162 posts
  • Joined: 15-December 11

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:49 AM

I wonder what the policy is for the dagger when flying in Canada.
  • 0

#8 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 11 April 2013 - 12:42 PM

So can non-Sikhs bring similar pieces of metal of same shape, size and sharpness into courtrooms? If not, that would be discrimination.
  • 4

#9 theminister

theminister

    Head Troll

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,056 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 03

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:09 PM

So what happens if one gets pulled?
  • 0

Posted ImageNEW YORK ISLANDERS ROSTER - CDC GM LEAGUEPosted Image


2013 CDCGML CUP CHAMPIONS


#10 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:27 PM

So can non-Sikhs bring similar pieces of metal of same shape, size and sharpness into courtrooms? If not, that would be discrimination.

No it would not be.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#11 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:31 PM

I wonder what the policy is for the dagger when flying in Canada.

Not permitted on airplanes but allowed on passenger trains..


In the case of air travel, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided in 1999 that a demand to wear the kirpan on airplanes did not constitute a reasonable accommodation. Canada remains aligned with international standards that impose a strict prohibition against all sharp objects, including the kirpan, regardless of a person’s religion. In a post 9/11 world where air security is of the utmost concern and individuals are willingly complying with regulations they would not necessarily agree to on a day-to-day basis (i.e. hand pat-downs and body scanners), this is one

area where Canadian Sikhs have made a concession.


In the case of rail transportation, in December 2006, VIA Rail changed its policy to allow riders the ability to wear a kirpan on trains.

http://unitedsikhs.o...Canada.docx.pdf
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#12 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 11 April 2013 - 01:32 PM

So what happens if one gets pulled?

Depending upon the circumstances criminal charges could be laid.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#13 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:00 PM

*
POPULAR

No it would not be.


We're supposed to be a secular country. We're not supposed to bend back or make exceptions for any religion.
  • 5

#14 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:03 AM

We're supposed to be a secular country. We're not supposed to bend back or make exceptions for any religion.

You appear to misapprehend the extent of secularism in Canada - it does not mean that exceptions are not made on religious grounds. The Charter specifically provides for freedom of religion.

Rights clash and under our system there are accommodations. And where there are not, then the courts adjudicate as with the SCOC decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6. There the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.
http://www.canlii.or...6/2006scc6.html
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#15 Offensive Threat

Offensive Threat

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,757 posts
  • Joined: 18-March 03

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:43 AM

Dont tell us those daggers arent dangerous. Dont tell us they are only ceremonial. Dont tell us they are only used for defense. Im not buying it. About 9 years ago a friend of mine was a attending a house party in Victoria when a fight erupted with people at another house party down the street. He was attacked from behind and cut across the throat with a Kirpan dagger. He was lucky to survive thanks to the work of the ambulance crew and surgeons at the hospital where he stayed for over a month. Tendons on the side of his face had to be reattached and he has a horrendous looking 12 inch scar from his ear to his collarbone on the other side.

The man who is accused of attacking him fled the country.
  • 0

Posted Image


#16 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:28 AM

You appear to misapprehend the extent of secularism in Canada - it does not mean that exceptions are not made on religious grounds. The Charter specifically provides for freedom of religion.

Rights clash and under our system there are accommodations. And where there are not, then the courts adjudicate as with the SCOC decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 256, 2006 SCC 6. There the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This order could not be saved under section 1 of the Charter.
http://www.canlii.or...6/2006scc6.html


Non-Sikhs should walk in with "kirpans" when they're summoned to court in protest. If they're thrown out or get arrested as a result, it would be a great chance to raise a big public fuss and awareness of the double standard.

Exceptions = hypocrisy!

Edited by Buggernut, 12 April 2013 - 11:28 AM.

  • 1

#17 LostViking

LostViking

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,407 posts
  • Joined: 18-May 09

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:11 PM

Nothing wrong with letting them wear Kirpans, it is something that is deeply important to them. Good move by the courts to finally allow this. I had many students in my highschool/university who would wear them, yet I never saw one unsheathed, they seemed to respect it and treat it as ceremonial, I see nothing wrong with that.

The only thing I never liked is that, being a knife collector of many years, carrying a knife also has a deep meaning to me, but of course no one would ever care about that as it is not a religious belief. It seems like if you care deeply about something, and that thing happens to involve religion, then everyone must respect it, but if you care deeply about something, but you are not religious, then no one cares. In other words, those who are religious get to claim certain aspects of their lives (things of deep importance) as sacred and are given a lot of legal protections, while those who are not religious have the aspects of their lives that are deeply important treated as if they are on a lower level.

I wish our laws would reflect the fact that there are non-religious people in the country as well, and they are capable of caring just as deeply about something as a person of faith. I wish these Sikhs all the best, and am very glad they are able to now protect something important to them, one day I hope I am given the same level of respect.
  • 4
Posted Image

#18 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 April 2013 - 12:49 PM

Non-Sikhs should walk in with "kirpans" when they're summoned to court in protest. If they're thrown out or get arrested as a result, it would be a great chance to raise a big public fuss and awareness of the double standard.

Exceptions = hypocrisy!

There is no double standard. As the SCOC said in the case I cited above only the uninformed would not understand that this is not a double standard.

In human rights law it is referred to as "reasonable accommodation" and is a foundational value of democracy in Canada.

These arguments were advanced by the Appelant school board in favour of the kirpan ban as set out in case and rejected:

According to the CSMB (Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys - the school board), to allow the kirpan to be worn to school entails the risks that it could be used for violent purposes by the person wearing it or by another student who takes it away from him, that it could lead to a proliferation of weapons at the school, and that its presence could have a negative impact on the school environment. In support of this last point, the CSMB submits that the kirpan is a symbol of violence and that it sends the message that the use of force is the way to assert rights and resolve conflicts, in addition to undermining the perception of safety and compromising the spirit of fairness that should prevail in schools, in that its presence suggests the existence of a double standard.


On the issue of public safety:


59 In her brief reasons, Grenier J. explained that her decision was based in part on the fact that [TRANSLATION] “the evidence revealed no instances of violent incidents involving kirpans in schools in Quebec” and on “the state of Canadian and American law on this matter” (para. 6). In fact, the evidence in the record suggests that, over the 100 years since Sikhs have been attending schools in Canada, not a single violent incident related to the presence of kirpans in schools has been reported. In the reasons for his interim order, Tellier J. stated the following:



[TRANSLATION] [T]he Court is of the view that the school board would not suffer any major inconvenience if an order were made under conditions required to ensure a safe environment. The Court does not believe that the safety of the environment would be compromised. In argument, it was stated that in the last 100 years, not a single case of kirpan‑related violence has been reported. Moreover, in a school setting, there are usually all sorts of instruments that could be used as weapons during a violent incident, including compasses, drawing implements and sports equipment, such as baseball bats.


(Multani (Tuteur de) v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeois, [2002] Q.J. No. 619 (QL) (Sup. Ct.), at para. 28)


67 Returning to the respondents’ argument, I agree that it is not necessary to wait for harm to be done before acting, but the existence of concerns relating to safety must be unequivocally established for the infringement of a constitutional right to be justified. Given the evidence in the record, it is my opinion that the respondents’ argument in support of an absolute prohibition — namely that kirpans are inherently dangerous — must fail.


On the issue of proliferation of weapons in the school.


68 The respondents also contend that allowing Gurbaj Singh to wear his kirpan to school could have a ripple effect. They submit that other students who learn that orthodox Sikhs may wear their kirpans will feel the need to arm themselves so that they can defend themselves if attacked by a student wearing a kirpan.


69 This argument is essentially based on the one discussed above, namely that kirpans in school pose a safety risk to other students, forcing them to arm themselves in turn in order to defend themselves. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the evidence does not support this argument. It is purely speculative and cannot be accepted in the instant case: see Eldridge, at para. 89. Moreover, this argument merges with the next one, which relates more specifically to the risk of poisoning the school environment. I will therefore continue with the analysis.


On the issue of the kirpan as a weapon of violence the SCOC rejected that as well and noted that for other students to claim they can now bring a weapon to school shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Charter and the values of religious freedom and multiculturalism. They specifically found the "double standard" claim without any foundation and it should be up to the teachers to dispel such a silly notion


70 The respondents submit that the presence of kirpans in schools will contribute to a poisoning of the school environment. They maintain that the kirpan is a symbol of violence and that it sends the message that using force is the way to assert rights and resolve conflict, compromises the perception of safety in schools and establishes a double standard.


71 The argument that the wearing of kirpans should be prohibited because the kirpan is a symbol of violence and because it sends the message that using force is necessary to assert rights and resolve conflict must fail. Not only is this assertion contradicted by the evidence regarding the symbolic nature of the kirpan, it is also disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism.



72 As for the submissions based on the other students’ perception regarding safety and on feelings of unfairness that they might experience, these appear to stem from the affidavit of psychoeducator Denis Leclerc, who gave his opinion concerning a study in which he took part that involved, inter alia, questioning students and staff from 14 high schools belonging to the CSMB about the socio‑educational environment in schools. The results of the study seem to show that there is a mixed or negative perception regarding safety in schools. It should be noted that this study did not directly address kirpans, but was instead a general examination of the situation in schools in terms of safety. Mr. Leclerc is of the opinion that the presence of kirpans in schools would heighten this impression that the schools are unsafe. He also believes that allowing Gurbaj Singh to wear a kirpan would engender a feeling of unfairness among the students, who would perceive this permission as special treatment. He mentions, for example, that some students still consider the right of Muslim women to wear the chador to be unfair, because they themselves are not allowed to wear caps or scarves.


73 It should be noted that, in a letter submitted to counsel for the appellants, psychologist Mathieu Gattuso indicated that, in light of the generally accepted principles concerning expert evidence, Denis Leclerc’s affidavit does not constitute an expert opinion. It is clear from the examination of Mr. Leclerc that he did not study the situation in schools that authorize the wearing of kirpans and that, in his affidavit, he was merely giving a personal opinion.


74 With respect for the view of the Court of Appeal, I cannot accept Denis Leclerc’s position. Among other concerns, the example he presents concerning the chador is particularly revealing. To equate a religious obligation such as wearing the chador with the desire of certain students to wear caps is indicative of a simplistic view of freedom of religion that is incompatible with the Canadian Charter. Moreover, his opinion seems to be based on the firm belief that the kirpan is, by its true nature, a weapon. The CSMB itself vigorously defends this same position. For example, it states the following in its factum (at paras. 37‑38):


[TRANSLATION] Although kirpans were presented to the trial judge at the hearing, she failed to rule on the true nature of the kirpan. On the contrary, she seemed, in light of her comments, to accept the appellants’ argument that in today’s world, the kirpan has only symbolic value for Sikhs.


Yet whatever it may symbolize, the kirpan is still essentially a dagger, a weapon designed to kill, intimidate or threaten others. [Emphasis added.]


These assertions strip the kirpan of any religious significance and leave no room for accommodation. The CSMB also makes the following statement (at para. 51):


[TRANSLATION] It is thus a paralogism . . . to liken a weapon to all objects whose purpose is not to kill or wound but that could potentially be used as weapons, such as compasses, paper cutters, baseball bats, sporting equipment, or cars. Does this mean that we should stop studying geometry or playing baseball?


75 The appellants are perhaps right to state that the only possible explanation for the acceptance of these other potentially dangerous objects in schools is that the respondents consider the activities in which those objects are used to be important, while accommodating the religious beliefs of the appellant’s son is not.


76 Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society. If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is, as I will explain in the next section, at the very foundation of our democracy.


And the court concluded:

79 A total prohibition against wearing a kirpan to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others. On the other hand, accommodating Gurbaj Singh and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities. The deleterious effects of a total prohibition thus outweigh its salutary effects.


The sorts of arguments you posit have been carefully considered and rejected.
  • 2
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#19 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:00 PM

There is no double standard. As the SCOC said in the case I cited above only the uninformed would not understand that this is not a double standard.

In human rights law it is referred to as "reasonable accommodation" and is a foundational value of democracy in Canada.


It's not about being uninformed. It's about being consistent IN PRINCIPLE. I don't dislike Sikhs nor am trying to be mean or unwelcoming to them in any way. I just want everybody to live by the same rules.

Did the people of Canada ever get to have a vote and a say in the matter on this in any way?
  • 4

#20 Heretic

Heretic

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,068 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 07

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:16 PM

It's not about being uninformed. It's about being consistent IN PRINCIPLE. I don't dislike Sikhs nor am trying to be mean or unwelcoming to them in any way. I just want everybody to live by the same rules.

Did the people of Canada ever get to have a vote and a say in the matter on this in any way?


The real question would be - What would the founders of Canada say if they were alive today?
  • 1

McCoy: We were speculating. Is God really out there?
Kirk: Maybe he's not out there, Bones. Maybe he's right here. [points to his heart]

Posted Image


#21 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,526 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 03

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:22 PM

The real question would be - What would the founders of Canada say if they were alive today?


I'd say the democratic will of the present day living people matter more than the long dead. They don't own us, even if they are our ancestors.
  • 2

#22 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

It's not about being uninformed. It's about being consistent IN PRINCIPLE. I don't dislike Sikhs nor am trying to be mean or unwelcoming to them in any way. I just want everybody to live by the same rules.

Did the people of Canada ever get to have a vote and a say in the matter on this in any way?

If you do not understand Canadian law and principles on the Charter, equality and multiculturalism and apply Amercanized principles, then possibly.

We have a completely different take on such things and we have enshrined it in our supreme law and in our human rights law we operate from a principle of reasonable accommodation
http://www.parl.gc.c...s/2012-01-e.pdf

This makes sense since the Charter sets out:

27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.


You are contending for the American melting pot and a definition of equality that Canada has specifically rejected.

As SCOC Madame Justice Abella wrote many years ago when she was Commissioner Abella chairing the Royal Commission on Equality in Employment, 1985:

Sometimes equality means treating people the same, despite their differences, and sometimes it means treating them as equals by accommodating their differences… Ignoring differences and refusing to accommodate them is a denial of equal access and opportunity. It is discrimination …


That is fundamentally different from what you argue for and it is one of our foundation principles of democracy in Canada.
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#23 nux4lyfe

nux4lyfe

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,116 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 03

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:34 PM

I have no more questions, Wetcoaster explained everything..!
  • 0

13zpnd4.jpg

Thank You Twilight Sparkle for the dope sig!


#24 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:40 PM

The real question would be - What would the founders of Canada say if they were alive today?

Unlike the US and their frozen concepts approach, in Canada we have adopted the Living Tree doctrine in interpreting our Constitution. This doctrine of constitutional interpretation says that a constitution is organic and must be read in a broad and progressive manner so as to adapt it to the changing times.

It was first enunciated during the Persons case - Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General) [1930] A.C. 124, 1929 UKPC 86 - previously titled in the Supreme Court of Canada Reference re Meaning of the Word "Persons" in s. 24 of the BNA Act, [1928] S.C.R. 276. In those days the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the UK was our final level of appeal.


The Lord Chancellor, Viscount Sankey, writing for the committee, found that the meaning of "qualified persons" should be read broadly to include women, reversing the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. He held that "[t]he exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours," and that "to those who ask why the word ["person"] should include females, the obvious answer is why should it not.":

"[T]heir Lordships have come to the conclusion that the word "persons" in sec. 24 includes members both of the male and female sex and that, therefore, ... women are eligible to be summoned to and become members of the Senate of Canada, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly."


Lord Sankey set out an entirely new approach to constitutional interpretation that has since become one of the core principles of constitutional law in Canada.

The British North America Act planted in Canada a living tree capable of growth and expansion within its natural limits. The object of the Act was to grant a Constitution to Canada. Like all written constitutions it has been subject to development through usage and convention...


Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board—it is certainly not their desire—to cut down the provisions of the Act by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation so that the Dominion to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, may be mistress in her own house, as the provinces to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, are mistresses in theirs."


This has guided our courts from that day forward in interpreting our Constitution and must be read within the context of society to ensure that it adapts and reflects changes. If constitutional interpretation adheres to the Fathers of Confederation's and remains rooted in the past, the Constitution would not be reflective of society.

As a result sexual orientation has become a protected ground of discrimination as an "analogous ground" and same sex marriage was validated in the courts. In fact the SCOC invoked the Living Tree doctrine in the case of Reference re Same Sex Marriage:

The "frozen concepts" reasoning runs contrary to one of the most fundamental principles of Canadian constitutional interpretation: that our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.


We ain't 'Murica, people ... fortunately.
  • 1
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#25 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 12 April 2013 - 04:54 PM

Meanwhile in India gang raping and killing tourists is of the norm..


I think Canada is getting the short end of the stick on these cultural exchange programs.
  • 0

#26 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,454 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 04

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:06 PM

Meanwhile in India gang raping and killing tourists is of the norm..


I think Canada is getting the short end of the stick on these cultural exchange programs.

What possible relevance does such a comment have to this topic?
  • 0
To err is human - but to really screw up you need a computer.

Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Never try to teach a pig to sing - it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

#27 Dellins

Dellins

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,708 posts
  • Joined: 14-April 09

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:14 PM

What possible relevance does such a comment have to this topic?


All brown people are the same... duh! /sarcasm






Anywho, I thought Kirpans were a-ok since they're supposedly kept blunt?

Edited by Dellins, 12 April 2013 - 05:14 PM.

  • 0

#28 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 12 April 2013 - 05:25 PM

What possible relevance does such a comment have to this topic?


The fact that we bend over to make our country comfortable to nationalities with backwards ideologies. When these countries have little desire to adapt and change to our standards.

Why are we the only ones forced to make compromise on our standards and laws?
  • 0

#29 Violator

Violator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,117 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 07

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:00 PM

The fact that we bend over to make our country comfortable to nationalities with backwards ideologies. When these countries have little desire to adapt and change to our standards.

Why are we the only ones forced to make compromise on our standards and laws?


As wetcoaster has said its a lving tree deal

since Canada has no culture we have to adopt other peoples cultures until its a melting pot

were if your not a part of another culture or religion you will be assimilated.
  • 0

#30 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • Joined: 23-February 13

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:39 PM

As wetcoaster has said its a lving tree deal

since Canada has no culture we have to adopt other peoples cultures until its a melting pot

were if your not a part of another culture or religion you will be assimilated.


I disagree, Canada's culture has deep eastern european roots, and our government and law is based off of British rule, standards and values.

I think we have lost a cultural identity by overly embracing multiculturalism and in the process have stripped the past identity and the backbone that canada once had.

Now we have kids 10% italian thinking they are pure italians cause they are desperately searching for some form of identity to latch on to.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.