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

[Buggernut]

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.

[Buggernut]

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.

...

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.

[Wetcoaster]

Are Sikhs so biologically different from us and have a special medical need for this sharp pointy piece of metal?

Are they inherently so much less violent and more trustworthy than the rest of us that they should be granted an exemption from security regulations?

If they won't make reasonable compromise, then maybe you just need to smack them on the head like a spoiled whiny crying brat.

[Wetcoaster]

True LOGICAL (ie. not constitutional nor Trudeauian notions thereof) equality would have it that both heterosexuals and homosexuals can marry. It would also have it that both Sikhs and non-Sikhs can or cannot bring a sharp pointy piece of metal into a courtroom.

[Buggernut]

You fail to comprehend the religious symbolism of a kirpan.

As BC Ministry of Justice noted in its press release:

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).

And your erroneous view was dismissed out of hand by the SCOC:

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.

[Wetcoaster]

Is it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to use it as a weapon? If not, then you're placing more trust into the Sikhs than you are in the rest of us. Symbolic meanings can take a back seat to security requirements.

[Buggernut]

Nope not physically impossible but then any number of things can be used as weapon.

As the SCOC made clear given the evidence there was no real security risk and that argument has no currency.

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.

[Violator]

Is it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to use it as a weapon? If not, then you're placing more trust into the Sikhs than you are in the rest of us. Symbolic meanings can take a back seat to security requirements.

[Wetcoaster]

Then why can't we ALL take one into a courtroom?

[Wetcoaster]

No this ruling means on culture is above all other cultures.

The only other people with weapons are police and sheriffs and corrections workers this means the people with kirpans have been given the right to use the kirpan if they see fit to dole out justice.what says a person just dresses up as a khalsa sikh and kills one of the rivals of his gang in a courhouse?

[Wetcoaster]

No this ruling means on culture is above all other cultures.

The only other people with weapons are police and sheriffs and corrections workers this means the people with kirpans have been given the right to use the kirpan if they see fit to dole out justice.what says a person just dresses up as a khalsa sikh and kills one of the rivals of his gang in a courhouse?

[Buggernut]

Because unless you are a Amritdhari Khalsa Sikh a kirpan is not part of your religious faith ( one of the 5 K's) upon which the reasonable accommodation based.

[Wetcoaster]

But you said it's not a security risk nor a threat to anyone. So what reason can you give for not letting us carry one in, like we would our keys or cell phone?

[Buggernut]

This has been explained a number of times in this thread.

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.

...

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.

/topic/343197-kirpan-policy-for-amritdhari-khalsa-sikhs-introduced-for-bc-courthouses/#entry11297293">http://forum.canucks.../#entry11297293

It is not security threat because of what the kirpan symbolizes to Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs. The reasonable accommodation is based upon freedom of religion which does not apply to others who are not Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs.

[Wetcoaster]

No, the gobbledegook you posted does not at all explain why this pointy piece of metal is any less a physical and security risk in the hands of a Sikh than it is in mine. It's just the words of the courts beating around the bush with their mumbo jumbo about "religious accomodation" without any regard to its physical aspect and potential use as a weapon.

I've heard it said that a kirpan is no more threatening than an envelope opener. In that case, I should be allowed to carry an envelope opener into a courtroom.

[Buggernut]

It seems you have a problem with reading comprehension It is quite clear.

A kirpan is not a security threat as worn by a Amritdhari Khalsa Sikh because of the religious symbolism - the same does not apply to persons who are not Amritdhari Khalsa Sikhs. Seems pretty simple.

An envelope opener is not part of a religious faith which is the foundation for the reasonable accommodation.

[Wetcoaster]

That's putting a lot of faith and trust into them. There are also certain religions that say "thou shalt not kill". We all know how that has worked out.

[Buggernut]

Which is why the SCOC reviewed the evidence on kirpans as a religious symbol in detail before coming to its decision.

The BC Ministry of Justice did the same.

[Wetcoaster]

I wonder what this "evidence" is. The ability to read the mind of every Sikh who carries one?

[Buggernut]

It is set out in the decision.