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

#31 UFTcan

UFTcan

    Comets Regular

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

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:40 PM

Posted Image


^^^^ Westcoaster is that you???
  • 0

#32 Newsflash

Newsflash

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,360 posts
  • Joined: 30-December 08

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:05 PM

Craigslist Rants and Raves is leaking. Quick, someone fix it.
  • 0

Buddy I called this EXACT situtation on here two years ago and was flamed, so I guess I have a bit of hockey knowledge, not to mention the 4 years I played in the OHL idiot.


The conspiracy theories that used to be against Lateralus:
Puberty, life, movie theaters, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out, movie theaters that frown upon you pulling it out during a children's movie, Toy Story 3, Pixar, who ever decided to make Woody so damn attractive, a job, his mothers basement, being 40, being 40 five years ago, dogs who can out run him, all dogs, the Olympic committee, Truth, Fact, Honesty, Logic, Newsflash, a father figure who was there to see him learn to ride his first bike, bikes,

#33 M A K A V E L I 96

M A K A V E L I 96

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,706 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 11

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:10 PM

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


The country has passed you by. Maybe you should go back to Eastern Europe.
  • 0
Posted Image

#34 hockeyfan87

hockeyfan87

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:56 PM

People being allowed to carry weapons around, especially in courtrooms where tensions can run high, is never a good thing.
  • 1

#35 PlayStation

PlayStation

    XBox

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,301 posts
  • Joined: 12-April 08

Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:18 PM

For those saying oh why cant other non-Sikhs have Kirpans in the courtroom.

First off, what is your reasoning for carrying one into the court room? Nothing. Just trying to start something for no reason because you have nothing better to do.

Second, only those who are highly religious carry them, which is usually an adult-elderly person. And those who are extremely religious, carry the Kirpan with good intentions, for the religious purpose, not self defence.

Of course the odd time stuff does happen, but what can you do.
  • 0
Posted Image


"Real Men" :bigblush:

#36 hockeyfan87

hockeyfan87

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,502 posts
  • Joined: 13-February 10

Posted 12 April 2013 - 11:45 PM

.

Edited by hockeyfan87, 12 April 2013 - 11:50 PM.

  • 0

#37 Common sense

Common sense

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,742 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 13 April 2013 - 03:43 AM

Posted Image


^^^^ Westcoaster is that you???


Islam =/= Sikhism.
  • 0

#38 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:46 AM

Posted Image


^^^^ Westcoaster is that you???

Nope. My ancestors on my mother's side are English and Scot and on my father's side German who immigrated to eastern Europe in the 18th century under a policy of "eurofication" instituted by Catherine the Great (known as Volga Germans or Wolgadeutsche) and after WWI being considered "White Russians" they escaped to Canada before being purged.

You have no clue about much of anything as you continue to demonstrate by your profound ignorance.

Sikhs are not Muslims.

And very few Muslims are radicals.

You have no grasp of Canadian history or our supreme law as enshrined in our Constitution.Multiculturalism is official government policy and enshrined as a core value in the Charter. Do they not teach this in school any longer?

Try reading the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which are contained in Volume IV of its reports which is the foundation for Canada's multiculturalism policy and you may actually learn something about Canada and its history.
http://epe.lac-bac.g...4-part1-eng.pdf

Canada's official policy of multiculturalism was adopted unanimously by Parliament, enacted into law in 1971 and entrenched in our Constitution as basic value in 1982.


The government accepts and endorses the recommendations and spirit of Book IV of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. It believes the time is overdue for the people of Canada to become more aware of the rich tradition of the many cultures we have in Canada. Canada's citizens come from almost every country in the world, and bring with them every major world religion and language. This cultural diversity endows all Canadians with a great variety of human experience. The government regards this as a heritage to treasure and believes that Canada would be the poorer if we adopted assimilation programs forcing our citizens to forsake and forget the cultures they have brought to us.

...

Canadian identity will not be undermined by multiculturalism. Indeed, we believe that cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity. Every ethnic group has the right to preserve and develop its own culture and values within the Canadian context. To say we have two official languages is not to say we have two official cultures, and no particular culture is more "official" than another. A policy of multiculturalism must be a policy for all Canadians.


Two misconceptions often arise when cultural diversity is discussed.

(a) Cultural Identity and National Allegiance.

The sense of identity developed by each citizen as a unique individual is distinct from his national allegiance. There is no reason to suppose that a citizen who identifies himself with pride as a Chinese-Canadian, who is deeply involved in the cultural activities of the Chinese community in Canada, will be less loyal or concerned with Canadian matters than a citizen of Scottish origin who takes part in a bagpipe band or highland dancing group. Cultural identity is not the same thing as allegiance to a country. Each of us is born into a particular family with a distinct heritage: that is, everyone -- French, English, Italian and Slav included -- has an "ethnic" background. The more secure we feel in one particular social context, the more we are free to explore our identity beyond it. Ethnic groups often provide people with a sense of belonging which can make them better able to cope with the rest of society than they would as isolated individuals. Ethnic loyalties need not, and usually do not, detract from wider loyalties to community and country.

Canadian identity will not be undermined by multiculturalism. Indeed, we believe that cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity. Every ethnic group has the right to preserve and develop its own culture and values within the Canadian context. To say we have two official languages is not to say we have two official cultures, and no particular culture is more "official" than another. A policy of multiculturalism must be a policy for all Canadians.

( B) Language and Culture.

The distinction between language and culture has never been clearly defined. The very name of the royal commission whose recommendations we now seek to implement tends to indicate that bilingualism and biculturalism are indivisible. But, biculturalism does not properly describe our society; multiculturalism is more accurate. The Official Languages Act designated two languages, English and French, as the official languages of Canada for the purposes of all the institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada; no reference was made to cultures, and this act does not impinge urn the role of all languages as instruments of the various Canadian cultures. Nor, on the other hand, should the recognition of the cultural value of many languages weaken the position of Canada's two official languages. Their use by all of the citizens of Canada will continue to be promoted and encouraged.

~ Appendix to Hansard, October 8, 1971 when multiculturalism was adopted as the official policy of Canada

http://www.canadahis...ulturalism.html

Canadian values are not at risk - they are being promoted. Protection of minority rights and individual freedoms as well as individuals not being forced to adopt your erroneous concept of Canadian culture (and BTW there is no official culture) are at the core of Canadian values.



(T)here cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others. For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly.

~Prime Minster Pierre Elliott Trudeau - House of Commons Debates, October 8, 1971 upon the announcement of Canada's policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework.
http://www.canadahis...ulturalism.html

The idea is that minority rights are not to be subsumed by some amorphous view of majority rights or a mistaken concept of "Canadian culture". There is no official Canadian culture - we are multicultural nation and cultural pluralism is one of our core values entrenched in our Constitution. BTW our Constitution is the supreme law of the land.




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

...

52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.


(2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act 1982, including this Act; ( B) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and © any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or ( B).


(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.


Edited by debluvscanucks, 13 April 2013 - 11:17 AM.
Last paragraph removed as per reported personal attack.

  • 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.

#39 debluvscanucks

debluvscanucks

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Super Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,299 posts
  • Joined: 19-February 08

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:19 AM

We're getting a number of reports related to this thread (already).

As it is a sensitive subject, please refrain from "you" statements and direct your thoughts to the topic, not those who don't share your opinion(s).

We all are entitled to express them, as long as we keep within the boundaries of the forum rules.

Thanks....if we get too many reports the solution will be to simply shut down the thread. :)
  • 0

Posted Image


#40 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:26 AM

We're getting a number of reports related to this thread (already).

As it is a sensitive subject, please refrain from "you" statements and direct your thoughts to the topic, not those who don't share your opinion(s).

We all are entitled to express them, as long as we keep within the boundaries of the forum rules.

Thanks....if we get too many reports the solution will be to simply shut down the thread. :)

And that solution would certainly please the pre-pubescent morons of CDC.
  • 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.

#41 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:33 AM

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.


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.
  • 1

#42 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:42 AM

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.


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.
  • 1

#43 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:44 AM

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.

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.


  • 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.

#44 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:46 AM

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.

Nope. That is not logical. As the SCOC said in addressing such a silly argument:

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.


  • 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.

#45 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:49 AM

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.


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.
  • 1

#46 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 11:59 AM

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.

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.


  • 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.

#47 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

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.


Then why can't we ALL take one into a courtroom?
  • 1

#48 Violator

Violator

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,232 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 07

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:19 PM

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.


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?
  • 0

#49 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:32 PM

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

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.

Did you not comprehend what the SCOC said on this point? It has been cited several times. See http://forum.canucks.../#entry11297293
  • 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.

#50 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:34 PM

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?

You obviously did not read the Ministry of Justice press release.

There are conditions which must be satisfied.


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.


  • 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.

#51 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:34 PM

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?

No it does not mean that.
  • 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.

#52 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:45 PM

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.


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?
  • 1

#53 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:54 PM

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?

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.
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.
  • 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.

#54 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:09 PM

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.
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.




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.
  • 2

#55 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:14 PM

[/font][/color][/font][/color]


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.

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.
  • 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.

#56 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:23 PM

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.


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.
  • 0

#57 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:25 PM

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.

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.
  • 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.

#58 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:27 PM

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.


I wonder what this "evidence" is. The ability to read the mind of every Sikh who carries one?
  • 2

#59 Wetcoaster

Wetcoaster

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:30 PM

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

It is set out in the decision.
  • 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.

#60 Buggernut

Buggernut

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

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

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:39 PM

It is set out in the decision.


It's politics, dude. Note that the same BC government forked out millions to bring a film festival to score points with the Indian community.
  • 2




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.