Kirpans in school

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Supreme Court overturns ban on Sikh ceremonial dagger.

Whaddya think?

[Birdy]

i think all the opponents of the charter of rights and freedoms were extremely insightful and had a good argument as to the dangers of granting and guaranteeing rights and freedoms to people. (which really, is another argument in favour of libertarianism )

i disagree with the courts decision. this will create a mess.

a weapon is a weapon. the government needs to stand by the laws of it's public institutions and set precedent. if sikh parents disagree with this, the choice should be theirs not to enroll their son in a public school.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

i think all the opponents of the charter of rights and freedoms were extremely insightful and had a good argument as to the dangers of granting and guaranteeing rights and freedoms to people.

All the opponents? There were probably people in, say, KKK-esque groups that you might not want to qualify as "insightful".

But yes, there are certainly dangers involved in taking up the position of wanting to institute mutual recognition in a legal code. This kind of struggle has been going on in hundreds - not to speak of thousands - of years. Canada is privileged, in an historical sense, of being in a place to work these things out to the best of our rational abilities, given that we're statistically speaking the most diverse country in the history of the world.

this will create a mess.

Quite possibly. Suppose the Raelians now insist on the rights of their kids to strut around nude at school. While some people might for completely different reasons come out swinging in favour of this (I hate to imagine), the principles by which this would be decided on will be tortuous at best (though likely to end up relying on de facto precedent - like the pedigree of the religion. If something hasn't been around for, I don't know, 100 years, it may not be given legal recognition).

a weapon is a weapon

There the waters are still murky. A 10 cm knife may be no more capable of inflicting harm than a steel-encased clicky-pencil. Ever see Joe Pesci's bit at the beginning of "Casino"?

What complicates things is the status of the kirpan as an actual "weapon" (historically, made necessary by Sikhs' needing to defend themselves against aggression by both Hindus and Muslims in 17th c. India). Does anybody know more about that study some US university did where they found people responded to simulated aggravating situations more aggresively when they had a toy gun in front of them than when they didn't?

I'm eating up every minute of the fallout of this ruling.

[Birdy]

All the opponents?

you're right. my ambiguity is at play again. gotta work on that.

But yes, there are certainly dangers involved in taking up the position of wanting to institute mutual recognition in a legal code. This kind of struggle has been going on in hundreds - not to speak of thousands - of years. Canada is privileged, in an historical sense, of being in a place to work these things out to the best of our rational abilities, given that we're statistically speaking the most diverse country in the history of the world.

perhaps our diversity is the reason why we find our courts continuously wrapped up in cases like the above mentioned?

thank gawd for rational ability

There the waters are still murky. A 10 cm knife may be no more capable of inflicting harm than a steel-encased clicky-pencil. Ever see Joe Pesci's bit at the beginning of "Casino"?

yes! damn!

it is a fine line really as to what constitutes a weapon. i brought a nail file in my bag up to airport security and had to throw it out. i also once saw a lady forced to throw a fork out!

it has to boil down to whether the holder of said 'weapon' intends to do harm with it,but then again, how can we predict someone's intent?

What complicates things is the status of the kirpan as an actual "weapon" (historically, made necessary by Sikhs' needing to defend themselves against aggression by both Hindus and Muslims in 17th c. India). Does anybody know more about that study some US university did where they found people responded to simulated aggravating situations more aggresively when they had a toy gun in front of them than when they didn't?

no, but a good point in favour of gun control

so what do you think DEM? Do you side with the courts?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

At first blush, my inclination is to side with the courts here, but in no general sense, because the particulars here preclude any general principles.

Let me illustrate. The Mennonites (to be fair, the Anabaptists, more generally speaking), contrary to common perception, were pretty wacky when they got going - by which I mean, they got themselves involved in some pretty bloody confrontations within the culture they lived. They got past that, of course, and have since had a remarkably peaceable history since. So too have the Sikhs, at least in Canada (i.e., notwithstanding some BS in India over the last couple of decades).

So does the particular preclude the general?

Bad timing on this response... must return to it later, when I can deal with it better....

[Thorgnor]

I think allowing the 'kirpan' is the exact social opposite of banning the 'hijab'.

[Biggest Fan]

My vote...One crazy issue.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I think allowing the 'kirpan' is the exact social opposite of banning the 'hijab'.

Do Canadian public schools, to the best of your knowledge, ban the hijab, which don't raise the same kinds of problems around violence (unless you count the violence of not seeing some hot chick's hairline)?

All I can speak to, honestly, are post-secondary schools, where hijabs are certainly allowed (though I've not yet seen burkas cause any trouble, which have caused some difficulties with, e.g., public transit photo i.d. cards).

[Lazlo]

Who cares about kirpans or hijabs or fuckin' burkas. Where's the legislation forcing these people to bathe.

[Birdy]

At first blush, my inclination is to side with the courts here, but in no general sense, because the particulars here preclude any general principles.

Let me illustrate. The Mennonites (to be fair, the Anabaptists, more generally speaking), contrary to common perception, were pretty wacky when they got going - by which I mean, they got themselves involved in some pretty bloody confrontations within the culture they lived. They got past that, of course, and have since had a remarkably peaceable history since. So too have the Sikhs, at least in Canada (i.e., notwithstanding some BS in India over the last couple of decades).

So does the particular preclude the general?

Bad timing on this response... must return to it later, when I can deal with it better....

it seems as though mennonite societies have survived the longest outstanding 'western' assimilation, that's pretty remarkable. i don't really know anything about the different societies, i've had little contact (except for one season of onion planting). why were they so whacky and how'd they get past it?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

My bad - that was sloppy of me, conflating Mennonites with other anabaptists.

Historians and sociologists have made ... distinctions between radical Anabaptists, who were prepared to use violence in their attempts to build a New Jerusalem, and their pacifist brethren, later broadly known as Mennonites. Radical Anabaptist groups included the Münsterites, who occupied and held the German city of Münster in 1534-1535, and the Batenburgers, who persisted in various guises as late as the 1570s.

Anabaptists

I wonder if the Mennonites you met (or were you talking about Sikhs?) were Old Colony migrants from Mexico. There's an interesting story there.

[Birdy]

no they were mennonites. I do know they were from Mexico with very very thick German accents.

[StaggerLee]

So what's the story on knives in schools generally speaking? When I went to school I always wore a swiss army knife on my belt. Is that not permitted these days?

[M.O.B.E]

so does this mean that because I'm Scottish I can send my kids to school in full highland dress and include a Sgian Dubh

[Biggest Fan]

A day later and I still do not know what to think on this one but

[Biggest Fan]

I think about having some religious expression in public schools and I know the 'weapon' is not really a weapon, gotta believe in tolerance and everything but... I guess it reminds me a little bit when the French outlawed the Muslim head scarve.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Yeah... the French have a pretty hard-core take on secularism. Some people say it has a lot to do with the way their Revolution took shape, and how it was an ongoing project for them ever after that to continue purging the influence of religion in public affairs. It's complicated there by their colonial history - Algeria was France's Vietnam (well, Vietnam was also France's Vietnam too, of course), and the fight has never quite ended for them with immigrants from North Africa (and elsewhere).

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

so does this mean that because I'm Scottish I can send my kids to school in full highland dress and include a Sgian Dubh

Interesting parallel. I suppose if a Scotsman could prove that he couldn't satisfy the core tenets of his religious faith without having one on hand at all times, it might be worth a shot.

[StoneMtn]

I haven't read the judgment yet, but I plan to.

Until I read it, I won't form an opinion, but I understand that one of the main arguments in favour of the Kirpan was that it was relatively difficult to get to, under a layer of clothing and sewn into a sheath (which was done intentionally to try to appease the school) whereas kids generally have pretty good access to scissors, pencils, baseball bats, and other more readily available potential weapons.

I thought that was a good point. As I said, though, I won't form an opinion until I read the whole judgment.

(I'm heading out right now, but I'll post a link to it later when I return from snowboarding, in case anyone else wants to read it.)

[M.O.B.E]

I understand that one of the main arguments in favour of the Kirpan was that it was relatively difficult to get to, under a layer of clothing and sewn into a sheath (which was done intentionally to try to appease the school) whereas kids generally have pretty good access to scissors, pencils, baseball bats, and other more readily available potential weapons.

I personally would be more worried about the kids reaching for scissors etc. Chances are the Sikh children have been taught never to pull a weapon unless they are in very real danger.

I think the message that we should be teaching is tolerance. I'm more than willing to bet that if children and their parents were educated at a young age, about the other faiths surrounding them we wouldnt be facing problems like this. This type of stuff really aggravates me.

[Birdy]

agreed.

i still think it's a sticky subject though. However 'clothed' the dagger is, it's still a dagger- which does fall under a general 'weapon' category.

[bradm]

Hmmm...I wonder if a rule that was put in that gave increased penalties for use of a Kirpan, either by its owner or someone who got access to it, would help. And note that I'm talking about an increased penalty for the owner of it, aside from (and in addition to) any penalty given to the user of it. In essence, I'm thinking that demanding a particular privilege should carry with it increased responsibility.

Aloha,

Brad

[Birdy]

i'm assuming that the owners of the kirpans that young school kids would carry would be the parents.. and if so, i agree with you Brad. The responsiblity would then fall upon the parent's shoulders to ensure that their child fully understood the consequences of mishandling the thing.

so by allowing this are we essentially allowing any weapons (?) proven religiously signifcant to their carriers to be brought into our schools? how does one go about 'proving' religious significance?

[bradm]

i'm assuming that the owners of the kirpans that young school kids would carry would be the parents.. and if so, i agree with you Brad. The responsiblity would then fall upon the parent's shoulders to ensure that their child fully understood the consequences of mishandling the thing.

You're right, but I actually meant the bearer of the Kirpan, rather than the owner of it, but I agree that punishment should also include the parents/guardians.

so by allowing this are we essentially allowing any weapons (?) proven religiously signifcant to their carriers to be brought into our schools? how does one go about 'proving' religious significance?

I think it would have to be case-by-case, and would have to include things like historical evidence, citings in scripture (also backed by historical evidence), etc. Now, if I could just get my light sabre...

Aloha,

Brad

[Birdy]

hah!

70,000 people!! insane.