Let Sikh pupils wear ceremonial daggers, judge says

I think the issue should be do the kids wearing the kirpan have any knowledge of its significance etc... I have never heard of a case were the kirpan was used in a violent act. But i have come across where the presence of the Kirpan was enough to keep gangs of bullys or racists of these youngsters and teens.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29173-let-sikh-pupils-wear-ceremonial-daggers.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

Once i was with an amritdhari friend of mine walking in the evening and a group of white youths were gathered im guessing they had been drinking. So basically they began to shout some racist abuse the usual " taliban, ****" stuff. Now the group had started to walk towards us shouting abuse, so i was thinking we were gonna get our heads kicked in. But when they seen friends kirpan though it was covered it was pointing out from the bottom of his jacket. and when they seen the kirpan they stopped we carried on walking, they just stood there and shouted a few more abuses.

All in all now if he never had a kirpan the story could have been alot more tragic. 15 guys vs 2? you can do the math

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

Ghostface Killah ji

I have to admit I am a little baffled by the latter part of your response, though I agree with the first. Will try to weave the reactions of Lee ji and Randip Singh ji together with yours.

The matter of the right to " carry a kirpan" is not quite the same thing as "the right to bear arms." How to explain?

When one dons a kirpan one is not gearing up for battle with potential muggers or murderers; nor is one necessarily on the hunt for evil-doers in the streets of town. As far as I know Sikhs are not stockpiling kirpan according to a doomsday scenario. Therefore society has no compelling reason to suspect that harm will be done if anyone, including young children, carry the kirpan. There is as far as I know very little reported evidence that anyone, including children, have used the kirpan as a weapon.

So, what is the legal principle that would guide a court to "restrain" a religious practice because "it might lead to violence and injury?"

English law -- which is the inspiration for US and Canadian law -- gives individuals credit for having sufficient intelligence to make decisions about how to live their lives without undue interference from the government (Magna Carta). Conversely, the Napoleonic Code which guides much of Europe and some parts of Africa and the Middle East makes a different assumption: People need to be protected from themselves and their own stupidity. Which theory of rights do your prefer?

In the Anglo-American framework -- when it can be shown that there is a "compelling reason" to limit a freedom in some way, then that is accomplished through due process and courts of law. In the Napoleonic framework freedoms are granted, and thus freedoms can be taken away, and the reasons can be manifold and even contradictory. But they are typically based on the need to protect the public being a greater concern than the need to protect a freedom. When government gives, government can take away. Consider the mischief that comes from that according to the rule of political whims and electoral politics instead of rule of law.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

I do not have any problem with an individual deciding to limit his inalienable personal freedoms by removing his kara, his kirpan, his kanga (though things could get sloppy), his kesh, or his kechera (one does have to bathe) according to his/her own judgment. I do have a problem when the government decides I am not clever enough to figure things out on my own.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

As for children -- children learn by example, not by denying them the opportunities to weigh and judge and reason (of course with adult teaching and guidance).

Enjoyable!

Don't get me wrong Narayanjot ji, I actually agree with your atand point and distinction between the codes of law and the right to wear religious symbols.

However, I have been trying to get my head round the concept of Sarbat Da Bhalla, in this instance a Sikh carries a Kirpan for Sarbat da Bhalla. It is there to protect the week and those that cannot defend themselves.

The my thought goes to the fact Sarbat Da Balla (Good for all) could be interpreted as for the greater good it may be better not to carry a Kirpan.

The need to defend others is outweighed by the need of general safety?

Allow me to add my two cent worth.

First and foremost Khandei di pahul should not be the end to justify the means but the means that lead to it. By this I mean that young kids should be taught how to live like Sikhs as good/honest students, sons, daughters, brothers and sisters.

The Panj Piyaras chosen by Guru Gobind Singh ji were not minors but adults who could take the responsibilities by understanding that five Kakaars were not mere symbols of the Khalsa Panth but daily reminders of truthful living started by Guru Nanak which also included to defend the oppressed and the suppressed. But that can only happen if we are taught how to be truthful from the very young age in order to create the foundation of truthful living.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

I know some cases first hand where the kids who had taken Khandei di Pahul were caught cheating in their tests at schools and a couple of them forged their parents' signatures when they were asked by their teachers to get letters from their parents. They were high school kids.

Now a days, Khandei di Pahul has become more a kind symbology when young kids are coerced or actively influenced/nudged by their elders to take the pahul rather than teaching them the meaningful path towards Sikhi way of life first. It is like not teaching social skills to the kids and asking them to interact with the world in a mature fashion.

So, in my point of view, Sikhs should be encouraged to take khandei de pahul after they pass high school and provided they have been taught by their parents and/or through Gurdwara classes how to become good, truthful and responsible citizens as kids first.

Once they are instilled with this concept then carrying the Kirpan and other Kakaars would not be mere symbols but also the real tools to teach others the depth and breath of this wonderful concept rather than some articles of faith which is a misnomer as a starter.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

Tejwant Singh

Wah! Couldn't have said it better myself!

Randip ji

"The need to defend others is outweighed by the need of general safety?"

This is the classic question of establishing a "community standard" in order to determine whether/what the constraints should be enforced regarding the kirpan. It does not address the question of a fundamental right.

If the judges make a decision based on upholding a "religious principle" then they will not overstep the bounds of their own duties and responsibilities. Their job is to interpret and uphold the law, not make law.

Sarbat da Bhalla (good for all) is a Sikh concept that has universal meaning and importance. It may not be the same however as the notion of "the greater good. " To determine the greater good would be the court's next step. The greater good is decided by weighing the cost to the individual versus the cost to society, i.e., what trade-offs can be made without throwing a basic right over-board. The determination requires evidence of clear and present danger.

You as an individual can decide that Sarbat da Bhalla means you won't wear a kirpan if you think someone else might be injured. But courts have to decide whether Sarbat da Balla has a broader legal application to everyone in the UK, beyond one individual and beyond adherents to any one group. In other words --exactly how does Sarbat da Bhalla get applied in this case? Does it correlate somehow with a community standard for limiting any danger from the kirpan?

The high court in Britain needs/and probably would consider whether there is any danger to society and under what circumstance such a danger exists and base its decision on that --again in a way that does not compromise a fundamental right, and in a way that takes evidence of any real danger into consideration.

P/S I came across a secularist blog yesterday that is following arguments for and against "kirpan" very closely. Amazing, or maybe not, that the extreme secularist internet community believes that restrictions on kirpan generalize to unjust restrictions on even those who are not Sikhs.

P/S Tejwant ji
I know of adults who have taken khanda di pahul who believe they can operate outside of the framework of the Sikh Rehat Marayada when it suits them to excommunicate individuals for upholding basic tenets of the Sikh faith.

Narayanjot ji,

Guru Fateh.

Thanks for catching my subliminal message when I mentioned kids doing naughty things while having the full baana.


Regards

Tejwant Singh

hehe...yes they can be
So
Pathetic
Nowadays