Let Sikh pupils wear ceremonial daggers, judge says

Let Sikh pupils wear ceremonial daggers, judge says

Let Sikh pupils wear ceremonial daggers, judge says | World news | guardian.co.uk

Britain's first Asian judge Sir Mota Singh says Sikhs should not be banned from wearing kirpans to school or work

Britain's first Asian judge has called for Sikhs to be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers to school.

The comments by Sir Mota Singh QC, come after a number of cases of Sikhs being banned from wearing the daggers – known as kirpans – and other religious artefacts in schools or workplaces.

"Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a kirpan is not right," Singh told the BBC Asian Network.

"I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who's been baptised, being allowed to wear their kirpan if that's what they want to do."

In October last year a Sikh police officer won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester police after being told to remove his turban for riot training.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/29173-let-sikh-pupils-wear-ceremonial-daggers.html

In the same month a 14-year-old Sikh boy was banned from wearing his Kirpan – which under Sikhism is one of five "articles of faith" which must be carried at all times – to his school in Barnet, London.

In 2006, schoolgirl Sarika Watkins-Singh won a high court judgment allowing her to wear the kara, a slim steel bracelet which she argued was central to her faith, to her school in south Wales. She had previously been excluded for breaking a "no jewellery" rule after refusing to remove the bangle.

"The girl not allowed to wear the kara is a petty thing for the administrators to have done and it doesn't do them any good," Singh said.

"It is the right of every young girl and boy to be educated at the school of their choice. For him or her to be refused admission on that sort of ground, as far as I'm concerned, is quite wrong."

Singh, who was awarded a knighthood in the 2010 New Year honours list, said he wore a kirpan.

"I've always worn it for the last 35 to 40 years, even when I was sitting in court or visiting public buildings, including Buckingham Palace."

In addition to the kara and kirpan, the other articles of faith are kesh (uncut hair), kanga (a wooden comb used for keeping hair in place under the turban) and kachera (specially designed cotton underwear).

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173
The kirpan, which can range in length but is commonly 7.5cm (3in) long, is carried in a sheath and strapped to the body, usually under clothing.

 
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!

__________________

People may be surprised about my view on this, but I don't think kids should carry Kirpans in schools.

There have been high profile stabbings in the UK, and my fear is that eaither a Kirpan will be used by someone wearing it (unlikely), or it is taken off someone and used (more likely).
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

I go back to when Sikhs were first baptised, the original Panj Pyarey were responsible grown men, not kids.

I agree with this Randip ji,

I posted my comments on the BBC's 'Have your say' page about this yesterday and mentioned much the same thing.

It may be a cultural difference -- however, I take a different view Lee ji and Randip ji.

I believe the core principle should be decided first -- resolved the kirpan can be carried/worn in public places. The the conditional elements should be decided next: what age threshold, how should it be carried, where may it not be carried (e.g., airports perhaps), and why these conditions are necessary.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

The underlying principle is the right to wear symbols of religious identity and faith? The second question is shall children have the right to wear symbols of their religious identity and faith?

When the courts do not sort out the difference between the two, then the decision they make will extend to all symbols of religious identity and faith -- kirpan, etc. as we see has happened in France.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

If the first principle is not upheld initially, and the whys and what not's decided afterward, then the first principle gets bogged down with context. In the end it gets lost and all the exceptions take over and seem more important than the core value itself. The main question is side-stepped. The controversy becomes muddled. And after that no one really gets to the core issue: Why do Sikhs carry kirpan in the first place? Lame excuses prevail and religious identity is nicked and chipped one more time.

Here is an article freshly posted by Soul_Jyot ji that takes a very detail view of the point I am trying to make.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/hard-t...-carrying.html

I can certianly see why people here in the Uk have been inflamed by this news story. However as Narayanjot ji touches upon we are in fact garented by law permission to wear the Kirpan.

I think as I have mentioned before that there are no Sikh children. How can one claim membership of any faith, dharma or religon without first a belife in the existance of a creator God and secondly certian knowledge of the dogma that ther are proscribing to?

So should children have the right to wear articles of their faith? If they of their own mind understand all that I have said above then yes, certianly. If a child is religous merely because she has been brought up in a religous house hold, then I say wait until they have made their own mins up. Our Rehat states that anybody taking Amrit should not be too young anyway.

I have read the link you provided, and I think that when it comes to religoin there are many pitfalls. Now I am a religous man and so I am biased, but as there is nothing comparable to the idea of a creative God, and there is nothing comparable to the scope of religious faith to rule the way a person is, then yes it is important that the religous be accorded certian privilages that perhaps the unreligous do not get.

That on the surface sounds unfair, let me asure you that it is not. There are laws here in the UK which govern the carring of a knife, I could not carry a blade out on the streets it is unlawfull for me to do so, unless....

I was a Baptised Sikh, or I was a butcher or a chef.

Execptions to law are not uncommon, nor is it unfair that such exceptions be made. We are not all alike, and the chef stopped by a police man on his way to work, searched and found in posetion of a long and sharp chefs blade will be told to go on his way rather than be arrested.

Lee ji

Most of what you are saying pertains to religious validity of the kirpan for some and/or not others.

I am addressing the question of prior restraint. Exceptions to the law under the English tradition (though it may have been compromised over the years) are made when there is a socially compelling reason to prohibit a practice, and when there is sufficient evidence to make a case that there is a socially compelling reason.

So my point is -- it is bad law to base judgments on the argument "that something might happen." Is there evidence? -- not anecdotal evidence, as in a kid might take a kirpan away from a Sikh child and hurt someone, it happened in Scotland, I heard it from my sister-in-law, and it was reported in the newspaper. How many times has a child injured another with a kirpan? How many times has another child done harm with a kirpan stolen from another child? How many police reports are there of these events?

The justices are considering this question - the right to carry a symbol of religious identity - as a legal question that has implications for the entire polity of Great Britain. A decision rendered based on contextual details relevant to Sikhs alone. They are not in a position to decide whether this or that child is or is not really a Sikh. Or whether a Sikh must be baptized to be a Sikh. Or whether children in general can be Sikhs.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

That is the kind of argument that is distracting from basic ideals of law in the English/US/Canadian system of justice. Those questions fall outside of constitutional review and common law, given the theory of "rights" that are relevant. In France, Italy, even India, a different theory of rights prevails.

Narayanjot ji,
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

Ahhhh I see. What I don't see though is this. If it is bad law to make law based upom the fear of what may happen, then isn't it equaly as bad to make law based on 'well this hasn't happend yet'?

Isn't it rather a moot point any way as Sikhs have the right to carry the Kirpan already protected by UK law, and the European court of human rights.

Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173
Are you claiming that our law makers are considering makeing changes to this?

The problem as I see it, is that carrying a knife around over a certian lenght is not lawfull here, so any execptions made must be seen to conform with good sense. It makes no sense to deny a chef the right to carry his tools to work, and thus this exception is easy to understand and would barely kick up a pong let alone a stink amongst the population of the UK.

This largley secular nation finds it hard to reconcie a knife as an article of religous faith, and so bad feelings arise with news stories like this. So I think it better to educate about what the Kirpan is and what it means to Khasla, to ensure that children are perhaps not permited Amrit untill old enough to choose Sikhi. This idea that there are no religous children, but children of religous parents is prevalant over here and I think that this is the correct track to take to enable bad feelings about this to diminish.

Interesting issue.

Let me throw something into the mix.

I used to take my Kara off when playing Rugby because I didn't want to hurt my teamates or opposition players.

Can an analogy be drawn from this?

Does safety and welfare of individuals overide the right to wear Religious symbols?

I think if it my own health and safety, then I should be allowed to choose, for example, I can legal commit suicide in the UK, but when others health and safety is being compromised, then I have to question my actions.

Surely the Sikh priciple of Sarbat Da Bhalla applies here?

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.

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.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29173

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