Welcome to SPN

Register and Join the most happening forum of Sikh community & intellectuals from around the world.

Sign Up Now!

Is This A Dagger I See Before Me?

Discussion in 'Hard Talk' started by Aman Singh, Apr 7, 2010.

  1. Aman Singh

    Aman Singh
    Expand Collapse
    Admin SPNer

    Jun 1, 2004
    Likes Received:
    It seems that the beans have been spilled all over. The people, who were always waiting for this opportunity when the Sikhs would commit a Hara Kiri, are making merry of this debacle.

    Just look at the following news article... Now, where are all those people doing the BIG TALK?

    I think, the only way this situation can now be redeemed for Sikhs is by Akal Takht excommunicating these so-called Sikhs criminals, who have brought Sikhi into grave disrepute.



    Is This a Dagger I See Before Me?
    Sikh symbol may not be meant to cause harm, but sometimes a knife is just a knife

    <di3>I</di3> could, I suppose, use the small crucifix at my neck to take out somebody's eye.

    But, leaving aside its religious significance, a cross is primarily a decorative ornament, a piece of jewellery, and no more inherently dangerous than an earring post or hatpin – or a yarmulke or turban, for that matter.

    With a great deal of imagination, one might posit that a yarmulke could be used – to what, choke a person to death by stuffing it into a victim's mouth? – and an unravelled turban wielded as ligature for strangling. Such arguments would be rightly dismissed as absurd.

    Yet we live in an era of aggressive pre-emptive measures, when airline travellers can no longer bring bottled water on to a plane, or concertgoers carry umbrellas into a stadium.

    The ingenuity of those with mayhem on the brain – shoe bombers, undies bombers, crazed alchemists mixing up explosive liquids from chicken soup and nitroglycerine – has compelled security agencies to restrict so much of what once seemed harmless, X-ray peering right into our entrails.
    The kirpan, though, still gets a pass.

    Why should it?

    While the Sikh faith maintains that the kirpan is an instrument of ahimsa – meaning non-violence – and to be used only as a defensive weapon, by way of preventing harm from being done to oneself or another person, the thing is still essentially a knife, for all that Canada's top court has danced on a pin to rule otherwise in allowing it as a mandatory religious observance.

    It now seems probable – witnesses have said so – that a kirpan was used to stab a prominent Brampton lawyer after he tried to disperse an angry mob that had gathered to protest the planned – subsequently cancelled – lecture by an excommunicated Sikh preacher at the Sikh Lehar Centre Friday night.

    Manjit Mangat was taken to hospital with stab wounds to his abdomen, thighs and legs, plus cuts to his face.

    Religious confrontations are often combustible.

    With daggers to hand, this one got ******, fast.

    Gun enthusiasts are always saying: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Strictly speaking, that's true – a firearm is a benign object unless utilized for the purpose for which it was invented, which is, well, to shoot people.

    That's why Canadians are prevented from owning or carrying sidearms except in limited circumstances, with strict requirements for storage and transport.

    But we tread softly, in a legal context, when assessing the virtues and non-lethality of a kirpan, weighing constitutionally guaranteed religious rights against the public's right to security.

    Back in the age of innocence, that might have made sense, though there has always been widespread controversy.

    The Supreme Court of Canada, in its unanimous wisdom, ruled in the culmination of a long legal battle (Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006) that Quebec's highest court had erred in siding with a school board that tried to prevent a 12-year-old Sikh boy from wearing his kirpan to school.

    Because the child's parents chose to pull the boy out of public school rather than take away his kirpan – doing so posed an "irreconcilable friction" with their tenets of faith – the Supremes concluded the child's religious rights had been compromised under the Charter.

    The court ruled that the kirpan need not be addressed as a "weapon," allowing the boy's family to demonstrate merely a "personal, subjective belief in the religious significance of the kirpan," and accepted that prohibiting the youth from carrying it was more than a "trivial interference" of religious rights enshrined in the Charter.

    To buttress their decision, the Supremes noted there had never been a known case of a kirpan being used violently in any school across Canada.
    But there have been cases since.

    Further, this isn't just about boys taking kirpans to school – the same schools where zero tolerance has prevented girls from bringing Midol to class in their purse.

    Courts in many countries have been struggling with this issue. Denmark's High Court, as an example, has ruled that religion is not a valid reason for carrying a kirpan.

    More often, compromises on size and proper sheathing – as in Canada – have been reached, as was the case during the Vancouver Olympics.
    In Canada and the U.S., Sikhs are permitted to fly with their kirpans, but must turn them over to the aircraft's crew before boarding.

    Yet just two years ago, Sikhs were dropped from an interfaith delegation scheduled to meet with the Pope because of their refusal to set the kirpan aside.

    There is a historical context for the kirpan, its use arising from necessity centuries ago.

    Symbolism has now replaced necessity, and baptized male Sikhs must wear a kirpan, along with the turban.

    It is not for me, a mostly non-practising Catholic, to lecture Sikhs about anachronisms in religious observance. All faiths have 'em.

    But a dagger used to stab a man in Brampton – which is hardly the Punjab of 1708 – has made this, once again, a matter of communal, secular concern.

    As an aside, it's interesting to note that Bill 94, proposed by Quebec Premier Jean Charest to ban face coverings for Muslim women in Quebec, with accommodation specifically denied for reasons of "security, communication or identification," does not outlaw the kirpan.

    Surely a dagger worn by men is more of a security compromise than a piece of fabric over a woman's face?

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 4
  2. Loading...

  3. spnadmin

    spnadmin United States
    Expand Collapse
    1947-2014 (Archived)
    SPNer Supporter

    Jun 17, 2004
    Likes Received:
    This is a very thought provoking article. Thanks for posting it. And yes, I agree with you, I think, the only way this situation can now be redeemed for Sikhs is by Akal Takht excommunicating these so-called Sikhs criminals, who have brought Sikhi into grave disrepute. We have layers of tragedy in this situation.
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Mai Harinder Kaur

    Mai Harinder Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer

    Oct 6, 2006
    Likes Received:
    To - mostly - repeat myself:

    I agree this is a heavy blow to our fight to get our kirpans recognised as articles of faith and not weapons. However, with all due respect, there is something very wrong here. No one was attacked with a kirpan and no one ever will be. In the very instance that a kirpan is used as an aggressive weapon, it ceases to be a kirpan, an article of faith; it is merely a knife or a dagger or a sword. And the person who wields it ceases to be a Gursikh and becomes a common criminal, a thug. These thugs must be treated as the criminals that they are.

    I realise that this is a distinction that will be lost on the general public, but it must be made here, among us Sikhs. I also realise I am leaving myself open to attack for bluntly stating this, but it is the truth and, I am certain, the opinion of the vast majority of Sikhs who are good, peaceable. law-biding citizens of the respective countries.

    Also it cannot be overlooked that a kara was also used as an offensive weapon. Vaheguru! Is there no end to this?

    Our prayers are with those injured and their families.

    Now, what sort of damage control is possible?
    • Like Like x 5
  5. BhagatSingh

    BhagatSingh Canada
    Expand Collapse
    SPNer sikhiart.com

    Apr 25, 2006
    Likes Received:
    Mai ji,
    A win-win situation, how convenient. :}:)

    If kirpan is always kept to oneself --> No harm is done by the kirpan --> "You see! Kirpans are harmless..."

    If kirpan is used to attack --> If its used to attack its not a kirpan anymore (the person wasn't even SIKH! how can you say its a kirpan? yadi yada) --> "You see! Kirpans are harmless..."

    Here's a challenge, when is a Kirpan actually dangerous?

    Guns are always safe too you know.
    Yes when a gun is fired, its not even a gun anymore because it was fired, it has one less bullet, originally it had 1 more. So when we called it a gun it had X amount of bullets and now it has X-1, its not a gun! Guns are always safe!

    Can we do better than this? Yes we can! :meditation:
  6. Mai Harinder Kaur

    Mai Harinder Kaur
    Expand Collapse
    Mentor Writer SPNer

    Oct 6, 2006
    Likes Received:
    A kirpan is actually dangerous when the holder is using it either to defend herself or some oppressed person. My kirpan was most dangerous, indeed, in Delhi when I efficiently cut the throat of the attacker who had killed my son. That is the righteous use of the kirpan both as a article of faith and as a weapon.

    Anyway, I think you are being purposely obtuse. You are an intelligent man. If you think about what I am saying, I think you'll be able to understand what I'm getting at.

    • Like Like x 2
Since you're here... we have a small favor to ask...     Become a Supporter      ::     Make a Contribution     

Share This Page