Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=778)

Locke Mar 4, 2006 01:58 PM
Canadian Supreme Court Decides to Allow Kirpans in School
 
Ok, most of you probably don't know about this - but there was a descision made by the Canadian Supreme Court to allow followers of the Sikh faith to carry a kirpan to school.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Globe and Mail
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Sikh students can carry ceremonial daggers to class and that doing so does not pose a undue danger to others in the schools.

The top court overturned Thursday morning a Quebec Court of Appeals ruling that had barred the kirpan from schools in the province. The Quebec court had said a limit on religious freedom was reasonable, given the safety concerns from carrying the daggers to school.

Several other provinces have long ago reached compromises with the Sikh community, allowing the carrying of the kirpan – a requirement for baptized followers of the Sikh religion – as long as it is safely sheathed and concealed.

The 2004 ruling from the Quebec appeal court, however, dismissed any possibility of a compromise in that province.

The specific case that went to the Supreme Court involves Gurbaj Singh Multani, now 17. Five years ago, he accidentally dropped his kirpan in the schoolyard of a Montreal elementary school.

Parents of other children pressured the local school board to ban the dagger, because of a zero-tolerance policy concerning weapons.

Gurbaj's parents sued, and the case wound its way through the courts for several years.

When the Supreme Court heard the arguments last April, several organizations – including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the World Sikh Organization of Canada – intervened to support the family.

They noted that there have been no examples of any violent acts in schools as a result of wearing of the kirpan.

The youth transferred to a private school soon after the controversy erupted in 2001, and some of the intervenors were concerned that there would be a mass exodus by Sikh students from public schools across the country if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the ban.

In its intervention, the Quebec government supported the ban, arguing that any potential weapon can cause a unnecessary risk in the schools.
I'm a fan of religous freedoms, it's a great thing to be able to practice one's faith without fear of persecution - but there has to be a line drawn. One freedom should not be allowed to threaten another freedom. Bringing a weapon into a school is wrong - there's no need for it.

To make a comparison - we don't allow kirpans aboard aircraft because they're considered a weapon, and dangerous - what's the difference in a public school? Just because it's a child carrying it makes it safe? This isn't just an issue of religion, it's an issue of saftey. You can't even bring in a multitool (leatherman, SAKs), but when you want to bring in a fixed blade - you just have to pull the religon card...

Snowknight Mar 4, 2006 02:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I'm a fan of religous freedoms, it's a great thing to be able to practice one's faith without fear of persecution - but there has to be a line drawn. One freedom should not be allowed to threaten another freedom. Bringing a weapon into a school is wrong - there's no need for it.
I agree. While the student himself--perhaps due to his religion--may not use the weapon for any harm, another student could always steal it from him and use it.
Someone needs to create a religion in which followers must carry an AR-15 at all times, just to watch what happens--the potential for abuse in either situation is far too great.

Locke Mar 4, 2006 02:34 PM
Actually - my religion requries me to carry a concealed handgun every concious moment, and at least once a day, publically execute someone.

Fjordor Mar 4, 2006 02:37 PM
I don't think so. Sikhism is, oddly enough, not an inherently hostile religion. Someone who would create a religion demanding that it's followers carry AR-15s would be creating a religion that is hostile to the spirit of the law, and thus the government would first not recognize that religion as a religion, and second, ban its members from performing acts which are a direct threat to people.

Traumatized Rat Mar 4, 2006 02:39 PM
I heard about this on the news the other day and I was aghast. I really find it difficult to comprehend how completely illogical desicions such as this one are made simply in the name of religious freedom and tolerance.
I've heard that 'common sense isn't as common as everybody would like to think' a statement which suits this situation quite well.

Soluzar Mar 4, 2006 02:40 PM
I know some Sikhs in my home town who don't carry an actual Kirpan, but instead they just wear a small lapel pin in the shape of a Kirpan. The real deal is kept for religious ceremonies and holy days. That's something I can respect. The symbol is more important than the object. Isn't that what religion is really all about? Symbolic gestures of devotion to an ideal, to a god?

Locke Mar 4, 2006 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyodor D.
I don't think so. Sikhism is, oddly enough, not an inherently hostile religion. Someone who would create a religion demanding that it's followers carry AR-15s would be creating a religion that is hostile to the spirit of the law, and thus the government would first not recognize that religion as a religion, and second, ban its members from performing acts which are a direct threat to people.
I fail to see your reasoning. As much as religion tries to teach us what is right from wrong - it's up to us to make our own descisions. It doesn't matter if you have been taught to be peaceful, if you decide to kill someone, there's shit all any religion can do about it.

Snowknight Mar 4, 2006 02:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyodor D.
I don't think so. Sikhism is, oddly enough, not an inherently hostile religion. Someone who would create a religion demanding that it's followers carry AR-15s would be creating a religion that is hostile to the spirit of the law, and thus the government would first not recognize that religion as a religion, and second, ban its members from performing acts which are a direct threat to people.
Again, I ask, what happens if another student takes the dagger from Gurbaj; it could be used to seriously injure someone.
I have no reason to believe that the religion itself is to blame for putting students in danger, but I feel that there exists enough potential abuse to disallow the student from having it.

Fjordor Mar 4, 2006 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowknight
Again, I ask, what happens if another student takes the dagger from Gurbaj; it could be used to seriously injure someone.
I have no reason to believe that the religion itself is to blame for putting students in danger, but I feel that there exists enough potential abuse to disallow the student from having it.
I agree. I am just saying what would happen should someone attempt to create a religion requiring AR-15s to be carried around at all times, as you suggest.

Spatula Mar 4, 2006 02:47 PM
One suggestion that has been raised is if the individual could carry a replica of the kirpan instead with a non functional blade. This might work for both sides, but I'm curious as to know how tolerant the Sikh community may find for Gurbaj Singh Multani to use this replica. However, even the replica may start to make students somewhat "envious". This may lead to other students

Locke has brought up a good point about weapons being forbidden for airtravel. I'm quite interested as to wether the parents always keep their kirpan on themselves throughout the day, and perhaps if there has been other cases which sparked controversy. I must admit that I do not know anything about this particular faith, so perhaps any members here to follow the Sikh faith might educate me on the purpose of the Kirpan.

Here's a time line of what transpired:

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBC News Online, March 2, 2006
INDEPTH: QUEBEC KIRPAN CASE
Timeline: The Quebec kirpan case

CBC News Online | March 2, 2006


Gurbaj Singh.Twelve-year-old Gurbaj Singh Multani had no idea that when he accidentally dropped his ceremonial dagger in his schoolyard in 2001 that the incident would touch off a dispute that would eventually wind up in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The dagger was a kirpan and Gurbaj was wearing one because he is a baptized orthodox Sikh. Orthodox Sikhs say the kirpan is not a weapon but a religious symbol which must be worn at all times. But others said, symbol or not, any kind of knife has no place in a school environment. When the school board’s governing body ruled that a kirpan violated its ban on students bringing "dangerous and forbidden objects" onto school property, the dispute headed to the courts … and ultimately to the country’s top court.

The kirpan case, as it came to be known, was to drag on for years. The questions facing the Supreme Court revolved around one central issue. Did a total ban on kirpans in school violate the religious freedom of Gurbaj Singh, as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or was the ban a reasonable restriction?

Here’s how the dispute evolved:

Nov. 18, 2001:
Gurbaj Singh Multani, a 12-year-old Grade 7 student at Ste-Catherine Labouré school in Montreal, is playing with other kids in the schoolyard when his kirpan falls out of his cloth holder. He picks it up and puts it back into the holder. But the mother of another student sees it and complains to school officials that she’d seen a weapon. Later that day, the school principal asks Gurbaj to remove his kirpan but he refuses and is sent home.

Dec. 21, 2001:
Following several weeks of negotiations, the local school board says Gurbaj will be allowed to come back to school as long as certain conditions are met. The kirpan must be kept tightly sheathed with a flap sewn securely shut so the dagger could not be removed either accidentally or deliberately. Gurbaj and his parents agree to the conditions.

January 2002:
Gurbaj returns to school following the Christmas break but is sent home again because the principal says his kirpan is too loose and some parents are worried about their children’s safety. Gurbaj’s father hires a lawyer.

Feb. 12, 2002:
The Governing Board of the school board (Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys) overrules the Dec. 21 resolution of the board and adopts the following resolution:
"The fair arrangement proposed by the Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys on Dec. 21 2001 is unacceptable and it goes against Section 5 of our Rules and Regulations: dangerous and forbidden objects."
March 19, 2002:
The school board holds a special public meeting to discuss the issue. The board hears from several parents who argue against allowing kirpans and from several members of the Sikh community. The commissioners then unanimously vote to reverse their earlier compromise agreement and will now back the governing board’s prohibition on the wearing of kirpans in school. They say they will allow Gurbaj to wear a symbolic kirpan as a pendant or one made of plastic or any other harmless material. Orthodox Sikhs say that is not in keeping with the tenets of the religion.

Late March 2002:
Julius Grey, a lawyer for the Singh family, files a motion with the Quebec Superior Court to force the school board to allow Gurbaj to return to school pending a court decision on the kirpan issue. The Singh family asks the court to overrule the March 19 prohibition on real kirpans.

April 16, 2002:
Quebec Superior Court Justice Claude Tellier rules Gurbaj can return to school. He heads back the next day. In the following weeks, some parents picket the school, sign petitions, and keep their children home from school. Gurbaj Singh Multani eventually transfers to a private school.

May 17, 2002:
Quebec Superior Court Justice Danielle Grenier rules that because the kirpan is an integral part of his religious beliefs, Gurbaj can wear a real one to school as long as he follows several conditions. The kirpan must be sheathed in a wooden case, wrapped in heavy fabric and worn under his clothes. The belt holding the kirpan must also be sewn into his clothing. The judge calls these conditions a reasonable accommodation of Gurbaj’s religious freedoms and the need for public safety. The school board, backed by Quebec PQ government at the time, appeals.

March 4, 2004:
The Quebec Court of Appeal overturns the judgment of the Quebec Superior Court and allows the appeal by the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school board and the Attorney General of Quebec. The Court of Appeal rules that security concerns are more important than the rights of Sikh students to wear kirpans to school. Take away the religious symbolism, the court says, and you have something with all the characteristics of a weapon. The Singh family’s lawyer, Julius Grey, asks for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Oct. 7, 2004
The Supreme Court of Canada agrees to hear the case. It grants intervenor status to the World Sikh Organization, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.

April 2005
The Supreme Court hears arguments in the case. Julius Grey, the lawyer for Gurbaj Singh Multani and his family, notes there has never been a case in Canada of a school assault committed with a kirpan, calling that "overwhelming empirical evidence that the kirpan is not a dangerous weapon." But school board lawyer Francois Aquin points out that no school assaults have ever been committed with kitchen knives either. "That doesn’t mean we allow students to carry kitchen knives in school," she argues.

March 2, 2006:
The Supreme Court of Canada rules 8-0 that a total ban of the kirpan in schools violates the Charter of Rights because it infringes on the Charter’s guarantees of religious freedom. But it does allow school boards to impose some restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety.

"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," Justice Louise Charron writes in the unanimous decision. "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."

The high court says if the kirpan is sealed and hidden under clothes, there’s little chance that students could use it as a weapon. "There are many objects in schools that could be used to commit violent acts and that are much more easily obtained by students, such as scissors, pencils and baseball bats," writes Madam Justice Charron.

Gurbaj Singh Multani, now 17, says the ruling will help other orthodox Sikhs now in schools. "Now that we've won the case, kids like me won't have any problems anymore," he tells reporters.

Locke Mar 4, 2006 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madam Justice Charron
"There are many objects in schools that could be used to commit violent acts and that are much more easily obtained by students, such as scissors, pencils and baseball bats,"
This argument pisses me off - because those items arn't designed to hurt people, when a kirpan, which is a knife, is designed to KILL people. There's no two ways about that - if Gurbaj pulls his kirpan out of it's sheath - there's no question on what he intends to use it for.

Fjordor Mar 4, 2006 02:58 PM
However, Sikhism forbids unsheathing the kirpan except for religious duties, which are non-existent at school.
If Gurbaj pulls his kirpan out of it's sheath at school, he is violating his religious principles.

Spatula Mar 4, 2006 03:05 PM
I would actually like to know what the Kirpan's purpose is for and what this symbolizes in the Sikh's faith, besides being a ceremonial dagger. I understand this is a sensitive question and I respect that each religion has its qualities and attributes, but in regards to the Kirpan, was the Kirpan originally designed as a weapon?

I took a looking at wikipedia and what it had to say:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The kirpan is the ceremonial dagger carried by Sikhs, as a reminder to fight for justice and against oppression. It is one of the five khalsas, or dress rituals. The word kirpan has the literal meaning of weapon of defence, as opposed to the talwar, the weapon of offence.

Typically made from iron, kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords to tiny knives worn around the neck. It is required that all Sikhs wear the kirpan at all times. To Sikhs, it is a highly important religious symbol; it is never used as a weapon. Nevertheless, the requirement that baptised Sikhs wear the kirpan has caused problems for believers in many areas, especially where the custom clashes with local ordinances against carrying weapons. In cases where safety regulations conflict with wearing the kirpan, such as boarding an airplane or entering a prison, Sikhs are usually advised to comply with authorities.

It was first established as a principle that one must fight for peace. A Sikh should never use the Kirpan in anger or for a malicious attack. However, a Sikh may use it in self-defence or to protect a person in need. Some Sikhs choose to learn the art of Gatka. This is a martial art devised by the Sikh Gurus' that uses circular movements to effectively swing a sword.

Legal case
In 2006, a case was decided by the Supreme Court of Canada which concludes the banning of the kirpan in a school environment is unconstitutional. The issue started when a 12 year old student dropped a 20 cm (8 inches) long dagger in school. School staff and parents were very concerned, and the student was required to attend school under police supervision until the court decision was reached.
So it looks like the highlighted notes answer my question.

Locke Mar 4, 2006 03:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyodor D.
However, Sikhism forbids unsheathing the kirpan except for religious duties, which are non-existent at school.
If Gurbaj pulls his kirpan out of it's sheath at school, he is violating his religious principles.
Forbidden - that's just a word. Like I mentioned before, just because a religion forbids you to kill someone, if you've made the concious descision to kill someone, it doesn't matter what your religion tries to teach you - there's nothing stopping you from using the dagger that's hanging around your shoulder.

Spatula Mar 4, 2006 03:12 PM
I agree with your statement Locke, however, if one really had the heated desire to terminate someone else's life, then I believe not only the kirpan, but pretty much any other object, having the capacity to injure or kill, will suffice as a weapon.

I'd hate to be a fence sitter, but I really can't go one way or the other with this. I'm leaning towards the kirpan being a weapon which shouldn't be allowed in schools and the like. However, where do we draw the line of where and when the Sikhs can carry their kirpan. It's difficult indeed. As well, one may argue of who is allowed to tell others of their religions beliefs and practices. I think the line should be drawn when it involves the safety of others and the potential of injury and the like.

Fjordor Mar 4, 2006 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Forbidden - that's just a word. Like I mentioned before, just because a religion forbids you to kill someone, if you've made the concious descision to kill someone, it doesn't matter what your religion tries to teach you - there's nothing stopping you from using the dagger that's hanging around your shoulder.
Well, one could argue that by violating their principles of their religion, they are thus forfeit the right to perform their religious duties to the extent to which they were allowed. And so, they are denied the right to carry the kirpan as a religious duty in such places as schools.

BTW, I am just arguing for that position. I do not necessarily agree with it.

RacinReaver Mar 4, 2006 04:04 PM
Quote:
The issue started when a 12 year old student dropped a 20 cm (8 inches) long dagger in school. School staff and parents were very concerned, and the student was required to attend school under police supervision until the court decision was reached.
Quote:
Typically made from iron, kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords to tiny knives worn around the neck.
Why is this kid packing an 8" knife instead of a necklace that might actually look kinda cool?

Spatula Mar 4, 2006 04:15 PM
All assudden the image of "BLING BLING" has appeared in my mind.
"Betta Recognize"

Bradylama Mar 4, 2006 04:59 PM
Quote:
This argument pisses me off - because those items arn't designed to hurt people, when a kirpan, which is a knife, is designed to KILL people. There's no two ways about that - if Gurbaj pulls his kirpan out of it's sheath - there's no question on what he intends to use it for.
While the Kirpan is a knife and a weapon, as a ceremonial object the last thing on the creator's mind is making it a deadly weapon. Ever tried killing something with those cheap swords you see on the infomercials? Chances are you couldn't even cut somebody, let alone cause any significant damage before the thing snapped in two.

Weapons-grade knives are a far cry from ceremonial ones, and whether or not the Kirpan represents malice (which it doesn't), I can guarantee you that some kid could do more damage with a baseball bat or a pair of scissors than with Gurbaj's kirpan.

I'm behind the Canadian Supreme Court 100%, so long as the ruling allows Canadian schools the ability to define what kind of Kirpan is acceptable to wear.

As for why Gurbaj was wearing an 8" dagger, it could've been a family heirloom, or something of sentimental value beyond the normal Sikh customs.

Jerrica Mar 4, 2006 05:33 PM
I don't really see what the problem is here. Like Brady said, most kirpans are likely not the disemboweling death machines you're all making them out to be. Second, any Sikh who is devoted enough to wear a kirpan and turban to school is very unlikely to descrate the meaning of the dagger. And, like it or not, the previous arguement is a perfectly accurate one. If someone was bent on harming their classmates, a kirpan is a very unlikely weapon to choose. There's a possibility, of course, that someone will be harmed by a kirpan. There's also a possibility that students will be harmed by bats, hockey sticks, bunson burners, etc. Maybe a Christian boy will strangle someone with the cord his crucifix is hanging on. Who knows? Mass paranoia cannot be allowed to trump religious freedom.

Watts Mar 4, 2006 06:13 PM
I think it take's a lot more conviction to stab someone to death then it does to randomly shoot people. And if some messed up teenager really wanted to go on a rampage they'd probably bring a gun to school and not their religous icon. Most religions frown on that.

Plus, anybody could take a pair of scissors and use it as a weapon.

Phoque le PQ Mar 5, 2006 02:21 PM
Another proof of Trudeau's assholeness. Multiculturalism wins over simple logic of security. I am not accusing the young Sikh of being inherently violent; however, "ordinary" people are forbidden to carry regular weapons at school.

LZ Mar 5, 2006 03:56 PM
Quote:
March 2, 2006:
The Supreme Court of Canada rules 8-0 that a total ban of the kirpan in schools violates the Charter of Rights because it infringes on the Charter’s guarantees of religious freedom. But it does allow school boards to impose some restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety...The high court says if the kirpan is sealed and hidden under clothes, there’s little chance that students could use it as a weapon.
I'm okay with this ruling. The way I see it, it will allow the school board to set restricitons on wearing kirpans to ensure safety without outright banning them. Before the case got to court, the school board made an early compromise with Gurbaj's parents to let him wear the kirpan as long as it was sheathed and sewn shut to prevent it from being removed. I'm sure a similar restriction preventing the removal of the kirpan from its sheath will be placed.

Fjordor Mar 5, 2006 04:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devo
Personally I trust the sihk, what I don't trust are those other little fuckers at school. Let's assume it's Richmond High School (ghetto school by me) in which there are actual metal detectors that keep kids from taking guns in. But one happens to notice there is a Sihk kid with a kirpan on his waist, and he really wants to axe this one motherfucker. So what does he do? Follows the Sihk into an isolated area or the bathroom, steals it from him, and stabs that bitch.

Some of you might find the above to be a stretch, but when you've seen crappy ass schools and met violent ghetto students, this shit happens all the time (stabbings that is).
Ah, but Frappe Snowland is not like that.
They are all peaceful, happy people and such. They are nothing like Americans. They don't even lock their doors. Michael Moore told me so.

Locke Mar 5, 2006 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fyodor D.
Ah, but Frappe Snowland is not like that.
They are all peaceful, happy people and such. They are nothing like Americans. They don't even lock their doors. Michael Moore told me so.
On a sidenote - I live in Canada, and the only time the doors are locked is when there is noone there, and sometimes not even then

Fjordor Mar 5, 2006 05:56 PM
Way to poke holes in my satire. :(

knkwzrd Mar 5, 2006 06:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
On a sidenote - I live in Canada, and the only time the doors are locked is when there is noone there, and sometimes not even then
It's true.


What I'm really surprised by is that I haven't see any coverage of this in my local paper.

acid Mar 7, 2006 11:18 PM
Can't bring nail clippers on a plane, but you can bring a knife to gym class.

Yeah. I get it's a religious symbol. But the bottom line is that it's still a knife. He is still bringing a knife to school. I can't even begin to understand this. Bringing a knife to school regardless of the reasons behind it should not be allowed. Period.

Oh, it's only a replica. It's not sharp. So I suppose a school would let me stroll around with a replica Bowie knife, right? Sure. How about a fake handgun?

Bradylama Mar 8, 2006 12:10 AM
If you can establish it as the dogma for a recognized religion (the kind that get tax breaks) then knock yourself out.

Locke Mar 8, 2006 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid
Can't bring nail clippers on a plane, but you can bring a knife to gym class.

Yeah. I get it's a religious symbol. But the bottom line is that it's still a knife. He is still bringing a knife to school. I can't even begin to understand this. Bringing a knife to school regardless of the reasons behind it should not be allowed. Period.

Oh, it's only a replica. It's not sharp. So I suppose a school would let me stroll around with a replica Bowie knife, right? Sure. How about a fake handgun?
My feelings exactly. It doesn't matter if the kid never INTENDS on using it - it's still a knife - still a weapon - that we're letting him bring to school. It may be a religous symbol, but if you remove religion from it, you find a deadly weapon designed to kill.

The_Griffin Mar 8, 2006 10:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
My feelings exactly. It doesn't matter if the kid never INTENDS on using it - it's still a knife - still a weapon - that we're letting him bring to school. It may be a religous symbol, but if you remove religion from it, you find a deadly weapon designed to kill.

Wrong.

"Grr.... you motherfucker! *pulls out ceremonial knife* *STAB!*"
*TINK*
"Ow, you bastard. Why the FUCK did you stab me with a dull knife?"

Or, if we actually go with the restriction that was in the compromise before the case, we get this:

"Grr... you motherfucker!" *pulls out ceremonial knife* *stab*
"...Why the FUCK didn't you unsheathe it?"
"...It's... been... sewn... shut? ....Oh, shit."
*BITCHSLAPPED*

Ceremonial =\= weapons-grade knife. What's so hard to see about this?

And let's assume that it IS a weapons-grade knife. Then we have to deal with the fact that the sheathe has been sewn shut. Somebody who would want to kill somebody will NOT be using this, for the simple fact that it is too much fucking trouble to get it free.

"Yar har har! As soon as I get this knife free with these scissors, there'll be some stabbin' tonight! ...Wait a sec. These scissors... they're sharp. And pointy. Pretty sturdy, too. What the hell was I doing?"

Locke Mar 8, 2006 09:51 PM
The kirpan is allowed to be used in self defense... which would lead one to believe that they are not dulled down ceremonial knives.

And second of all - with the new ruling, they don't have to be sewn shut - that was the school's policy on them before this whole shitshow.

acid Mar 11, 2006 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
And let's assume that it IS a weapons-grade knife. Then we have to deal with the fact that the sheathe has been sewn shut. Somebody who would want to kill somebody will NOT be using this, for the simple fact that it is too much fucking trouble to get it free.

"Yar har har! As soon as I get this knife free with these scissors, there'll be some stabbin' tonight! ...Wait a sec. These scissors... they're sharp. And pointy. Pretty sturdy, too. What the hell was I doing?"
So then you're telling me that a child should be allowed to bring a loaded handgun to school, provided that it's in a lock-box?

Reznor Mar 14, 2006 02:25 AM
Actually, why the fuck can't they carry it?

I mean, I think we crossed a lot of lines when Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to stand for the NATIONAL FUCKING ANTHEM.

I'm sorry, but you're part of the fucking country, respect it, or GTFO.

The_Griffin Mar 14, 2006 09:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid
So then you're telling me that a child should be allowed to bring a loaded handgun to school, provided that it's in a lock-box?
Depends. Does the kid have the key, or an adult? And what was the gun brought in for?

acid Mar 14, 2006 10:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Depends. Does the kid have the key, or an adult? And what was the gun brought in for?
Are you actually being serious? If there is a valid enough reason children should be allowed to bring guns to school?

I honestly can't tell if that was supposed to be some sort of smart-ass reply, of if you are telling me that it's ok if they bring a gun to school because it's in a case.

The_Griffin Mar 14, 2006 11:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid
Are you actually being serious? If there is a valid enough reason children should be allowed to bring guns to school?
What if your father was a gun collector or a WWII vet, and you thought that was cool?

Quote:
I honestly can't tell if that was supposed to be some sort of smart-ass reply, of if you are telling me that it's ok if they bring a gun to school because it's in a case.
Wow. Congratulations on completely making a mountain out of a molehill.

"HOLY GOD HE BROUGHT IN A GUN TO SCHOOL! EXPEL HIM!"
"It's unloaded, under lock and key, the key is in the possession of an adult, and the CASE it's in is in the possession of an adult."
"...HOLY GOD HE BROUGHT A GUN TO SCHOOL! EXPEL HIM!"

Guns - ammunition = CLUB. Amd if it's an antique, it may not even work. Sometimes I wonder if you protest to the museum because they showcase medieval weaponry. =\

Bradylama Mar 14, 2006 11:30 PM
The condition was, however, that the handgun would be loaded.

The_Griffin Mar 15, 2006 01:36 AM
Ahh, now THAT is stupid. =\

loyalist Mar 15, 2006 12:51 PM
Quote:
And let's assume that it IS a weapons-grade knife. Then we have to deal with the fact that the sheathe has been sewn shut. Somebody who would want to kill somebody will NOT be using this, for the simple fact that it is too much fucking trouble to get it free.
You could take a butterknife or safety scissors, things which can't cut flesh and use them to acess something which can. Period.

Misogynyst Gynecologist Mar 15, 2006 03:45 PM
I don't know about you - but I have a whole lot of knives in my silverware drawer at home and have never stabbed anyone ever.

acid Mar 16, 2006 01:29 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
What if your father was a gun collector or a WWII vet, and you thought that was cool?
My father does own guns. I never did bring any of them to school.

Quote:
Wow. Congratulations on completely making a mountain out of a molehill.

"HOLY GOD HE BROUGHT IN A GUN TO SCHOOL! EXPEL HIM!"
"It's unloaded, under lock and key, the key is in the possession of an adult, and the CASE it's in is in the possession of an adult."
"...HOLY GOD HE BROUGHT A GUN TO SCHOOL! EXPEL HIM!"

Guns - ammunition = CLUB. Amd if it's an antique, it may not even work. Sometimes I wonder if you protest to the museum because they showcase medieval weaponry. =\
And we've made the jump from bringing a loaded handgun to school to museums exhibiting Civil War rifles how exactly?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradylama
The condition was, however, that the handgun would be loaded.
Brady ftw.

Morrigan Mar 18, 2006 02:02 AM
This ruling pisses me off. What a nation of PC pussies we are, I'm slightly ashamed of my country at the moment.
If foreigners come here and are unhappy because part of their culture is forbidden by our local rules (and for good, non-arbitrary reasons), they have two choices: adapt or go back to their countries. Now, it seems they have a third choice, which is "whine to the pansy government in the name of freedom and tolerance and multiculturalism and <insert buzzword here>". Wankers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjordor
Someone who would create a religion demanding that it's followers carry AR-15s would be creating a religion that is hostile to the spirit of the law, and thus the government would first not recognize that religion as a religion
That's a load of bollocks. Religions are religions, and everyone is entitled to the same freedom of religion, whether the government likes this religion or not.

As for your whole "spirit of the law" nonsense, consider this: carrying guns in schools was already illegal. Despite freedom of religion, that never meant that you could be exempted from laws and rules to cater to your particular religion. That's why the you can't murder people because your religion requires you to kill infidels and get away with it, or do anything against the law. Why would we make an exception for the Sikhs? Because they're nice and peaceful? Again, there is the argument that another, non-Sikh student could steal it and use it to seriously harm another. And the presence of a visible weapon cannot be too good for atmosphere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reznor
Actually, why the fuck can't they carry it?
Are you serious?

Quote:
I mean, I think we crossed a lot of lines when Jehovah's Witnesses don't have to stand for the NATIONAL FUCKING ANTHEM.
Huh? I must confess, I'm hopelessly confused by this statement. I'm assuming you are facetious, because no one gives a shit about stupid national anthems. At least in Canada. The gods know I'll never stand up for any such thing. *laughs*

Quote:
I'm sorry, but you're part of the fucking country, respect it, or GTFO.
Well, I can agree with that. Too bad too many Canadian politician weaklings think otherwise.

Effloresce Mar 18, 2006 01:55 PM
Not knocking the religion, but I don't think this is a good idea. Things get stolen in schools. All the time. Especially things of high value and/or personal importance. You are asking for trouble if you let kids bring Kirpans to school. Not because they themselves would do anything, but because of what someone could do with it if he got his hands on it. Be it accidental or intentional, someone will probably end up getting hurt thanks to some moron trying to act tough. Or kids might want to play with it, and could end up hurting themselves. All and all, it's just not a good idea.

The_Griffin Mar 18, 2006 06:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by acid
My father does own guns. I never did bring any of them to school.
Good for you. And this naturally means that you shouldn't be allowed to bring them in at all. Right.

Quote:
And we've made the jump from bringing a loaded handgun to school to museums exhibiting Civil War rifles how exactly?
Congratulations on completely avoiding my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morrigan
This ruling pisses me off. What a nation of PC pussies we are, I'm slightly ashamed of my country at the moment.
If foreigners come here and are unhappy because part of their culture is forbidden by our local rules (and for good, non-arbitrary reasons), they have two choices: adapt or go back to their countries. Now, it seems they have a third choice, which is "whine to the pansy government in the name of freedom and tolerance and multiculturalism and <insert buzzword here>". Wankers.
I think I'll just quote you, since you did such an excellent job of contradicting yourself.

Quote:
That's a load of bollocks. Religions are religions, and everyone is entitled to the same freedom of religion, whether the government likes this religion or not.
Quote:
As for your whole "spirit of the law" nonsense, consider this: carrying guns in schools was already illegal. Despite freedom of religion, that never meant that you could be exempted from laws and rules to cater to your particular religion. That's why the you can't murder people because your religion requires you to kill infidels and get away with it, or do anything against the law. Why would we make an exception for the Sikhs? Because they're nice and peaceful?
Thus, we should ban the Catholics' Communion, because it is symbolic cannibalism (i.e. you're eating the body and blood of Christ), and for some years, it was believed that what you ate actually WAS the body of Christ.

Quote:
Again, there is the argument that another, non-Sikh student could steal it and use it to seriously harm another. And the presence of a visible weapon cannot be too good for atmosphere.
And in such a case, the child who stole it should be prosecuted, but that doesn't mean that the child who brought the dagger to school should be prosecuted as well. A child who is angry enough (or stupid enough) to attempt to murder somebody won't necessarily use conventional weapons like daggers. Haven't you heard of prison shanks? Hell, they don't even have to use weapons at all.

Locke Mar 18, 2006 08:49 PM
Why allow a weapon into shools period though? There's a reason why knives and firearms are banned - the're hazards to other students, regardless if they're only meant for self defense from a bully.

RacinReaver Mar 18, 2006 09:09 PM
Is cannibalism actually illegal?

The_Griffin Mar 19, 2006 01:02 AM
Considering it usually involved murder, I'd say so, yes.

AtmaWeapon Mar 19, 2006 02:48 AM
This is bull and a fine example of double standards.

Canada is a society of law, not religion, and the law prohibits sharp blades from certain places, and to see our highest legislative body even CONSIDER taking any kind of religious argument into account makes me unconfortable.

May god strike me down if I don't speaketh thy truth
/thunderbolt

The_Griffin Mar 19, 2006 03:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtmaWeapon
This is bull and a fine example of double standards.
Funny, it would seem to me that allowing certain religious behaviors (Communion, for example, just because I love symbolic cannibalism :tpg: ) and not others would be the double standard.

Kensaki Mar 19, 2006 11:40 AM
Sikh that reminds me of Sith somehow...

Anyhow if they can wear small ones on a neclace why not just demand they do that? Governments are much to pussy footed towards religions imo.

loyalist Mar 19, 2006 03:41 PM
Quote:
I don't know about you - but I have a whole lot of knives in my silverware drawer at home and have never stabbed anyone ever.
I was referring to the fact that a butterknife cou;ld be used to break the stiches, which would then grant acess to a knife of stabbing proportions. Read carefully.

Quote:
Funny, it would seem to me that allowing certain religious behaviors (Communion, for example, just because I love symbolic cannibalism ) and not others would be the double standard.
Communion lies well within the laws of Canada. You must understand that the government of Canada does say exactly what you can do, it merely says what is unacceptable. Communion doesn't involve killing anohtr human being, cannibalism does.

RacinReaver Mar 19, 2006 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Considering it usually involved murder, I'd say so, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
can·ni·bal

1. A person who eats the flesh of other humans.
2. An animal that feeds on others of its own kind.
I don't see why cannibals would be prosecuted for eating someone. Sure, they could get it for murder, but if you're lost with your buddy in the arctic wilderness and there's not enough food for both of you and he dies of frostbite or something, why should it be illegal to eat him?

The only way I could see cannibalism being illegal is if it's for 'safety' issues, much like why marrying your first cousin is (Oddly enough, we seem to have no problem with animals being cannibals. If you look at the ingredients of fish food one of the first ingredients will be fish.).

Watts Mar 19, 2006 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RacinReaver
(Oddly enough, we seem to have no problem with animals being cannibals. If you look at the ingredients of fish food one of the first ingredients will be fish.).
I think we have a thing called "mad cow" disease thanks to just that. :(

Lord Styphon Mar 19, 2006 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watts
I think we have a thing called "mad cow" disease thanks to just that. :(
Because fish food contains fish?

RacinReaver Mar 19, 2006 11:18 PM
Which is why fish-food importers had a hard time after that mad-cow scare (US government prevented the import of all animal-based foodstuffs that would be fed to animals). Now things are back to normal and the tetras in your tank are gobbling up their cousins without a second thought.

Watts Mar 19, 2006 11:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Styphon
Because fish food contains fish?
It could happen....

No seriously, because when cows eat their own kind they get mad. :( Apparently cannibalism breeds all sorts of genetic and brain defects that can be passed unto humans.

The_Griffin Mar 20, 2006 01:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RacinReaver
I don't see why cannibals would be prosecuted for eating someone. Sure, they could get it for murder, but if you're lost with your buddy in the arctic wilderness and there's not enough food for both of you and he dies of frostbite or something, why should it be illegal to eat him?
Hmm... Well now, that would depend on the circumstances, such as possible prior agreement (If I die before you and there's no food, it's okay to eat me), the availability of other food sources, etc., etc.

And that is why a lot of these issues are so complicated, because you have to make a lot of difficult moral decisions based on the circumstances. This smilie speaks to me: :juggler:

Oh, and coincidentally, the main attraction of hard-line conservative movements such as the right-to-life is that it's an incredibly easy path to take. No moral judgements required: they're wrong, period.

Locke Mar 20, 2006 09:42 AM
What about the other kids, how is it fair to let a Sikh bring in a dagger, when maybe poor billy really wants to bring his klingon dagger to show off to his friends?

Lord Styphon Mar 20, 2006 09:49 AM
If poor Billy has reached the Age of Ascension and has committed himself to becoming a Klingon warrior, then the decision would suggest he has as much right to bring his d'ktahg to school as a poor Manmohan has to bring his kirpan.

Locke Mar 20, 2006 10:43 AM
Ah - but would you let a Klingon Warrior bring a weapon (intended for agression), to a school?

Lord Styphon Mar 20, 2006 02:39 PM
If the Klingon warrior in question had a religious obligation to carry it, it would border very strongly on religious discrimination to not allow it. If they are required to carry it by their beliefs on penalty of going to hell or whatever, are required to not carry it by school rules under penalty of not being allowed into school, you've essentially established a policy of preventing good Klingon warriors from attending classes. Fortunately for those who have to compromise respecting another's beliefs and keeping weapons out of school, Klingon warriors don't exist, and the question of letting Klingon warriors into school is irrelavent.

Sikhs, on the other hand, are very real.

RacinReaver Mar 20, 2006 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murdercrow
Hmm... Well now, that would depend on the circumstances, such as possible prior agreement (If I die before you and there's no food, it's okay to eat me), the availability of other food sources, etc., etc.
But, see, that's why the murder would be the illegal part. Or maybe taking a body without permission or something like that.

What makes me doubt there's a law out there is that story about the dude from California that broke into a morgue in order to have sex with some of the dead bodies. The only thing they were able to convict him on was breaking and entering (or something close to that) since there was no law against necrophilia.

The_Griffin Mar 20, 2006 04:33 PM
Point conceded, RR.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.