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.

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...

Most amazing jew boots

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Actually - my religion requries me to carry a concealed handgun every concious moment, and at least once a day, publically execute someone.

How ya doing, buddy?

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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:

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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:

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

All assudden the image of "BLING BLING" has appeared in my mind.
"Betta Recognize"

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.