Sikh boy banned from taking holy dagger to school

[Rrose Selavy]

A 14-year-old Sikh boy has been withdrawn from state education after he was banned from wearing a traditional religious dagger to school.
The family of J Singh, whose full name has not been released, have taken out a loan to educate him privately after the ruling from Compton School in Barnet.
The governors argued that the five inch “kirpan” was a safety risk although the boy had worn it for the previous two years without a problem.
The Sikh religion says all baptised males must carry a kirpan. They are legal if carried for religious reasons.
J Singh's older brother, Ravjeet Singh, said: “The kirpan is not a knife. It is an article of faith. This is health and safety gone mad.”


Well Something's gone mad.....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755853-north-london-school-bans-sikh-boy-over-holy-dagger.do

[Aepervius]

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

[Darth Rotor]

Well Something's gone mad.....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755853-north-london-school-bans-sikh-boy-over-holy-dagger.do
" The kirpan is not a knife. It is an article of faith. This is health and safety gone mad.”

It actually is a knife, and a talisman of his faith.

The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind.



Now, if I can just take my nail clippers with me on an airplane ...

[Professor Yaffle]

Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.

[Ethnikos]

I think it is a sign of social insanity.
Back, I guess around 16 years ago, Italy seemed like kind of a scary place with their red terrorists, or whatever, where people in the US thought they had become somewhat of a police state as a reaction. What a joke that seems to me now, after witnessing the craziness here, over the last eight years. Anyway, I carried a knife with me the whole time, including on the plane, going over, and coming back. I never got hassled by the Carabinieri.

[drkitten]

Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.

Is that a "compromise" or a "blasphemy"?

For example, if a Christian nurse were prevented from wearing a crucifix around her neck on the ward,.... but was offered a "compromise" of being allowed to wear a Jewish yalmucke (which I've almost certainly misspelled),.... that's not a "compromise" in any meaningful sense of the word. No practicing Christian would accept it as such, and the offer is probably more insulting than the original ban.

My understanding is that a kirpan must be a functional weapon to serve its symbolic purpose (allowing a Sikh to act as a defender of others); if this is correct, then the "compromise" is unacceptable and insulting.

A more significant question: Is "safety of pupils" really a factor here? Are there any instances in record of a Sikh student using the kirpan to threaten or injure another student (or a staff member)?

[ponderingturtle]

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you.

[ponderingturtle]

I think it is a sign of social insanity.
Back, I guess around 16 years ago, Italy seemed like kind of a scary place with their red terrorists, or whatever, where people in the US thought they had become somewhat of a police state as a reaction. What a joke that seems to me now, after witnessing the craziness here, over the last eight years. Anyway, I carried a knife with me the whole time, including on the plane, going over, and coming back. I never got hassled by the Carabinieri.

Well you see a few years ago some men took some rather small knives commonly used to open boxes and used them to hijack planes. So it seems that even small knives can be a serious threat to security in the right situation.

[Ethnikos]

So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you.
It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.

[ponderingturtle]

What I wonder is would anyone fault the school if say a Sikh boy was killed at school because he was not wearing appropriate safety equipment like a helmet so that he could wear his turban.

[AvalonXQ]

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.
The regulation about knives in school is not targeted at any specific religion, and so it seems perfectly appropriate to say, "The school doesn't allow knives," and leave it at that.

[AvalonXQ]

It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.

... but not in schools, and certainly not by students in schools.

[wollery]

Given that many Sikhs wear a comb with a small shard of metal to symbolize the Kirpan I don't understand the problem. I had a friend at school who did just that. He would pick up the real one to wear when he got home, but didn't usually take it out of the home, except to go to temple.

Either this family come from a very orthodox sect, or they're just trying to make a point.

[ponderingturtle]

It is illegal to stab people for no good reason. Owning a weapon is a Constitutional right in the US, and to bear, which means to actually carry it with you.

And try arguing that in an airport, courthouse or going to the statue of liberty.

Of course the american constitution has no impact on a school in britian.

[wollery]

What I wonder is would anyone fault the school if say a Sikh boy was killed at school because he was not wearing appropriate safety equipment like a helmet so that he could wear his turban.No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety.

Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.

[drkitten]

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.

Er, no.

The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

[AvalonXQ]

Er, no.

The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment and DO NOT require exceptions, nor can you practice your religion in violation of the law without penalty.

[Bob Klase]

The Free Exercise clause does require you to make a special exception for religion.

That explains why human sacrifice is still legal.

[Professor Yaffle]

I found this on another forum discussing the same issue with regard to health and safety at work - note the parts I have bolded:

The right for Sikhs to carry the Kirpan is enshrined in UK law and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regs 2003 would apply, however, national security and health and safety are pretty much the only areas of law that can 'trump' an equality requirement - so long as there is a genuine justification. Many employers accommodate the religious requirement to carry the Kirpan, balancing the safety issues in each specific role, for example the Met Police Dress Code advises that 'unless precluded by a risk assessment or operational order, items of religious significance may be worn, for example staff who are Sikh may wear the Kara and carry the Kirpan'.
I am also aware that some employers have found a win-win solution by supplying a replica Kirpan or Kirpan holder in an alternative non-risk material, in consultation with Sikh employees and community groups.

http://www.personneltoday.com/hrspace/forums/religious-dress-at-work-sikhs-right-to-wear-a-1367.aspx

So it seems that replica kirpans are acceptable to at least a proportion of Sikhs.

[Professor Yaffle]

No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety.

Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.

On a rockclimbing activity, or a visit to an underground cave. Turbans are usually seen as acceptable replacements under health and safety laws, for motorbike riding etc. However a full turban would not be worn until a certain age, and many sikh schoolboys may be wearing just a rumal or patka (white cloth covering) over their hair tied in a jura (bun). I remember the sikh boys at my school didn't wear a turban until they were aged about 16/17ish.

[drkitten]

No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect.

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.

Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment

Wrong. Whether or not a law is "directed towards religion" is only one of the three prongs of the Lemon test (q.v.) that determines whether or not a proposed law is acceptable under the First Amendment.

The second prong is that the law may not have a "primary effect" (without regard to the intended purpose) of inhibiting religion (or supporting it, for that matter), and the third prong is that the law may not result in an "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion. To be acceptable, a law must pass all three prongs, not just one.

And, furthermore, the standards for review are themselves quite strict; Free Exercise cases are by law judged on a "strict scrutiny" standard, which means no only that they must pass the Lemon test, but that the proposed government measures must be as unrestrictive as possible; if the defense, for example, can establish that another, less restrictive, proposal would also accomplish the government's goals, then the law must be struck down.

For example, a rule requiring hard hats has been struck down (I believe in New York) when it was pointed out that nothing about Sikhism prevented the wearing protective gear (such as a hard metal helmet) under the turban. Since it was more restrictive to say "you can't wear a turban" than to say "you can only wear a turban if you have protective gear under it," the New York rule was struck down, and the revised rule mandates merely the wearing of acceptable protective gear.

[AvalonXQ]

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives.
In the U.S., this rule would not (and has not) run afoul of the First Amendment, which does not protect any religion from unrelated government regulations that have an ancillary effect on religious practice.
The idea that this amounts to "making a special exception for religion" is exactly what Lemon and later opinions make it clear you DON'T have to do.

[Arcade22]

Well Something's gone mad.....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23755853-north-london-school-bans-sikh-boy-over-holy-dagger.do

There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country.

[ponderingturtle]

No, because that is a personal decision about personal safety.

Although, I have to say, I can't think of any instance in any UK school where a student would be required to wear such headgear.

So no bike riding at any school event of any kind I see.

Of course this is a child so they can not make such decisions legaly.

[KingMerv00]

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives.

I don't think she is disagreeing with you.

[ponderingturtle]

No, it doesn't. I'm sorry, but you're incorrect. Laws which are not directed toward religion but nonetheless impact the practice of religion DO NOT run afoul of the First Amendment and DO NOT require exceptions, nor can you practice your religion in violation of the law without penalty.

Technicaly it is a bit of both. You can not legally hide religious discrimination though things like dress code, unless there is a dirrect need for safety reasons and not to present the immage you want for your company.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

But a jewish kid can't stab you with his beanie. This kid can.

[AvalonXQ]

Technicaly it is a bit of both. You can not legally hide religious discrimination though things like dress code, unless there is a dirrect need for safety reasons and not to present the immage you want for your company.

This is true, and is actually the point of First Amendment jurisprudence in this area. But as here, where the regulation is CLEARLY not hidden discrimination but reasonable safety, the American principle is that religion doesn't get an exemption from a good law.

But a jewish kid can't stab you with his beanie.

I think you're underestimating the ingenuity of children.

[KingMerv00]

There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country.

And if he was born in that country?

[Darat]

As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems....

[AvalonXQ]

As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems....

1) Generally the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) aren't considered to have been "added later", since they were added politically as part of the process that got the Constitution ratified in the first place.
2) We know that this is a UK event; we've clearly stated "in America", "the American perspective", etc when chiming in with opinions.

[ponderingturtle]

No, I'm sorry, but YOU are incorrect.
You correctly stated the Lemon test -- and, in this case, all three factors come down on the side of prohibiting knives.

Dr. Kitten never stated that a rule or law against knives would be unconstitutional, but that the broad blanket statement that

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.

The lemon test shows that it is much more complex than that and that you sometimes have to give special exception to religion.


You did not keep it to knives but made broad blanket statements about the consitution that are factualy incorrect.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think she is disagreeing with you.

Techicaly she is, just not about the merits of this particular case, which of course is entirely irrelevent as this case is not in america and so the US constitution has no effect on this at all.

But he was making overly broad statements that where incorrect. He got called on it. Rather what you would expect here.

[AvalonXQ]

You did not keep it to knives but made broad blanket statements about the consitution that are factualy incorrect.

While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect".

[ponderingturtle]

This is true, and is actually the point of First Amendment jurisprudence in this area. But as here, where the regulation is CLEARLY not hidden discrimination but reasonable safety, the American principle is that religion doesn't get an exemption from a good law.


So what, you were not limiting your statements to this case, because the US consitution is totaly irrelevent to this british school. Now such a ban might well pass constitutional muster in the US, but it would not pass for your blanket innitial statement, but because it meets the lemon test.

But the existance of the lemon test means that this

The American perspective on this and the First Amendment (free excercise of religion) is that nothing in the First Amendment requires you to make a special exception for religion.

Is an incorrect statement. The constitution does require you to sometimes make a special exception for religion, the situations is covered by the lemon test.

[Cainkane1]

A true Kirpan is a weapon and a tool. You want teenagers to be walking around with a toadstabber on their belt? Some other kid could try to steal it or even forcibly take it from him.

[ponderingturtle]

While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect".

It is simplified to the extent that it is wrong.

It would be like claiming that the second ammendment means that I can build pipebombs to my hearts content. Any law stopping me would be unconstitutional right? At least at your level of simplification.

[brodski]

On a rockclimbing activity, or a visit to an underground cave. Turbans are usually seen as acceptable replacements under health and safety laws, for motorbike riding etc. However a full turban would not be worn until a certain age, and many sikh schoolboys may be wearing just a rumal or patka (white cloth covering) over their hair tied in a jura (bun). I remember the sikh boys at my school didn't wear a turban until they were aged about 16/17ish.
Turbans are not legal replacments for protective headwear, and offer next to zero protection. While Sikhs have specific exemptions from specific acts which means that they do not have to wear protective headgear when riding a motorbike or when working on a construction site, the have no exemption in other areas, such as rock climbing activites etc.

[drkitten]

While there are certainly subtleties in the law, I stand by my statement as a correct explanation of a general principle in the enforcement of the Free Excercise Clause. The statement was a simplification but certainly not "factually incorrect".

Except for the fact that case law disagrees with you. See Cheema vs. Thompson (1995), in which it was held that a ban on the kirpan violated the first amendment.

[AvalonXQ]

Is an incorrect statement. The constitution does require you to sometimes make a special exception for religion, the situations is covered by the lemon test.

I disagree with your characterization. Those don't require you to make a "special exception for religion". If a law falls afoul of the Lemon test, then that means that it was never properly constructed in the first place. It's the intrusion of the law into the religious sphere, NOT the fact that religious practices happen to spill into an area of secular legislation, that causes the Lemon test to be inacted.
I stand by my statement.

[ponderingturtle]

Turbans are not legal replacments for protective headwear, and offer next to zero protection. While Sikhs have specific exemptions from specific acts which means that they do not have to wear protective headgear when riding a motorbike or when working on a construction site, the have no exemption in other areas, such as rock climbing activites etc.

Do you have laws requireing helmets while rock climbing? Would a high ropes course that sent kids up 10m into trees be able to get away with refusing the Sikh boys if they refused to wear helmets or not?

[quadraginta]

... and on the other side of the pond (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/12/national/main5378839.shtml) ...


Boy Scout, 6, Suspended for Fork

1st Grader Brings Camping Utensil to School for Lunch, But Zero Tolerance Weapons Policy Leads to 45-Day Suspension

(CBS) A 6-year-old boy's excitement over joining the Cub Scouts may just land him in reform school for 45 days.

Zachary Christie was suspended from his 1st grade class in Delaware's Christina School District after bringing a camping utensil - a combination knife/fork/spoon - to use at lunch, prompting calls to reexamine schools' zero-tolerance policy for bringing weapons to school, according to a New York Times report (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html?_r=1) Monday.

Zero tolerance policies were instituted in many school districts across the country, at least in part due to violence at Columbine and Virginia Tech, the report notes. Their rigid enforcement is designed to eliminate the appearance of bias or discrimination on the part of school officials.

The school district's policy is enforced "regardless of intent" and "does not take into consideration a child's age," reports CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod.



The response to this has been a nearly universal condemnation of thoughtlessly applied regulation, without any concurrent reflection on the irony of unintended consequences.

What this thread has prompted in me is a reflection on where the line of tolerance should be drawn, and how.

In this case the weapon is a Swiss Army style gizmo with a fork, spoon, and blade perhaps two inches long.

Obviously a five inch dirk is more intimidating, and a school full of teenagers is an entirely different venue, but the similarities are interesting, nonetheless.

[AvalonXQ]

Except for the fact that case law disagrees with you. See Cheema vs. Thompson (1995), in which it was held that a ban on the kirpan violated the first amendment.

That case was brought under the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, NOT the First Amendment.

EDIT: Not to mention that, even if it WERE a relevant case (which it's not), a Ninth Circuit decision on First Amendment issues should pretty much be ignored, considering how regularly they disagree with the Supreme Court.

[Arcade22]

And if he was born in that country?

I was writing metaphorically. If they don't like the traditions, rules and laws they are free to move elsewhere.

And if he was born there he should just suck it up, no one gets to bring a knife to school, or at least they shouldn't be allowed to.

[drkitten]

I disagree with your characterization. Those don't require you to make a "special exception for religion". If a law falls afoul of the Lemon test, then that means that it was never properly constructed in the first place.

If by "not properly constructed" you mean "doesn't contain the required special exception for religion," you would be right.

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree with your characterization. Those don't require you to make a "special exception for religion". If a law falls afoul of the Lemon test, then that means that it was never properly constructed in the first place.

How can it be incorrectly constructed in the first place there is no need by your characterisation to check for such things.

[Careyp74]

A more significant question: Is "safety of pupils" really a factor here? Are there any instances in record of a Sikh student using the kirpan to threaten or injure another student (or a staff member)?

Perhaps an even more significant question: Is there an increased threat recently of problems in school where another student might grab the knife from the Sikh student and use it on him or others?

We have that here in the US, especially in the also named Compton school district, in California.

On a smaller note: I saw a commercial for a home schooling website for elementary and high school level kids. It was free. Is there a similar one in the UK for this student? Maybe we could reach out to the family and offer this suggestion, it it exists.

[drkitten]

That case was brought under the Religious Freedoms Restoration Act, NOT the First Amendment.

The religious freedom restoration act simply said that all First Amendment cases are subject to strict scrutiny.

Try again.

[drkitten]

Perhaps an even more significant question: Is there an increased threat recently of problems in school where another student might grab the knife from the Sikh student and use it on him or others?

We have that here in the US, especially in the also named Compton school district, in California.

On a smaller note: I saw a commercial for a home schooling website for elementary and high school level kids. It was free. Is there a similar one in the UK for this student? Maybe we could reach out to the family and offer this suggestion, it it exists.

Ah. So you're now proposing a de-facto policy that Sikhs cannot be educated in state-run schools but must be homeschooled.

No, that's not discriminatory at all.

[AvalonXQ]

The religious freedom restoration act simply said that all First Amendment cases are subject to strict scrutiny.

Try again.

All right, why don't you explain the holding of Cheema, then? I don't think it says what you think it says.
Quotes (or perhaps real citations, even?) might be a good idea.

EDIT: I think this discussion should probably be split.

[Dave Rogers]

The only question to answer is : are other proselythic article of faith allowed or not (like the bean hat, the crosses, and the cowl weared by girl from which the name escape me) ?
If one article of faith is allowed then all other have to be. It does not matter it looks like a knife. The only other solution is to forbid every single proselythism ins chool : aka make a secular school.

That argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In fact, I think it's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy. If it's forbidden to carry a knife to school for any purpose whatsoever, why, exactly, should that restrict another pupil's choice of hat? The prohibition of knives to school is based on function, not on symbolism. And I entirely agree with the ruling; if you can stab somebody to death with it, it doesn't belong in a school.

I think Cainkane's argument is a compelling one, too. It doesn't need to be one other kid trying to take it from him, it could be - in fact, would be quite likely to be - a gang of other kids. Even the most responsible fourteen-year-old isn't proof against the evil intentions of a dozen sixteen-year-olds.

Dave

[HansMustermann]

A true Kirpan is a weapon and a tool. You want teenagers to be walking around with a toadstabber on their belt? Some other kid could try to steal it or even forcibly take it from him.

I'd be even more worried about the symbolism of that kirpan. Namely that of a weapon to fight oppression and aggression. They don't teach opposing violence by turning the other cheek, but by drawing the kirpan in defense of those aggressed.

It seems to me like the last thing you'd want in a school is the risk that someone will take that literally and draw a knife to intervene in a fight between other kids.

Yes, I know, they're supposed to all know better than that, and all should be calm and in control of their actions and reactions, bla, bla, bla. But the difference between what ought to be the case and what is the case can sometimes be vast in humans, and doubly so in teenagers.

[Dave Rogers]

Do you have laws requireing helmets while rock climbing? Would a high ropes course that sent kids up 10m into trees be able to get away with refusing the Sikh boys if they refused to wear helmets or not?

As I understand the Health and Safety at Work act, if I were in a place of work and allowed a Sikh boy to climb 10m into a tree and he fell and was injured as a result of wearing incorrect headgear, and I had been aware of it and failed to take action, I could be imprisoned. Unlikely, but possible. I would expect a high ropes course not just to "get away with" refusing a Sikh boy who refused to wear proper protective gear, but to be required by law to do so.

Dave

[FreshHat]

My understanding is that a kirpan must be a functional weapon to serve its symbolic purpose (allowing a Sikh to act as a defender of others); if this is correct, then the "compromise" is unacceptable and insulting.


The issue is that it is a functional weapon.

The little crucifix symbols worn by Christians couldn't be used for torture and execution, although that's the purpose of the full size, real version.

Religious folks who want to fully participate in modern Western cultures sometimes need to make some practical (but not unreasonable) compromises in their ancient beliefs.

I don't see carrying a symbolic kirpan (rather than a functional kirpan) as an unreasonable request.

[Careyp74]

Ah. So you're now proposing a de-facto policy that Sikhs cannot be educated in state-run schools but must be homeschooled.

No, that's not discriminatory at all.

Yeah, that is what I am doing. Read the article again.

ETA:and what do you have to say about the first part of the comment?

[ponderingturtle]

As I understand the Health and Safety at Work act, if I were in a place of work and allowed a Sikh boy to climb 10m into a tree and he fell and was injured as a result of wearing incorrect headgear, and I had been aware of it and failed to take action, I could be imprisoned. Unlikely, but possible. I would expect a high ropes course not just to "get away with" refusing a Sikh boy who refused to wear proper protective gear, but to be required by law to do so.

Dave

But if it was hard hats they are required by law to not exclude the person if they refuse to wear them.

This is highly inconsistent.

[Safe-Keeper]

But Americans have the right to bear arms and what if someone comes into school to kill everyone there'd be no one to stop that person this sikh boy is having his rights taken away and this puts everyone in danger and we should all be very very outraged for--

Oh, wait, this is not about guns? Damn, sorry.

[Dave Rogers]

But if it was hard hats they are required by law to not exclude the person if they refuse to wear them.

This is highly inconsistent.

What law, and are we talking about the same country here? I'm in the UK, and I'd expect to be refused admission to any hazardous activity if I refused to wear the appropriate safety gear.

Dave

[fuelair]

Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.

Quibbly: Kirpan must draw blood if it is drawn - Sikhs are Warrior group. Fused cannot be drawn, ergo.....:)

[Cainkane1]

That argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. In fact, I think it's a classic example of the slippery slope fallacy. If it's forbidden to carry a knife to school for any purpose whatsoever, why, exactly, should that restrict another pupil's choice of hat? The prohibition of knives to school is based on function, not on symbolism. And I entirely agree with the ruling; if you can stab somebody to death with it, it doesn't belong in a school.

I think Cainkane's argument is a compelling one, too. It doesn't need to be one other kid trying to take it from him, it could be - in fact, would be quite likely to be - a gang of other kids. Even the most responsible fourteen-year-old isn't proof against the evil intentions of a dozen sixteen-year-olds.

Dave
I agree. In my day we didn't have a rule like this and pocket knives were brought to school. Riding home on the bus could be scary at times.

[Professor Yaffle]

Quibbly: Kirpan must draw blood if it is drawn - Sikhs are Warrior group. Fused cannot be drawn, ergo.....:)

Do you have a reference for any of this?

My understanding is that they are instructed to draw the kirpan only when all other methods of resolution have been tried, and someone is in danger. I couldn't find any reference to one having to draw blood once it is drawn.

[TimCallahan]

A true Kirpan is a weapon and a tool. You want teenagers to be walking around with a toadstabber on their belt? Some other kid could try to steal it or even forcibly take it from him.

You beat me to the point I wanted to make, Cainkane. Certainly there could be a very practical problem if a nice Sikh boy comes to school wearing the kirpan, and some gang-banger, or even a low-level bully waylays him, takes the dagger and assaults someone with it.

As to the right to bear arms, remember that minors are not fully responsible under the law and also do not have all the rights of an adult, such as, for example, the right to vote. Even their freedom of expression is somewhat limited at school.

[Hux]

Quite right too. Knives are knives whether they are symbolic or otherwise.

We have the recent case of the Policeman who is also a Sikh and he refused to wear a helmet during riot training. He took the Police authority to court over religious discrimination and won.

So I presume, if he gets his head stoved in whilst on riot duty, he cannot claim insurance or compensation under any circumstances. I hope that is the case. His turban is no protection against a 4 by 2".

[Professor Yaffle]

An example of the compromise in some US schools (National Heritage Academies) - my bolding:

However, NHA has imposed certain restrictions under which students are required to inform school before wearing 'kirpan'. The students and parents need to sign an agreement and the blade must be dull and under three inches long.

Further, the 'kirpan' must be sewn tightly into its sheath and worn under the clothing so that it is not visible. The students should not remove it from its sheath or from under clothing in school and they must allow periodic inspections to ensure the conditions are being fulfilled.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/world/indians-abroad/Sikh-children-can-carry-kirpan-in-61-schools-in-US/articleshow/5057867.cms


Pretty much the same as the compromise this school wanted.

[Hux]

Do you have a reference for any of this?

My understanding is that they are instructed to draw the kirpan only when all other methods of resolution have been tried, and someone is in danger. I couldn't find any reference to one having to draw blood once it is drawn.

That's the Ghurkas with their KuKris'. And its a fable also.

[ponderingturtle]

What law, and are we talking about the same country here? I'm in the UK, and I'd expect to be refused admission to any hazardous activity if I refused to wear the appropriate safety gear.

Dave

Unless it is a construction site then a turban is good enough? Why is it so random?

[P.J. Denyer]

Agreed, there is very heavy restriction on the carrying of anything that can be used as a weapon in the UK, a lot of people who are innocent of criminal intent have fallen foul of the law as a result of carrying swiss army knives or multitools that happen to contain a small blade and absolutely no school child would be normally be allowed to walk around a school with a dagger under normal circumstances. Why should the rules be different just because someone claims belief in a deity they say requires them to be tooled up?

ETA: Agreeing with CainKain and Hux

[Dave Rogers]

Unless it is a construction site then a turban is good enough? Why is it so random?

Again, can you please quote the specific laws you're referring to?

Dave

[Professor Yaffle]

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Turban_and_the_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar#Helmet_exemption

[brodski]

Unless it is a construction site then a turban is good enough? Why is it so random?

Because hard hats on construction sites are compulsory under specific legislation (employment act 1988) which has a specific exemption for Sikhs. the legal requirement to provide/ wear other protective gear is based on risk assessments implemented under different legislation ( Health and Safety at Work Etc act 1974 & the Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regs 1992), which is not detailed and prescriptive, but has no exemptions for religious belief- if a workplace risk assessment says you need hard hats everyone needs hard hats. No construction site will have a risk assessment requiring hard hats, as hard hats are already a given, so the exemption under the 1988 act will stand.

It's a quirk of the politics of the 1988 act.

[brodski]

As I understand the Health and Safety at Work act, if I were in a place of work and allowed a Sikh boy to climb 10m into a tree and he fell and was injured as a result of wearing incorrect headgear, and I had been aware of it and failed to take action, I could be imprisoned. Unlikely, but possible. I would expect a high ropes course not just to "get away with" refusing a Sikh boy who refused to wear proper protective gear, but to be required by law to do so.

Dave

Broadly right.
1) You wouldn't need to be aware of it, you would have just had to have failed "so far as is reasonably practicable, to ensure the health, safety and welfare" of the boy.
2) A fine is or even an official telling off (Inspectors letter, improvement notice, prohibition notice) etc is much more likely- corporate manslaughter is very very difficult to prosecute in the UK.


It is legal for a climing wall center or wheatver to refuse to allow peopel to use their equipment if they diont wear all required protective equivelant, regardless of whether there is a religous issue or not. The HSWA74 has no exemption

[Piscivore]

Agreed, there is very heavy restriction on the carrying of anything that can be used as a weapon in the UK, a lot of people who are innocent of criminal intent have fallen foul of the law as a result of carrying swiss army knives or multitools that happen to contain a small blade and absolutely no school child would be normally be allowed to walk around a school with a dagger under normal circumstances. Why should the rules be different just because someone claims belief in a deity they say requires them to be tooled up?

Wait, does that include the MacGuyverists?

[TimCallahan]

I'm curious as to what adult male Sikhs do when boarding an airplane. I can't see airport security going along with them wearing kirpans.

[Hux]

I believe, in a creditable effort to join the 21st century, some of them now carry floppy plastic versions.

[P.J. Denyer]

Wait, does that include the MacGuyverists?

I think an official legal position is pending........ :D

[The Man]

When I was playing the bagpipes everyone in the band carried at least one knife, a Sgian Dubh, some also a Dirk (a short sword with a smaller knife and fork as an eating kit), others another blade under one arm (can’t remember the name of that one). Although we were fairly well armed in a lot of public places, I never carried any of them when not playing or in full dress.

http://www.duncan-house.com/knives/

[ponderingturtle]

Because hard hats on construction sites are compulsory under specific legislation (employment act 1988) which has a specific exemption for Sikhs. the legal requirement to provide/ wear other protective gear is based on risk assessments implemented under different legislation ( Health and Safety at Work Etc act 1974 & the Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regs 1992), which is not detailed and prescriptive, but has no exemptions for religious belief- if a workplace risk assessment says you need hard hats everyone needs hard hats. No construction site will have a risk assessment requiring hard hats, as hard hats are already a given, so the exemption under the 1988 act will stand.

It's a quirk of the politics of the 1988 act.

So as long as it is a construction site actual risks are irrelevent, but anywhere else actual risks are enough to force people to wear helmets?

[brodski]

So as long as it is a construction site actual risks are irrelevent, but anywhere else actual risks are enough to force people to wear helmets?

As far as the law strands hazards which need mitigation by the wearing of hard hats are irrelevant on construction sites- the purpose of section 11 of the employment act was to try and create a culture of hard hat wearing on construction sites. Under this legislation construction sites could become compulsory hard hat areas regardless of the risks. This is obviously a different situation from other workplaces where employers can only require the wearing of hard hats where a risk assessments shows that this is a necessary measure.
It's an odd compromise.

[HansMustermann]

So as long as it is a construction site actual risks are irrelevent, but anywhere else actual risks are enough to force people to wear helmets?

Well, I'm not the one writing the laws, but the way I see it is: if anyone is dumb enough to not want to wear protective clothing, and they sign that they were warned and are conscious that they can't sue or demand compensation for _any_ damages that would have been mitigated by it, sure, let them see if a turban stops a brick. Let them even weld without that mask, if it gets in the way of some religion. Do riot control without a helmet. Whatever, really.

We could use more people earning a Darwin Award.

[Hux]

Definition of a gentleman: A man who can play the bagpipes but doesn't.

[fuelair]

That's the Ghurkas with their KuKris'. And its a fable also.

Here Hux is quite correct - I had read it of the Sikhs, but fast research doesn't show that - and some research indicates it probably is not true for Ghurkas. Should always check (usually I do, but.. ) before writing.:)

[Newtons Bit]

As much as many of us admire the USA constitution, and even some of the bits you Americans added later, this case happened in the UK and, at least at the moment, the USA constitution is not at the heart of our legal systems....

That explains why he withdrew from the school rather than being expelled for bringing a horrible dangerous and scary cutty thing to school.

[The Man]

Definition of a gentleman: A man who can play the bagpipes but doesn't.

Must be why we carried so many knives when playing.

[The Man]

Well, I'm not the one writing the laws, but the way I see it is: if anyone is dumb enough to not want to wear protective clothing, and they sign that they were warned and are conscious that they can't sue or demand compensation for _any_ damages that would have been mitigated by it, sure, let them see if a turban stops a brick. Let them even weld without that mask, if it gets in the way of some religion. Do riot control without a helmet. Whatever, really.

We could use more people earning a Darwin Award.

It is not just about the person not wearing appropriate protective equipment. Such a person places others in the work site at increased risk and can not be permitted to remain in the work area. A company I used to work for provided safety equipment for personal, but did not enforce its use. Someone not wearing safety glasses and working on say the drill line perhaps gets a chip in their eye and as a result of flailing about jabs his drill into the person working next to him who is wearing appropriate equipment. From my understanding the company would still be responsible for the injury to the person without the equipment, because he was allowed to work without appropriate equipment and the injury to the person he stabbed. Since they failed to provide a minimally safe work environment by not removing the person who was not wearing safety equipment.

[Hux]

Must be why we carried so many knives when playing.

Can't be to fight anyone off. :D

[The Man]

Well some people did want to see if we were wearing anything under our kilts.

[JayJayJay]

::sigh:: Goddamn. If you can't bring a knife to school, don't bring it to school. -_- What the hell is he protecting himself from? Math? Science?

[Hux]

What's worn under a kilt?

Nothing - it's all in perfect working order.

(Old Jock joke)

[Foolmewunz]

Here Hux is quite correct - I had read it of the Sikhs, but fast research doesn't show that - and some research indicates it probably is not true for Ghurkas. Should always check (usually I do, but.. ) before writing.:)

Well, I'm pretty sure that's a requirement of the Freemen on Arrakis. If you draw your krisknife, you need to blood it before sheating.

Hey, one fantasy's as good as another.

I really don't understand the argument that it needs to be allowed to respect his religion. Do we have this requirement for all minority religions in England? Or is it just for religions from former colonies whereby believers look real cool as doormen at major lah-di-dah hotels?

'Cuz I'm thinking of starting Foolmewunz's Order of the Taser and Atomic Bomb, and I figure I could get 0.37% (thirty-seven one hundredths of a percent) of the world population to join up, because we're giving free pie. And our children, from the age of maturity (that's seven years old amongst my TasAtomic followers according to our creed) are required to carry fully charged tasers and personal mini-nukes just as soon as they're invented.

[P.J. Denyer]

Well, I'm pretty sure that's a requirement of the Freemen on Arrakis. If you draw your krisknife, you need to blood it before sheating.

Hey, one fantasy's as good as another.

I really don't understand the argument that it needs to be allowed to respect his religion. Do we have this requirement for all minority religions in England? Or is it just for religions from former colonies whereby believers look real cool as doormen at major lah-di-dah hotels?

'Cuz I'm thinking of starting Foolmewunz's Order of the Taser and Atomic Bomb, and I figure I could get 0.37% (thirty-seven one hundredths of a percent) of the world population to join up, because we're giving free pie. And our children, from the age of maturity (that's seven years old amongst my TasAtomic followers according to our creed) are required to carry fully charged tasers and personal mini-nukes just as soon as they're invented.

Or you could just sign up as a Jedi and wait for lightsabres to be invented? Okay you don't get to be Pope or Grand Poobah or whatever, but there's probably less paperwork:D

[Peter i]

In Denmark it is forbidden to wear a fixed blade knife (or lock-back folder) in a public place, unles it is for a "valid reason" such as hunting, fishing, scouting, occupational or the like.

The case has been taken to court by a Sikh, and the ruling was, that religious purposes were not a valid reason.
7 days in prison is the standard "price" for carrying a knife without valid reason.



It seems that some Sikhs really like to make a point of wearing that knife (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/05/sikhs-choose-daggers-over-event-with-pope/)

[Ocelot]

There is nothing wrong with this, you don't bring a knife to a school. And if the Sikhs have a problem with this they can move back to their home country.

And if, as in the case of this boy, the UK is his home country?

[Hux]

Well, I'm pretty sure that's a requirement of the Freemen on Arrakis. If you draw your krisknife, you need to blood it before sheating.

Hey, one fantasy's as good as another.

I really don't understand the argument that it needs to be allowed to respect his religion. Do we have this requirement for all minority religions in England? Or is it just for religions from former colonies whereby believers look real cool as doormen at major lah-di-dah hotels?

'Cuz I'm thinking of starting Foolmewunz's Order of the Taser and Atomic Bomb, and I figure I could get 0.37% (thirty-seven one hundredths of a percent) of the world population to join up, because we're giving free pie. And our children, from the age of maturity (that's seven years old amongst my TasAtomic followers according to our creed) are required to carry fully charged tasers and personal mini-nukes just as soon as they're invented.

Well it would seem we do take notice of minority religion. Hence the three Somalis that got a 300 year old pub sign changed. Hence a Sikh Policemen won his case only the other day, for being upset at having to wear a riot helmet during riot training. There is just far too much of this and it is alienating mainstream folks who have no deference to religious sensibilities at all. we can of course, discount the Christian voice because they are just whinging that its still a Christian country.

We have a rich tradition of religious tolerance in England and it has got to stop. :D

[Hux]

And if, as in the case of this boy, the UK is his home country?

It is a common experience to find that those of Asian extraction still refer to their mother countries as "Home", even when they haven't been there. I for one would never stand in anyone's way if they wish to return to Shitholeistan.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, I'm not the one writing the laws, but the way I see it is: if anyone is dumb enough to not want to wear protective clothing, and they sign that they were warned and are conscious that they can't sue or demand compensation for _any_ damages that would have been mitigated by it, sure, let them see if a turban stops a brick. Let them even weld without that mask, if it gets in the way of some religion. Do riot control without a helmet. Whatever, really.

But employers will abuse this. Suppose they say, "You're supposed to wear this protective equipment, but it'll make you work slower, and there's a bonus for finishing the job on time; it's up to you," or a thousand other similar hypotheticals? By making employers criminally responsible for taking reasonable care to ensure their employees wear the correct safety equipment, the law makes it a lot more difficult for them to circumvent the regulations to their own gain.

As for the hard hats, it seems to me that the law states that Sikhs cannot be excluded from a hard hat area unless a risk assessment has been done, which specifically requires the wearing of hard hats in that area. Risk assessments aren't particularly difficult to do, and there's a legal requirement to carry them out for all workplaces, so I suspect there are very few instances where any contradiction actually arises. All it means is that a blanket requirement for hard hats, in the absence of a genuine safety requirement, can't be used as a pretext for excluding Sikhs from a site.

Dave

[HansMustermann]

Well, that much I kinda was understanding. But, still, it's a bit of a pity. Anything that lets people earn a Darwin Award for their religion should not be prevented :p

[Hux]

Just an observation (of sorts) and not meant to be scientific but I think the problem may be solved by the happen-stance that Sikhs don't usually work on building sites.

[Dave Rogers]

Just an observation (of sorts) and not meant to be scientific but I think the problem may be solved by the happen-stance that Sikhs don't usually work on building sites.

Are you sure it's not why Sikhs don't usually work on building sites?

Dave

[Ocelot]

deleted

[quadraginta]

Just an observation (of sorts) and not meant to be scientific but I think the problem may be solved by the happen-stance that Sikhs don't usually work on building sites.

Are you sure it's not why Sikhs don't usually work on building sites?

Dave


Interesting conundrum. I'd like to know the answer myself. I tend to suspect the latter.

I know I haven't run into the situation in my time in construction here. U.S. laws are a bit different. Contrary to popular opinion OSHA doesn't require hardhats at all times on construction sites, but the rules are (purposely?) vague enough that they are generally interpreted and enforced that way if only to reduce liability exposure. The companies can make pretty much any safety rules they want above and beyond statutory ones, and with the possible exception of union issues (a separate subject) if someone doesn't like the rules their option is usually to find a different company to work for.

I have had observant Moslems stop to pray to Mecca, mostly during breaks or lunch, but not always. (A different situation, I know, but noted to show that the workplace diversity is there.) The general lack of remark about it was refreshing, and surprising in a good way if you know how construction workers in the south can be about such things.

[Morrigan]

I don't see why we should accommodate people with (stupid) beliefs if their religious behaviour goes against the established rules, especially if not obeying said rules might pose a danger to others.

I'm glad the UK is being reasonable here, over here in a similar case, the Sikh boy won. Very infuriating.

[Foolmewunz]

I don't see why we should accommodate people with (stupid) beliefs if their religious behaviour goes against the established rules, especially if not obeying said rules might pose a danger to others.

I'm glad the UK is being reasonable here, over here in a similar case, the Sikh boy won. Very infuriating.


This, I concur with. It's nothing to do with religious intolerance - I'm pretty laissez faire about that. It has to do with weapon-in-school intolerance.

I also have a problem with any religion trying to tell a fourteen year old boy that his sacred weapon is to protect the innocent, when said 14 year old does not have any particular superpowers or ninja skills to use it. Nor the intelligence, wisdom, or judgment. Because their own version of the sky daddy says so? I don't think so. As someone mentioned above, what's to stop four big sixteen year olds from taking it away from him, even if he is pure of thought and purpose or whatever mumbo jumbo they're selling.

[Hux]

How come a 17 year old Boy scout, who wants to go to West point, is barred from school for 20 days? His knife was locked in an emergency kit which was locked in the boot of his car. If he can be barred for that then that sikh can bloody well take the ban and like it. There should be no tolerance - none - for religious sensibility.

This is a classic example of what we mean when we complain that faith transcends all. That religious faith deserves some form of respect that singles it out from public laws or provisions. I am all for tradition - although as I get older, some of the traditions I used to support, like Monarchy for one, is slowly filtering out of my view. Tradition is one thing but one way to trip into the 21st century is to cast off all practices that have no basis in the promotion of the well being of people.

[Foolmewunz]

I was listening in on a conversation about this amongst some ABCs on the way home last night on the MTR.

One of them, apparently steeped in woo but with little knowledge of reality, was maintaining that it should be allowed because it's their religion and it's a symbol of the boy's maturity and teaches him his responsibility as a Sikh to protect the weak.

Someone else chimed in that Sikhs are cool and that they're non-violent.

First speaker: Yeah, it's only used as a last resort to protect someone who can't protect themselves. They're actually required to do that in their religion, ya know.

Foolmewunz, butting in from fifteen feet away: "Maybe someone should've told that to the Sikh bodyguards who assassinated Indira Gandhi."

[quadraginta]

I was listening in on a conversation about this amongst some ABCs on the way home last night on the MTR.

One of them, apparently steeped in woo but with little knowledge of reality, was maintaining that it should be allowed because it's their religion and it's a symbol of the boy's maturity and teaches him his responsibility as a Sikh to protect the weak.

Someone else chimed in that Sikhs are cool and that they're non-violent.

First speaker: Yeah, it's only used as a last resort to protect someone who can't protect themselves. They're actually required to do that in their religion, ya know.

Foolmewunz, butting in from fifteen feet away: "Maybe someone should've told that to the Sikh bodyguards who assassinated Indira Gandhi."


I read the sentence above and realized that in a free association test the first word that comes to mind for me when I hear "Sikh" is "warrior". Although this may be the fault of their notable prominence in military histories of the Near East I got curious and found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh) in a Wiki article.

Sikhs make up 10–15% of all ranks in the Indian Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Army) and 20% of its officers,[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh#cite_note-58) whilst Sikhs only forming 1.87% of the Indian population, which makes them over 10 times more likely to be a soldier and officer in the Indian Army than the average Indian.
By an odd coincidence I'm currently reading a new book about modern Afghanistan history. I'm at the part where the British allied with the Sikhs in the 1830's to invade Afghanistan (because of British concerns about the influence of Persian, Russian, and Islamic fundamentalist efforts there. Sound familiar?) It would seem that Ranjit Singh's involvement was not uncolored by an interest in acquiring new territory for Punjab.

A phrase that doesn't come to mind for me in my hypothetical free association test is "non-violent".

[Foolmewunz]

I read the sentence above and realized that in a free association test the first word that comes to mind for me when I hear "Sikh" is "warrior". Although this may be the fault of their notable prominence in military histories of the Near East I got curious and found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh) in a Wiki article.




By an odd coincidence I'm currently reading a new book about modern Afghanistan history. I'm at the part where the British allied with the Sikhs in the 1830's to invade Afghanistan (because of British concerns about the influence of Persian, Russian, and Islamic fundamentalist influences there. Sound familiar?) It would seem that Ranjit Singh's involvement was not uncolored by an interest in acquiring new territory for Punjab.

A phrase that doesn't come to mind for me in my hypothetical free association test is "non-violent".

Strangers on a train - I didn't reckon gasping at the guy and saying, "Are you a complete moron?" would've been too polite.

[quadraginta]

Strangers on a train - I didn't reckon gasping at the guy and saying, "Are you a complete moron?" would've been too polite.


Sometimes you just know in your heart that it's not worth the effort to try and explain, and you won't be believed anyway.

[Hux]

For the record, sikhs have always been respected as fierce fighters, particularly in WWII. They have a colourful history as warriors and have never taken crap off anyone.

[quadraginta]

For the record, sikhs have always been respected as fierce fighters, particularly in WWII. They have a colourful history as warriors and have never taken crap off anyone.


I probably would have said "particularly in pre-colonial and British colonial India", but yes, that was my point.

[Foolmewunz]

Not to belabor the obvious (but with the thought that it might not have been so obvious, after all), the point I was making was probably lost on the poor quartet on the MTR, but was related to what I'd said earlier.

The Sikhs have no more of a moral compass than anyone else, individually, or as a group. If there are individuals or organized factions capable of blowing up passenger planes or assassinating the person they were duty bound to protect, then how am I to feel safe with a fourteen year old Sikh carrying a potentially deadly weapon to school with my child? I don't think Sikhs are inherently any more violent than I feel a generic Christian or Muslim is. Unfortunately, I don't find either of those groups to be inherently pacifist, regardless of the tenets of their faith.

[HansMustermann]

Well, it's not even just that it's still just a human, it's that we're talking a 14 year old boy. It's not a group or an age known for the most maturity ever. If I could go back in time and give myself a dagger in school at 14 years old, I wouldn't trust even myself at that age with that.

[sonofgloin]

A 14-year-old Sikh boy has been withdrawn from state education after he was banned from wearing a traditional religious dagger to school..


My take on this is not the perceived discrimination by the boys parents and their statement to the world in the form of yanking their kid from the state school. But the boys parents who migrated to a country where they can practice their religion freely can not make accomodation to the ridiculous health and safety, litigation rife society gone mad we live in , the way we all have had to do, and put up with over managed non productive psuedo sciences of Occupational Health and Safety without feeling the need to be marginalized. Now there is another industry in itself..

[Cactus Wren]

Note that they were offered a comprimise - a replica which is fused into the sheath, so it couldn't be used as weapon. I think this is reasonable enough, considering that the safety of pupils is a factor here.

Quibbly: Kirpan must draw blood if it is drawn - Sikhs are Warrior group. Fused cannot be drawn, ergo.....:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace-bonding

[Aepervius]

So stabing you with it would be no big deal at all as it is an article of faith and not a knife. Hence it is not a weapon and can't hurt you.

I was stabbed by a knife, a friend was stabbed with a pen. My cut was at least cleaner, his infected and left a nasty whitish pinkish scare tissue. So we should forbid the knife and the pen. No really, anything can be used as a tool of violence, so it cannot be really a factor if you are realistic. You can easily hide a cutter. I even saw a kid sharpening his ruler. If you WANT to hurt somebody, you will find ways.

And if you ask me, you should ban *ALL* proselythic symbol, from cross to kirpan to whatever.

[ponderingturtle]

I was stabbed by a knife, a friend was stabbed with a pen. My cut was at least cleaner, his infected and left a nasty whitish pinkish scare tissue. So we should forbid the knife and the pen. No really, anything can be used as a tool of violence, so it cannot be really a factor if you are realistic. You can easily hide a cutter. I even saw a kid sharpening his ruler. If you WANT to hurt somebody, you will find ways.


The thing is that this sounds like more an issue of treatment or lack there of in your friends case.

[The Man]

I was stabbed by a knife, a friend was stabbed with a pen. My cut was at least cleaner, his infected and left a nasty whitish pinkish scare tissue. So we should forbid the knife and the pen. No really, anything can be used as a tool of violence, so it cannot be really a factor if you are realistic. You can easily hide a cutter. I even saw a kid sharpening his ruler. If you WANT to hurt somebody, you will find ways.

And if you ask me, you should ban *ALL* proselythic symbol, from cross to kirpan to whatever.

I was stabbed by a pencil in the shoulder at school once, no infection. Indeed anything can be used as "tool of violence" even just people themselves, so no need to give them access to even more efficient tools other than what must already be on hand.

[P.J. Denyer]

I was stabbed by a pencil in the shoulder at school once, no infection.

I was stabbed with a pencil in the knee, again no infection, it was freshly sharpened and so prabably cleaner than a pen. Did leave me with a dot 'tattoo' though...