Daggers in school

[learner]

Sir Mota Singh, Britains first Asian judge thinks Sikhs should be allowed to take ceremonial daggers to school, Preventing them doing so is discrimination.

My view..Stick to the school health and safety rules and have a serious look at this mans priorities.
He says that he has worn a Dagger in public for forty years with no incident. Why he uses that as some sort of defence baffles me.

I wonder how long it would be before a gang of bullies take a Dagger off a kid and use it. In school or out?

[TragicMonkey]

I wonder how long it would be before a gang of bullies take a Dagger off a kid and use it. In school or out?

If you have gangs in your schools willing to indulge in weapon violence, do you really imagine they have to wait around for a passing Sikh to acquire the means?

[Sledge]

Sir Mota Singh is a freaking idiot. How is it discrimination to stop one group from doing something that no one else is allowed to do either?

[Rasmus]

Sir Mota Singh is a freaking idiot. How is it discrimination to stop one group from doing something that no one else is allowed to do either?

Religion in a nutshell.

[Sledge]

True dat. :(

[learner]

If you have gangs in your schools willing to indulge in weapon violence, do you really imagine they have to wait around for a passing Sikh to acquire the means?

No, but it adds an unnecessary option.

[Cainkane1]

Sir Mota Singh, Britains first Asian judge thinks Sikhs should be allowed to take ceremonial daggers to school, Preventing them doing so is discrimination.

My view..Stick to the school health and safety rules and have a serious look at this mans priorities.
He says that he has worn a Dagger in public for forty years with no incident. Why he uses that as some sort of defence baffles me.

I wonder how long it would be before a gang of bullies take a Dagger off a kid and use it. In school or out?
I agree with what you are saying. Bullies would take these weapons away from them. I agree with another poster that the troublemakers in school that they wouldn't have to wait for a student carrying a ceremonail dagger to bring a knife to school but still the risk is too great. At best the poor kid would be out of a dagger.

[Sledge]

The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm a grown man, but I'm not allowed to carry a locking blade pocket knife, whilst a JUDGE is advocating children be allowed to carry daggers. Well, I'm part Scottish, so will he speak up for my right to carry a sgian dubh? I hope so or he's blatantly discriminating against me.

[Agatha]

The schools my children go to have a zero tolerance policy for weapons (and drugs). I would not like to see this relaxed at all.

[timhau]

The schools my children go to have a zero tolerance policy for weapons (and drugs).

If Sikh kids get to take their daggers to school, I really can't see why Rastafarian kids couldn't smoke weed during recess.

[Ian Osborne]

I think the dividing line should be whether granting the privilege to a religious group negatively impacts on other people's school experience. When I was at school in the Eighties, girls weren't allowed to wear trousers, but an exception was made for Sikh pupils, who weren't allowed to show their ankles. The Jehovah's Witness kids got out of Religious Studies lessons too. I don't have a problem with either of these things, but to allow kids to carry knives to school on religious grounds is the act of an imbecile.

[Dave Rogers]

If you have gangs in your schools willing to indulge in weapon violence, do you really imagine they have to wait around for a passing Sikh to acquire the means?

Seriously, yes, I do think this. I know plenty of kids who don't have a good enough moral compass not to steal things off other kids then use them in dangerous ways. Generally, they don't have the foresight to provide themselves with weaponry, and quite possibly they don't actually have the evil intent to carry out a deliberate, premeditated attack on anyone; but they're children, for FSM's sake, and children do stupid things because they don't have the experience to know that the things they're doing are stupid.

I don't want to get the phone call from the school saying "I'm sorry, Mr. Rogers, they didn't mean to do any harm, but some kids were playing with a knife they'd stolen from a Sikh boy, they got into a fight, and your son happened to be walking past at the time; the doctors don't think they can save his eye." I'd rather put up with Mr. Singh at the top of the road complaining at me about religious intolerance next time I go in his shop for a pint of milk. Indeed, every time from now on that I go in his shop would be better. And I like Mr. Singh.

Dave

[Matty1973]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan)

The requirement that baptised Sikhs wear the kirpan has caused problems for believers in many areas, especially where the custom clashes with local laws against carrying weapons. In cases where weapons regulations conflict with wearing the kirpan, such as boarding an airplane or entering a prison, Sikhs reluctantly comply with authorities. Some regulations allow the kirpan under certain restrictions; for example, rules in some Californian schools require that the kirpan be blunted and riveted into a sheath. This prevents any possible use of the kirpan as a weapon, but still allows it as a physical symbol of faith.


The Californian solution sounds sensible.

[Ian Osborne]

The Californian solution sounds sensible.

Or why not a badge showing a picture of the knife? Much less cumbersome.

[Rasmus]

The Californian solution sounds sensible.

No.

We are dealing with insanity here. Someone who believes they ought to run around with a knife because that is what their god tells them to do are utterly unreasonable.

If they then agree to using a non-knifey replica of a knife, they are somewhat safer to be around, but it is not what I would call "sensible".

The rule panders to the insane.

It's a good rule: No knifes.

Done. There is no need for any exceptions.

How are you going to enforce the rules with the exceptions? What happens, if someone packs their real knife accidentally? Should all potential knifels be chekced three times a day?

[Bikewer]

The phony dagger sounds good to me.... I have a History Of Weaponry book, and it shows a couple of examples of 17th century "court pistols" from the Balkans. Evidently, a well-dressed Balkan male could not conceive of going out in public without his heavily-decorated flintlock pistol, much as modern Arabs of several persuasions (and Sikhs... ) must needs have a prominent dagger on their person.
However, after a number of annoying assassinations, they came up with the idea of the "court" pistol, which was a heavily-decorated false weapon without any sort of lock mechanism.
Style and manly pride was maintained, and assassinations averted....Presumably.

Of course, you could always bop someone over the head.....

[ponderingturtle]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan)

The requirement that baptised Sikhs wear the kirpan has caused problems for believers in many areas, especially where the custom clashes with local laws against carrying weapons. In cases where weapons regulations conflict with wearing the kirpan, such as boarding an airplane or entering a prison, Sikhs reluctantly comply with authorities. Some regulations allow the kirpan under certain restrictions; for example, rules in some Californian schools require that the kirpan be blunted and riveted into a sheath. This prevents any possible use of the kirpan as a weapon, but still allows it as a physical symbol of faith.


The Californian solution sounds sensible.

Why aren't people fighting for the rights of sikh prisoners to carry their daggers?

[richardm]

I'm part Scottish, so will he speak up for my right to carry a sgian dubh? I hope so or he's blatantly discriminating against me.

Sgian dubhs and their ilk are specifically exempted from the laws covering knife carrying, provided they're worn as part of national dress. So are Kirpans, for that matter, on the grounds that they're part of religious identity. Even so, if you hire a kilt you will be given a Safety Sgian Dubh - a plastic one, usually all in one piece. Hardly anyone complains about this.

Should a school be able to insist that children do not carry knives? You would think that there'd be no argument there. In most cases the school hasn't even made a totally blanket ban but have tried to suggest that sikhs carry a safe alternative, like being stitched into the sheath or riveted in place, or even just being totally blunt. That ain't good enough for your true fundamentalist unfortunately.

And in fact you don't need to have bullies stealing the knives for them to become problems; it's not as though Sikhs are never bullies. As it is, adolescent boys are fit to have rages and fights. It's not as though nobody's ever been stabbed with a Kirpan, despite what the judge thinks.

[sadhatter]

Or why not a badge showing a picture of the knife? Much less cumbersome.

In live action rpg's its common to carry a card with the name of the weapon your carrying on it. And it's worked out pretty good for us nerdy types, maybe it will work for them as well.

And as for the suggestion of just blunting a knife, as a sword/weaponry in general collector, you would be surprised at how much damage a blunt weapon can do. I say we let them follow the same rules as everyone else on the planet and not bring weapons to school.

[Sledge]

Sgian dubhs and their ilk are specifically exempted from the laws covering knife carrying, provided they're worn as part of national dress.
Blatant discrimination against my English heritage. Should I not be able to embrace both cultures simultaneously, by dressing as a morris dancer AND carrying a sgian dubh? Possibly whilst firing a longbow at a Frenchman.

I wonder if I could start a religion that required it's followers to carry a Beretta 92F at all times, and to shoot people who annoy me?

[tyr_13]

I loved that I wasn't allowed to have a knife in school. Being a country boy, I almost always had a knife on me otherwise. There were even rules against spiked jewelry, metal eating utensils, and wallet chains.

Then we would go to Home Economics and be given butcher knives, or to gym with bows and arrows (although a friend of mine actually fired an arrow at his own foot point blank to prove what utter crap the bows and arrows being used were). Great logic.

[Arkayik]

If you believe that a ban on blades, anywhere, makes you or yours safer, then I'll leave you to your fantasy.

I'm certain no one needs to advocate for kirpans in prisons, b/c they can fashion their own in due time.

I don't think the presence of the occaisional kirpan will significantly alter the lives of the average school-attending pupil.

Let go of your prejudices and try to think objectively about the situation.

[geni]

Sir Mota Singh, Britains first Asian judge thinks Sikhs should be allowed to take ceremonial daggers to school, Preventing them doing so is discrimination.

Not exactly. Did you listen to the today interview this morning?

In any case he's correct. Ever read the law in question

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to prove that he had the article or weapon in question with him—
(a)
for use at work,
(b)
for educational purposes,
(c)
for religious reasons, or
(d)
as part of any national costume.



My view..Stick to the school health and safety rules and have a serious look at this mans priorities.

He's a retired judge so gardening?


He says that he has worn a Dagger in public for forty years with no incident. Why he uses that as some sort of defence baffles me.

Because it shows that someone can be sucessful within british society while carrying one.


I wonder how long it would be before a gang of bullies take a Dagger off a kid and use it. In school or out?

Quite a long time. Certianly there is a slight lack of reported cases.

[learner]

How on earth is enforcing a rule on health and safety grounds for the good of all, as a risk minimising measure, prejudiced?

[geni]

Sir Mota Singh is a freaking idiot. How is it discrimination to stop one group from doing something that no one else is allowed to do either?

Other groups are allowed to carry their religious symbols into schools.

[Yeggster]

I'm not sure how this fits in, but these facts may add to the discussion:

When I was in school all the boys had a jackknife in their pocket, no one was ever stabbed.

We had a Department of National Defense approved rifle range in the basement too, range practice was Tuesday and Thursday nights, no one was every shot either.

[geni]

How on earth is enforcing a rule on health and safety grounds for the good of all, as a risk minimising measure, prejudiced?

He didn't say that.

Sigh the background is as far as I can work out:

1)School bans certian types of kirpins.

2)Journalists find a retired judge a put a question to him

3)Retired judge not aware of the school's actions and thus doesn't realise how the question is loaded.

4)the real story is rather boring and thus doesn't get reported other than in a rather weak interview on the today program.

[geni]

The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm a grown man, but I'm not allowed to carry a locking blade pocket knife,

False. You are allowed to cary one as long as you have a good reason.


whilst a JUDGE is advocating children be allowed to carry daggers. Well, I'm part Scottish, so will he speak up for my right to carry a sgian dubh? I hope so or he's blatantly discriminating against me.

Legaly you would be required to wear the rest of the scotish national costume.

[geni]

The Californian solution sounds sensible.

That was broadly speaking the school's position.

[geni]

No.

We are dealing with insanity here. Someone who believes they ought to run around with a knife because that is what their god tells them to do are utterly unreasonable.

I think Guru Gobind Singh told them too. If you consider the situation where skihism first appeared it was a reasonable instruction.


If they then agree to using a non-knifey replica of a knife, they are somewhat safer to be around, but it is not what I would call "sensible".

The rule panders to the insane.

It's a good rule: No knifes.

Done. There is no need for any exceptions.


Cooking should be interesting.


How are you going to enforce the rules with the exceptions? What happens, if someone packs their real knife accidentally? Should all potential knifels be chekced three times a day?

Generaly purely symbolic Kirpans are rather smaller than the traditionaly type.

[Checkmite]

I'm not sure how this fits in, but these facts may add to the discussion:

When I was in school all the boys had a jackknife in their pocket, no one was ever stabbed.

We had a Department of National Defense approved rifle range in the basement too, range practice was Tuesday and Thursday nights, no one was every shot either.

But eventually there came a point where kids were stabbed, and (lots of) kids were shot, and now we just don't do those things anymore. Due props, but the way things were in the past on this particular issue have no bearing upon the present.

[Slayhamlet]

Sir Mota Singh is a freaking idiot. How is it discrimination to stop one group from doing something that no one else is allowed to do either?

Absolutely right. What are the gays complaining about, anyway? Straights aren't allowed to marry individuals of the same sex either!

[Yeggster]

But eventually there came a point where kids were stabbed, and (lots of) kids were shot,

Not at my school ... no one has been stabbed or shot there to this day to my knowledge.

[arthwollipot]

Not at my school ... no one has been stabbed or shot there to this day to my knowledge.Nor mine. But just becuase it doesn't happen in our backyards doesn't mean that it doesn't happen at all.

[LTC8K6]

So what's so different today? I went to school in the 70's and 80's and most of the boys had a pocket knife on them. I don't recall any stabbings or any suggestions that knives be banned. No one seemed to think any of us would stab anyone with our pocket knives, or with our sharpened pencils for that matter.

Come to think of it, I actually did get stabbed accidentally with a pencil by my good friend, and the pencil tip is still in my leg and still visible...

Were we just better behaved children back then, or what?

[arthwollipot]

Far as I know, it's always gone on, but it depends on your location. Schools in areas of low socioeconomic status have always had problems, as far as I can tell. We didn't hear about it because we were kids and we weren't interested in what went on outside our world.

In my fourth grade class in Holt Primary School in Canberra, I wouldn't have known of anything going down in Redfern, Sydney. But I'm sure it did.

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm not sure how this fits in, but these facts may add to the discussion:

When I was in school all the boys had a jackknife in their pocket, no one was ever stabbed.

We had a Department of National Defense approved rifle range in the basement too, range practice was Tuesday and Thursday nights, no one was every shot either.


I'll add to this. From about the age of ten years or so, I have very, very, very rarely gone anywhere (including school) without at least one pocketknife on my person. It happens to be a very useful tool, that I just can't see not having at hand when I need it.

Our society has become “pussified” over the last several decades. Allowing Big Brother so much greater latitude to protect us from ourselves has made us less free.

[richardm]

1)School bans certian types of kirpins.


It would probably be fairer to say that the school has banned the carrying of any sort of functional knife. It's not as though they've singled Kirpans out specifically.

So what's so different today? I went to school in the 70's and 80's and most of the boys had a pocket knife on them. I don't recall any stabbings or any suggestions that knives be banned.

I went to school in the 70s and 80s, and knives were banned in my school. I don't recall any stabbings either that resulted in this ban, it was simply deemed a Good Idea not to allow them on school premises.

[ponderingturtle]

Not exactly. Did you listen to the today interview this morning?

In any case he's correct. Ever read the law in question

(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to prove that he had the article or weapon in question with him—
(a)
for use at work,
(b)
for educational purposes,
(c)
for religious reasons, or
(d)
as part of any national costume.

Hmm could you get a 12" bowie knife recognised as Texas national costume...

[Sideroxylon]

Light sabers in school for Jedi church members!

[richardm]

Hmm could you get a 12" bowie knife recognised as Texas national costume...

Only if you wear a coonskin hat as well.

One with a tail.

[Region Rat]

If I see a Sikh with a ceremonial dagger on a plane I'll...


Seriously, I also went through school in the 60's and 70's, and me and most of my friends all carried pocket knives. It was a right of passage when you first got your Cub Scout knife to take it and show it off. How else could you carve your name in the top of the desk? :) (Never said I was a good Cub Scout)

I was even allowed to bring in an air rifle as a prop in a school play. No security at all. I carried it on the bus and put it in my locker, carried it down the hall to class, and never had a comment from anyone.

Times change, and I don't agree with carrying daggers to school (not due to threats of violence so much, but more due to irresponsible behavior like what I did), but the zero tolerance garbage (silverware bans and the like) bothers me.

[geni]

It would probably be fairer to say that the school has banned the carrying of any sort of functional knife. It's not as though they've singled Kirpans out specifically.

There is a specific case in question and a specific Kirpan in question that got the whole story invented.

[geni]

But eventually there came a point where kids were stabbed, and (lots of) kids were shot, and now we just don't do those things anymore. Due props, but the way things were in the past on this particular issue have no bearing upon the present.

UK here. About the only school shotting we've had was the Dunblane massacre and student held weaponary was not an issue there. In fact the cloest I can think of was a case involving a flame thrower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Upper_School#The_1994_attack

[MikeMangum]

Why aren't people fighting for the rights of sikh prisoners to carry their daggers?

Prisoners have lost many of their rights as a consequence of committing a crime. That kinda explains why they can't just walk out.

[nathan]

Only if you wear a coonskin hat as well.

One with a tail.

... that you made with said Bowie knife.

[MikeMangum]

Should a school be able to insist that children do not carry knives? You would think that there'd be no argument there. In most cases the school hasn't even made a totally blanket ban but have tried to suggest that sikhs carry a safe alternative, like being stitched into the sheath or riveted in place, or even just being totally blunt. That ain't good enough for your true fundamentalist unfortunately.

I personally agree that a school should be able to completely ban knives (or any other weapon) but the ones who want to carry a knife as part of their religious identity are not the only "true fundamentalist[s]" in this argument.

There are children who are suspended for playing with toys that look like guns, for instance. When schools suspend students for having tiny toy guns (http://www.kptv.com/news/22498157/detail.html) made of a size (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35234742/ns/today-today_people/) for the action (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?ID=s1478589&date=012704) figures they are playing with, fundamentalism seems a apropo label. There is no way that anyone would have actually mistaken those toys for real guns. One of the arguments for suspending a young child with a 2 inch long toy gun made for a GI Joe action figure was "[a]t school you don't need anything that's going to make kids feel unsafe." I think by that he means "we want to ensure that the very sight of anything even vaguely resembling a gun will cause fear in children, even if it is clear that it is not a functional gun."

"Guns are bad, umkay?"

Then there are the stories of kids getting suspended for drawing (http://www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/0822gunsketch22-on.html?&wired) a gun (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21397455/). Or suspending a boy who finds a toy gun and turns it in to the principle: Child Punished After Finding Toy Gun At Bus Stop (http://www.wftv.com/education/4155928/detail.html)

Or even suspending teachers for facebook photos of themselves with a gun (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,488567,00.html).

Or even more ridiculous...
http://www.wtkr.com/news/wtkr-toy-gun-bust,0,800025.story
Cassmeir Hutchinson has been recognized for perfect attendance, good citizenship, and honor roll.

But a decision he made to help a friend at the school bus stop may have cost him his image.

"He wanted me to come over there and look in the book bag. I went over there I looked at them picked them up and I told him he would get in trouble if he took them to school," Cassmeir said.

A friend of Cassmeir Hutchinson's showed him two toy guns at the bus stop. He told his friend to leave them so he wouldn't get in trouble. In the process he touched the gun - so the school suspended both boys.

He touched a toy gun. He is unclean and must undergo ritual penance! Fundamentalism seems to be an apt description.

BTW, this story is an awesome read: Boy Suspended For Drawing Jesus Shooting Santa With Gun (http://www.crystalair.com/content.php?id=15200912008)

[Toke]

I have read of midevial towns that manned the carrying of belt daggers of more than 12".

Still there are no doubt that there are plenty of examples where schools have gone to the extreme in their bans.



ETA: Recent Danish law ban fixed or lockable blades of more than 7cm, it carries a minimun penalty of 7 days prison and 3000Kr fine.
I just carried a 1,5 hand and a falcion of 90 and 70 cm across the country, I do not feel like palculating the sentence. :)

The concept of religius exeptions is rather silly, and if they can´t do with a knife badge or a riveted one, their problem.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

No.

We are dealing with insanity here. Someone who believes they ought to run around with a knife because that is what their god tells them to do are utterly unreasonable.

If they then agree to using a non-knifey replica of a knife, they are somewhat safer to be around, but it is not what I would call "sensible".

The rule panders to the insane.

It's a good rule: No knifes.

Done. There is no need for any exceptions.

How are you going to enforce the rules with the exceptions? What happens, if someone packs their real knife accidentally? Should all potential knifels be chekced three times a day?


I'm an advocate for the you-can-carry-a-blade-but-it-has-to-be-dull-and-or-stuck-in-the-case rule. That's very sensible and very reasonable. Both sides are fine with it and it satisfies one side's demand to freely practise their religion while removing the safety concerns the other sides have, great. Perfect.

The problem with carrying a knife to school is that you can cut someone. A dull knife cuts no one. Problem solved. It's just a piece of metal then. It's purely symbolic.

If someone's religion made them carry a ceremonial gun and the school or workplace mandated the gun be free of bullets and they were totally fine with removing the bullets, it would be the same scenario. An unloaded gun is just a piece of metal. You can do no damage with it, unless you ram someone on the head with it.

It's usually enough to tell a kid "Son, you can have this but don't take it out. Don't take it out to show it off to your buddies, don't take it out to play with it, don't take it out to pretend to cut off a girl's pigtails, don't give it to anyone if they ask you, don't take it out. Keep it under your clothing or in your pocket or backpack and don't wear it in gym class. It will be taken from you if you if we see it. We don't see it, we don't take it."

With 99.9 percent of children, this is enough, as 99.9 percent of people are sane and nonviolent.

Since Sikh populations are so low in the West, teachers could easily check to see if the daggers are blunted or not on the first day the student arrives with one, like they do with toy guns or Swiss army knives or artsy blades that students bring to show and tell or butter knives they bring to eat lunch with or anything else boys and girls sometimes bring to school. "Could you take that out and show that to me? Thank you, now please put it away again." That's all you need, in 99.9 percent of cases.

Edited to add: Once when I was in high school, I had to bring food to share to Spanish class as an assignment. I think the assignment was to bring something typical of food in Spanish speaking countries- something like that. I brought a whole pineapple because I happened to have one at home but belatedly realized we wouldn't be able to eat it and brought a kitchen knife to class, though I knew it was against school rules. I kept it hidden in my backpack and took it out in Spanish class and cut the pineapple. The teacher's eyebrows raised. She asked if it was dull. I admitted it wasn't. She told me she'd allow me to take it home with me but to not take it out for the rest of the day and bring canned the next time. I think she also demanded to be the one to cut the pineapple and didn't let me do it myself. There are ways to handle knives being in schools with the end result of exactly no one getting stabbed.

[Dave Rogers]

There are children who are suspended for playing with toys that look like guns, for instance. When schools suspend students for having tiny toy guns (http://www.kptv.com/news/22498157/detail.html) made of a size (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35234742/ns/today-today_people/) for the action (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?ID=s1478589&date=012704) figures they are playing with, fundamentalism seems a apropo label. There is no way that anyone would have actually mistaken those toys for real guns. One of the arguments for suspending a young child with a 2 inch long toy gun made for a GI Joe action figure was "[a]t school you don't need anything that's going to make kids feel unsafe." I think by that he means "we want to ensure that the very sight of anything even vaguely resembling a gun will cause fear in children, even if it is clear that it is not a functional gun."

Given that we all accept that, sometimes, stupid people make excessively restrictive rules and apply them over-zealously, what bearing does this have on whether or not sensible, reasonable and fair laws should be enacted and enforced? Taking a functional knife which is intended for combat into a school presents a very specific and identifiable risk, and anecdotes about toy guns are simply a distraction from the point.

Dave

[richardm]

There is a specific case in question and a specific Kirpan in question that got the whole story invented.

If the school said that you could carry folding pocket knives but Kirpans were right out, or if they had allowed knives but suddenly decided not to because a Sikh wanted to carry one then I might agree that you have a point. The school already had a ban in place for any and all knives, though. The argument occurred because a Sikh wanted an exemption, and wasn't prepared to compromise in any way.

UK here. About the only school shotting we've had was the Dunblane massacre and student held weaponary was not an issue there. In fact the cloest I can think of was a case involving a flame thrower:


There have been plenty of stabbings done in and around schools though.

[Belz...]

Other groups are allowed to carry their religious symbols into schools.

Other groups can't stab you with their religious symbols ;)


It should be mentioned that in Canada it's apparently legal to carry knives in public if you're a Sikh. But if you're a Christian, Muslim, or Atheist, you can't.

Odd, that.

[Jorghnassen]

Other groups can't stab you with their religious symbols ;)


Are you sure? (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-668677848795690752#) (Warning: 24 minutes video, no subtitles for those who don't know French)
"Voodoo" machete vs large crucifix...

[Alt+F4]

Since Sikh populations are so low in the West, teachers could easily check to see if the daggers are blunted or not on the first day the student arrives with one, like they do with toy guns or Swiss army knives or artsy blades that students bring to show and tell or butter knives they bring to eat lunch with or anything else boys and girls sometimes bring to school. "Could you take that out and show that to me? Thank you, now please put it away again." That's all you need, in 99.9 percent of cases.

Sorry but doing a weapons check isn't part of a teacher's job.

[rwguinn]

How is someone who see an individual carrying a sheathed dagger/knife/short sword to kinow that it is A) unusable (riveted in the sheath or one piece with the sheath), or B)dulled, or C) non-pointed?
When the guy reaches for it, he gets decked, or everybody runs like hell...

[sadhatter]

I'm an advocate for the you-can-carry-a-blade-but-it-has-to-be-dull-and-or-stuck-in-the-case rule. That's very sensible and very reasonable. Both sides are fine with it and it satisfies one side's demand to freely practise their religion while removing the safety concerns the other sides have, great. Perfect.

The problem with carrying a knife to school is that you can cut someone. A dull knife cuts no one. Problem solved. It's just a piece of metal then. It's purely symbolic.




I have to bring this up, a dull knife is still a danger, and moreso than lets say a typical object that could be found nearby , like lets say scissors , or a pencil.

It is less dangerous than a sharp knife, no doubt, but it is not suddenly a piece of butter with a handle. Though i realize that taking my word for it may not be the style of most people ( hell it wouldn't be my style).

Unfortunately due to a house fire my collection is gone for another few weeks. But once it comes back i have several blades of about the same size and shape that are unsharpened and could toss up a youtube video or two showing that they can still cause a good amount of damage. If there is any interest that is.

[MikeMangum]

Given that we all accept that, sometimes, stupid people make excessively restrictive rules and apply them over-zealously, what bearing does this have on whether or not sensible, reasonable and fair laws should be enacted and enforced? Taking a functional knife which is intended for combat into a school presents a very specific and identifiable risk, and anecdotes about toy guns are simply a distraction from the point.

Dave

It is a comment on why, for some people, bringing a non-functional, ceremonial knife to school is almost as bad as bringing an actual knife to school. The very idea of children seeing someone who carries a knife daily without going crazy and cutting off someone's head is anathema. The idea is to denormalize knives being carried by people.

There is absolutely no safety issue with having a kid wear a blunted knife that is riveted into the sheath.

[Alt+F4]

There is absolutely no safety issue with having a kid wear a blunted knife that is riveted into the sheath.

Time: Day 1 of school
Location: Teacher's Cafeteria

Math Teacher: Ok, who's job is it this year to make sure that the Sikh kid's daggers are blunted and rivted into their sheaths?

Science Teacher: Not me, I did it last year. This year my job is to make sure that when the second amendment supporters bring guns to school they aren't loaded.

Social Studies Teacher: I was supposed to be dagger point person this year but I missed the professional development workshop on how to identify correctly done riveting. As you all know, if you miss riveting you can't move on to "Blunted Knives And You: What Every Educator Needs To Know".

[Jaggy Bunnet]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=938670#post938670

Can I claim the million dollars for predicting that this would happen?

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems fine to ban objects that are ostensibly intended to be used as weapons; but a big problem, as I see it, as that there are many, many common objects, which have entirely legitimate, peaceful uses, which can also be used as weapons.

As I mentioned before, I have very rarely left home without at least one pocketknife on my person. It's a tool that I use very often, for a wide variety of purposes; and without which I would feel crippled.

If children can't carry pocketknives at school, then how can you even think of trusting them with such objects as scissors, or sharpened pencils?

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Sorry but doing a weapons check isn't part of a teacher's job.

I very dimly recall teachers in elementary school doing exactly that with scissors, pocket knives, butter knives and other sharp objects.

I think there was some rule that you could bring scissors to cut paper with but only if they were not sharp or weren't made of metal and anyone who brought scissors or any other object like that had to pull it out to show they weren't sharp upon being asked.

I grew up in a neighborhood in America with a large Sikh population- it was home to many Southwest Asian immigrant groups- and I don't recall any of the children bringing the knives to school, though it is possible they did and it is possible the teachers did check their knives, too.

[Dave Rogers]

It is a comment on why, for some people, bringing a non-functional, ceremonial knife to school is almost as bad as bringing an actual knife to school. The very idea of children seeing someone who carries a knife daily without going crazy and cutting off someone's head is anathema. The idea is to denormalize knives being carried by people.

There is absolutely no safety issue with having a kid wear a blunted knife that is riveted into the sheath.

That's a strawman argument. I did a quick Google search to find the article this is all based on, and it very specifically excludes blunted knives riveted into the sheath; that option has been refused.

The Compton School offered the boy the option of wearing a smaller knife, welded into a metal sheath, but his parents refused and withdrew him - an action by the family that Sir Mota said he supported.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8500712.stm

While I see virtue in your argument that a blunted knife fixed into its sheath is a reasonable compromise, that is not what is being discussed here. The assertion referred to in the OP is that a 14-year-old child should be allowed, by virtue of his religion, to carry a sharpened, functional combat knife in school. And that, specifically, is what I would consider unacceptable in the context of present-day British society.

Dave

[Belz...]

It seems fine to ban objects that are ostensibly intended to be used as weapons; but a big problem, as I see it, as that there are many, many common objects, which have entirely legitimate, peaceful uses, which can also be used as weapons.

True. However, there is perhaps a distinction to be made with items made specifically as weapons.

[ponderingturtle]

Prisoners have lost many of their rights as a consequence of committing a crime. That kinda explains why they can't just walk out.

And have lots of rights about being able to practice their religion as well.

And of course it is not like students have full rights either. Or they wouldn't be stripsearched because they might have legal medication on them.

[ponderingturtle]

It is a comment on why, for some people, bringing a non-functional, ceremonial knife to school is almost as bad as bringing an actual knife to school. The very idea of children seeing someone who carries a knife daily without going crazy and cutting off someone's head is anathema. The idea is to denormalize knives being carried by people.

There is absolutely no safety issue with having a kid wear a blunted knife that is riveted into the sheath.

Good this thread needs more straw.

[luchog]

But eventually there came a point where kids were stabbed, and (lots of) kids were shot, and now we just don't do those things anymore. Due props, but the way things were in the past on this particular issue have no bearing upon the present.
Nope. Eventually there came a point where people who feared that someone would be shot or stabbed, despite the fact that it had not actually happened, gained sufficent political power to enforce their fears.

[Bob Blaylock]

It seems fine to ban objects that are ostensibly intended to be used as weapons; but a big problem, as I see it, as that there are many, many common objects, which have entirely legitimate, peaceful uses, which can also be used as weapons.

True. However, there is perhaps a distinction to be made with items made specifically as weapons.


But we've seen where that slippery slope leads. It has led us to banning things that only resemble weapons. It's led us to the mentality which bans any kind of useful knife because it might be used as a weapon. It's led us to schoolkids being disciplined even for possession of a butterknife with which to eat their lunch; and for drawing pictures of weapons.

I don't know much about the Sikh religion, but this thread has inspired me to look up Kirpan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan) on the Wikipedia. Some interesting reading, here…

The kirpan is both a defensive weapon and a symbol. 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.·
·
·A Sikh's religion forbids the use the kirpan in anger or for a malicious attack. However, a Sikh may use it as a weapon for self-defence or to protect a person in need.

I happen to think that self defense, or defense of another who is defenseless, is a legitimate purpose. Hoplophobes, of course, tend to disagree.

[tsig]

No.

We are dealing with insanity here. Someone who believes they ought to run around with a knife because that is what their god tells them to do are utterly unreasonable.

If they then agree to using a non-knifey replica of a knife, they are somewhat safer to be around, but it is not what I would call "sensible".

The rule panders to the insane.

It's a good rule: No knifes.

Done. There is no need for any exceptions.

How are you going to enforce the rules with the exceptions? What happens, if someone packs their real knife accidentally? Should all potential knifels be chekced three times a day?

My gun is holy, without it I am castrated.

[ponderingturtle]

Nope. Eventually there came a point where people who feared that someone would be shot or stabbed, despite the fact that it had not actually happened, gained sufficent political power to enforce their fears.

Wow this is a remarkable claim, that no kid ever got stabbed in school.

[Dave Rogers]

But we've seen where that slippery slope leads. It has led us to banning things that only resemble weapons. It's led us to the mentality which bans any kind of useful knife because it might be used as a weapon. It's led us to schoolkids being disciplined even for possession of a butterknife with which to eat their lunch; and for drawing pictures of weapons.

Then we have to be careful that regulations are not over-enforced. But the same slippery slope argument can be applied at any stage. Should we allow assault rifles in primary schools? I suspect most people would say 'no'. Should we allow handguns? Katana? Hunting knives? Kirpans? Steak knives? Butter knives? Scissors? Plastic, round-ended scissors? Drawings of scissors?

Somewhere between a ban on assault rifles - which it would be insane not to have - and a ban on drawings of scissors - which it would be insane to have - a line needs to be drawn. The slippery slope argument is equally applicable to anywhere that line is chosen to be drawn, which is why it's a classic informal fallacy, and a worthless argument. This discussion is about where the line is drawn, and I would draw it so as to prohibit functional, purpose-designed weapons, notwithstanding any religious weasel words about instruments of non-violence.

And also, of course, I would not like to promote the idea that it is the duty of schoolchildren to defend each other against attack. Again, they're children, and it's the duty of the adults supervising them to enforce the rules. The very purpose of the Kirpan is opposed to the social organisation of a school.

Dave

[Belz...]

The kirpan is both a defensive weapon and a symbol. Physically it is an instrument of "ahimsa" or non-violence.

That's what they say about Karate. But training someone to fight in order to avoid fighting seems contradictory to me. If you've got the weapon, you're more likely to use it than if you don't have it, no ?

A Sikh's religion forbids the use the kirpan in anger or for a malicious attack. However, a Sikh may use it as a weapon for self-defence or to protect a person in need.

That's nice. The law also forbids the use of weapons in anger. And yet people still do it.

I happen to think that self defense, or defense of another who is defenseless, is a legitimate purpose.

Of course.