Sikh boy banned from taking holy dagger to school

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Hux

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]

Originally Posted by 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....

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]

Originally Posted by Hux

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]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

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]

Originally Posted by The Man

Must be why we carried so many knives when playing.

Can't be to fight anyone off.

[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]

Originally Posted by fuelair

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]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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

[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

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by Arcade22

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]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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.

[Hux]

Originally Posted by Ocelot

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]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Dave

[Ocelot]

deleted

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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."

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 in a Wiki article.

Quote:

Sikhs make up 10–15% of all ranks in the Indian Army and 20% of its officers,[59] 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]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

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 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]

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by fuelair

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]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

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]

Originally Posted by Aepervius

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]

Originally Posted by The Man

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...