The Burkha Controversy - Now Sikhism

So ban the full blown sword version, but allow a smaller kirpan, similar to that of swiss army knife in public use. In schools however, only a ceremonial kirpan could be allowed obviously. I don't see the issue. Other than those who view it as more than just a symbol, surely most could get on board?

Just stop right there. I guarantee you I can find at least one group of Sikhs which do dispute it. There is always 2 contradictory interpretations in just about any religion.

Unlike the niqab/birqa the compulsion of the kirpan is not disputed. It is true that Sahajdhari (non baptized) Sikh's do not wear it because they do not follow the 5 k's. This is not because they have completely differing views to Khalsa Sikh's but because they may feel they are not disciplined enough to follow the five K's (as breaking them later on is one of the worst sins). Should also be noted that it is one of the goals of Sikh's to become Khalsa.

And your turban point is nonsense. Firstly understand that it's not a burqa ban, it's a ban on concealing your face in public. This applies to french citizens, immigrants and tourists. This covers religious garments to balaclavas and motorbike helmets.

It would be comparable if 1) the French ban was actually targeted specifically at Islamic head wear and 2) it banned the hijab, something unanimously accepted as compulsory. You're trying to compare apples and oranges here. There is no hypocrisy.

Also the poll is very close and there is literally no uproar, discussion or controversy regarding the Kirpan in the UK so I don't see your problem.

Exactly! Which is why ANY type of knife which can cut through flesh should be banned.

That's fine but at it's core the Kirpan is supposed to be a weapon and having them wear modified versions or none at all defeats the purpose and meaning of it. This is in addition to what it symbolizes. I can't stress enough how it is a defensive weapon, despite the tiny amount of attacks the OP has scuppered up for such a "menacing" weapon being wielded by millions of Sikh's, there are remarkably few attacks.

Well i pointed out earlier how scissors or utility knives are subject to the points being brought up against the Kirpan but people believe there's justification for carrying them around. I believe that Sikh's have just means for carrying Kirpans (the dagger, not the big ass swords obviously).

What do you think? Should builders or tradesmen be banned from carrying utility knives or screwdrivers because they can be used in a fit of rage to attack somebody?

And the man describing it as a "samurai"? It's evident he was talking about the larger actual sword-like Kirpan. The other incident also took place as a Sikh festival so I'm inclined to believe that one was also a more ceremonial Kirpan.

Nothing you have presented me with indicates that there's a problem with Kirpans unless you consider glass bottles, pint glasses, utility knives, scissors, razors, screwdrivers, pens, pencils, hammers etc also a problem, so why are you so fervently campaigning against them? I mean do you want pubs to replace their glasses with plastic cups because of the dangers of bottles/glasses in a hostile situation?

I'd understand if there was some sort of ongoing trouble with them but that's not the reality. There's a few isolated incidents here and there but no where near enough to warrant an outright ban when you consider the importance of it.

How is this discussion relevant/beneficial to the student forum??

I sincerely hope that no-one is allowed to carry any form of weapon into school (or any public place) for any reason.

I don't like the way this thread has descended and would appreciate if someone would close it.

They aren't used as weapons, only for defence purposes. Schools? My old school wouldn't allow Sikhs to bring in a big kirpan, only a small one that wouldn't cause much harm. So stop bitching.

Do we really have to waith untill it happens? I remember hearing of a couple Sikhs charged with fighting with swords in my area a few years back. Not sure if it was a kirpan but it's a perfectly reasonable fear to suspect they could be used in an attack. As someone who favours a secular democracy don't you think that knives should not be permitted based solely on religous grounds?

Oh here is a news article on it being used to attack someone: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07/toronto-kirpan-debate-brampton.html

So how many of you have actually heard about someone 'attacking' someone with the kirpan? How many cases do you see when someone has been stabbed/killed with the kirpan?

The only people that really carry it are baptised sikhs/ v religious sikhs; There aren't many around to be honest. And the people that do, aren't little 17 year old chavs who are going to stab anyone who comes in their way. It's literally JUST a symbol of sikhism - 5 K's.

Also people that do carry a Kirpan, have to be registered anyways with the local police. So no, if someone is seen with a knife and uses the 'Kirpan' for an excuse, the poice can actually find out if their registered to have one or not.

Enlighten me then because as far as I'm aware Sikhism works in tiers. You start as a Sahajdhari and one of your goals and aspirations is to become a Khalsa (baptized). They are not two separate sects within the religion with their own views and it is perfectly fine in Sikhism to remain Sahajdhari if you don't feel you can take on the commitment of becoming Khalsa, because taking it on then breaking it is a huge sin. To my knowledge even critics and or those who describe themselves as secular Sikh's do not claim that the Kirpan is not compulsory they just claim that it can be in the form of a pendant around the neck etc.

That's fine but at it's core the Kirpan is supposed to be a weapon and having them wear modified versions or none at all defeats the purpose and meaning of it. This is in addition to what it symbolizes. I can't stress enough how it is a defensive weapon, despite the tiny amount of attacks the OP has scuppered up for such a "menacing" weapon being wielded by millions of Sikh's, there are remarkably few attacks.

Can read up on its significance here: http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm

Only Baptised very religious Sikhs can wear them. Not every Sikh. In our holy book it states to use it only when diplomacy cannot help. i.e self defense. Sikhs have been able to wear Kirpans for decades in this country. Why do you think there are hardly any news reports on attacks or the actual kirpan ? Because Sikhs understand the responsibility and not to use it like a chav.

Oh dear.

So much for religious freedom - a majority here wish to ban the kirpan too.

Wow, its great that you answered the many calls for an example of these objects by getting an example from somewhere as local as Canada.

As someone who favours a liberal society, complete with a parliamentary democracy, freedom of speech and tolerance, why dont we stop finding any excuse to hound people for practising their chosen faith?

You guys are stupid. Sikhs who have taken amrit wear a kirpan, so very few. A small kirpan is worn under the clothes, and most of them are welded shut and only seen as symbols. The original point of them was to be able to protect those who needed protection and were defenseless; back in Guru Gobind Singh Ji's times, Sikhs were being brutally killed off by the Mughals who wanted them to convert. They had to create their own way of defending themselves and others (a martial art called gatka), which is why the kirpan has so much significance to it. Now, we aren't in battle, so it's largely seen as a symbol.Not once has the kirpan been used to hurt someon since then.