Turn on thread page Beta

Should religious people be subject to different laws to the rest of us? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Indeed there are, and Sikhism is one of those religions.
    Woops. :o:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I don't know what the law is in England, but I expect it is similar to Scotland: articles with a blade or point can be carried for religious reasons, as an integral part of a national costume or for work purposes. It does not matter who is carrying the knife, but rather what they are carrying it for. If someone has a good reason for carrying a knife, then the law allows them to. It simply prohibits people who do not have such a reason from doing so.

    This exemption also allows kilt-wearers to carry a dagger in their sock. Not just full-blown Scotsmen either.

    Precisely. Thankfully racists are a minority in this country.
    Surely if you take this line then the burden of proof should be on the police to show that the knife is being carried with the intent to use it as a weapon.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    link me to a recent source where a sikh in the UK has stabbed/maimed/killed someone with their kirpan.

    also link me to another source that shows a high proportion of sikhs within gangs that actively threaten their community.

    Until you provide any of that information, its safe to say that your arguement is utterly discredited
    Many 'chavs' who carry knives will have no criminal record for using them. I see no reason as to why they should not be allowed to carry them, after all, they haven't used them illegally. Their peers may have, but they certainly have not. Guilt by association is not something which I would particularly advocate. They're law-abiding citizens and carrying a knife may be a central part of their belief system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Many chavs who carry knives will have no criminal record for using them. I see no reason as to why they should not be allowed to carry them, after all, they haven't used them illegally. Their peers may have, but they certainly have not.
    they're a tool for intimidation, for power control.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    they're a tool for intimidation, for power control.
    In some cases, yes. In some, no. And of course, that is only your perception. Unless they have been successfully prosecuted for threatening whilst using their knife, there is no basis for what you have said.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    link me to a recent source where a sikh in the UK has stabbed/maimed/killed someone with their kirpan.

    also link me to another source that shows a high proportion of sikhs within gangs that actively threaten their community.

    Until you provide any of that information, its safe to say that your arguement is utterly discredited
    I never said they had.

    I never said anything about the proportion of Sikhs in gangs or the proportion of gang members who are Sikhs.

    But Sikhs are only human. Some of them are dicks, there's nothing special about being Sikh that means they're all fantastic chaps. When did I say a large proportion go round threatening their community? I haven't got this picture of Sikhs running down the street waving swords around. But if a Sikh was to get in a fight, and started to lose, would he not be tempted to draw his knife out? That's the reason none of us are allowed to carry them. In case we escalate confrontations, and risk having them used against us.

    Point me to a news source that describes someone using liquids of more than 50ml to blow up a plane departing from the UK. If not, I guess we shouldn't have any rules in place to counter such an event until a tragedy occurs. And while we're at it we should let nuns board planes without security checks and with hand grenades - unless you can point me to a news story in which a nun has hijacked a plane?

    You can't wait until someone dies before you do something to protect people. Allowing teenage boys, who tend to be at their most aggressive stage in their life, to carry knives into schools, is absurd.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hooovan*)
    "they" also make a huge contribution towards society, working their backsides off. the law needs to accommodate people, not everyone is the same. different people have different cultures, beliefs and requirements. one law for all does not work in a diverse multicultural society such as britain.
    Indeed they do, however this doesn't mean certain laws should be bent for them
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with weapons is that they can be used by individuals other than those that brought them to the situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    In some cases, yes. In some, no. And of course, that is only your perception. Unless they have been successfully prosecuted for threatening whilst using their knife, there is no basis for what you have said.
    so if someones not prosecuted, then no crime was committed? :confused:

    i'm not sure what you're getting at, i mean i think you're trying to justify knife carrying but its not making a great deal of sense!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    so if someones not prosecuted, then no crime was committed? :confused:

    i'm not sure what you're getting at, i mean i think you're trying to justify knife carrying but its not making a great deal of sense!
    The burden of proof should be on the state to show intent to use the knife as a weapon. If they have previous convictions for using a knife as as weapon it could be assumed this was their purpose for carrying the knife.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    so if someones not prosecuted, then no crime was committed? :confused:

    i'm not sure what you're getting at, i mean i think you're trying to justify knife carrying but its not making a great deal of sense!
    You cannot simply claim that someone is guilty of intimidating whilst using their knife. You must have some sort of evidence which you are using to back up this claim, and I don't think you can widely generalise on this point by highlighting the actions of others. It must be person-specific evidence. If someone has no criminal conviction for using a knife illegally, then they are innocent. They have as much right to carry a knife as anybody else does who is citing personal beliefs as a reason to carry that knife. You cannot simply claim that they are threatening others, unless there is evidence to suggest this is the case.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hooovan*)
    sikhs gave their lives for "your country" in both world wars in HUGE numbers.

    but yeah, lets just disregard that shall we. use them when it suits us then take away whatever little rights they are asking for, even though it hasnt inconvenienced us in any way whatsoever. fool.
    Yes, let's disregard that. No one deserves special treatment because their ancestors were heroes. In the same way that the descendants of Nazis do not deserve to be abused.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Regardless of whether the Kirpan has ever been used in a confrontation by a Sikh with anyone isn't really the point in this argument for me. Why, in secular Britain, are you allowed special dispensation to carry a weapon (ceremonial or not) purely because of a deeply held belief? Beliefs /religion are/is massively over protected and are/is an anachronism. This isn't a Sikh country. You want to carry your Kirpan and are that bothered about it then this isn't the country for you. You want to wear a turban instead of a helmet then don't join the police. Why do people always want to join / be part of something and then change it for themselves and cause massive disruption when doing so? If you're asked no to wear a turban don't claim race / religious discrimination and probably do worse for race relations than you would do by fighting it. A pointless fight for pointless beliefs. The sooner that religion is removed from its pedestal the sooner will social progress will be made. Fair enough if you want to enjoy your religion in peace but don't get stroppy when you're told the laws of this country are against you wearing a weapon, whatever its purpose, even if you are a deeply religious person.

    And lastly and just as importantly for me:
    Sir Mota was raised in Nairobi, Kenya, before coming to England in 1954 in order complete his studies in law.
    So, 56 years later...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I never said they had.

    I never said anything about the proportion of Sikhs in gangs or the proportion of gang members who are Sikhs.
    Well good, so your theory about sikhs being in gangs is irrelevant if you didnt say anything about it!

    But Sikhs are only human. Some of them are dicks, there's nothing special about being Sikh that means they're all fantastic chaps.
    Being a '****' as you so eloquently put it is not the same as being a murderer.

    When did I say a large proportion go round threatening their community? I haven't got this picture of Sikhs running down the street waving swords around.
    so what evidence have you got to suggest that sikhs are a danger to their society?

    But if a Sikh was to get in a fight, and started to lose, would he not be tempted to draw his knife out?
    To make a statement like that sort of shows the lack of understanding you have for the whole idea of wearing a kirpan in the first place.

    A sikh has to first of all be baptized before they can carry the kirpan. This means they accept certain responsibilties for carrying the kirpan; it is not taken lightly. To compare a sikh carrying a kirpan and a 'chav' carrying a flick-knife would be utterly disgusting (although yes, i am aware, you haven't said that anywhere in your post).

    The whole point of a kirpan is that it is a symbol and statement of non-violence. 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. Not that there are enough examples in the UK where a kirpan has even been used in a defensive or offensive manner..

    That's the reason none of us are allowed to carry them. In case we escalate confrontations, and risk having them used against us.
    Some schools in California in *shock* America, allow the wearing of the kirpan. The knife however is blunted and sheathed, so it poses no physical threat yet still holds its symbolic value. I personally think thats the most sensible option when it comes to kirpans in schools, and i'd be surprised if you disagree with me on that.

    If a kirpan was blunted and permanently sheathed, it would be no more dangerous than say, a pencil.

    Point me to a news source that describes someone using liquids of more than 50ml to blow up a plane departing from the UK. If not, I guess we shouldn't have any rules in place to counter such an event until a tragedy occurs. And while we're at it we should let nuns board planes without security checks and with hand grenades - unless you can point me to a news story in which a nun has hijacked a plane?

    You can't wait until someone dies before you do something to protect people. Allowing teenage boys, who tend to be at their most aggressive stage in their life, to carry knives into schools, is absurd.

    So where do you draw the line on counter measures? I'm not sure what you're getting at with the nun business!

    The fact is, if someone is determined enough to blow up a plane, chances are they will regardless of counter measures. I'm not saying 'get rid of any searches at airports' because thats clearly moronic, i'm saying you have to draw the line at certain points.

    But to get back to the topic - to really invade peoples private freedom by 'banning' the kirpan is hugely undermining and in many ways, hypocrtical.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    The burden of proof should be on the state to show intent to use the knife as a weapon. If they have previous convictions for using a knife as as weapon it could be assumed this was their purpose for carrying the knife.
    indeed.

    ...but that hasn't happened.

    The sikh community would not allow someone with previous knife convictions to carry a kirpan.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    You cannot simply claim that someone is guilty of intimidating whilst using their knife. You must have some sort of evidence which you are using to back up this claim, and I don't think you can widely generalise on this point by highlighting the actions of others. It must be person-specific evidence. If someone has no criminal conviction for using a knife illegally, then they are innocent. They have as much right to carry a knife as anybody else does who is citing personal beliefs as a reason to carry that knife. You cannot simply claim that they are threatening others, unless there is evidence to suggest this is the case.
    Exactly, thats my whole point! i agree with what you're saying
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    Exactly, thats my whole point! i agree with what you're saying
    Good, so no need for the presumption of innocence for sikhs but the presumption of guilt for everyone else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There should be no laws against weapons. I have a right to carry around whatever I want
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I only just found out that Sikh's who carry the Kirpan (a dagger) are immune from knife laws.

    Certain schools in their independence try to ban them regardless. But apparently that's not on:

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

    The article also mentions the case when a Sikh won a discrimination case, after not being allowed to be a Riot policeman, because he couldn't get the helmet on over his turban and refused to take the turban off.

    IMO Sikhs should not be above knife carrying laws. Not every Sikh is a nice person, and I think that in a confrontation, a Sikh could well decide to show his dagger, and so escalate the situation. Some Sikhs are members of gangs, and some Sikhs would use the dagger to intimidate This is the reason the rest of us are not allowed knives. I think that in a secular society, it is unacceptable for such an important law to be dependent on your religion.

    What's more I find it kind of scary that a judge thinks that schools should be made to allow Sikhs to carry knives. Hmm, knives in schools. What could possibly go wrong when teenage boys are allowed to carry knives in an environment of testosterone and hormone induced aggression?

    Discuss.
    I looked this up under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sec. 139) and Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (section 3 and 4), it is legal for anyone to carry a blade over 3 inches for certain reasons. These include for use at work, for educational purposes, for religious reasons, or as part of any national costume. According to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended by the Offensive Weapons Act 1996. It is also allowed if they can 'rove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon with him on the premises in question.' It isn't just one religion that are being favored here.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    I looked this up under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (sec. 139) and Offensive Weapons Act 1996 (section 3 and 4), it is legal for anyone to carry a blade over 3 inches for certain reasons. These include for use at work, for educational purposes, for religious reasons, or as part of any national costume. According to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 as amended by the Offensive Weapons Act 1996. It is also allowed if they can 'rove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon with him on the premises in question.' It isn't just one religion that are being favored here.
    OK fair enough. But I think that schools should have the right to forbid them without facing a discrimination lawsuit.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.