Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    indeed.

    ...but that hasn't happened.

    The sikh community would not allow someone with previous knife convictions to carry a kirpan.
    How can the Sikh community stop someone from carrying one?

    It's all well and good saying that only baptised Sikhs can carry one and they've got to prove they'll be responsible for it. But does it have any legal backing? Do you get a legally recognised licence for carrying one when you have been baptised? And if so, wouldn't it be a bit unfair if that licence was only available to Sikhs? As far as I can see, there's nothing stopping someone carrying one as long as they look the part. There's no guarantee they actually follow the Sikh ideals of peace.

    (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.
    That law still needs clarification. How do you know what counts as a religion or a national costume? If I made up my own religion that included carrying a knife, would I be allowed to carry one? I doubt it.

    Who decides what counts as national dress? Why is a kilt any more national dress than dressing like a chav? Sounds like a stupid question, but it's hard to come up with an unambiguous answer.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Psyk)
    How can the Sikh community stop someone from carrying one?

    It's all well and good saying that only baptised Sikhs can carry one and they've got to prove they'll be responsible for it. But does it have any legal backing? Do you get a legally recognised licence for carrying one when you have been baptised? And if so, wouldn't it be a bit unfair if that licence was only available to Sikhs? As far as I can see, there's nothing stopping someone carrying one as long as they look the part. There's no guarantee they actually follow the Sikh ideals of peace.


    That law still needs clarification. How do you know what counts as a religion or a national costume? If I made up my own religion that included carrying a knife, would I be allowed to carry one? I doubt it.

    Who decides what counts as national dress? Why is a kilt any more national dress than dressing like a chav? Sounds like a stupid question, but it's hard to come up with an unambiguous answer.
    Its for the courts to decide. Remember that in law the courts do not have to take a litteral meaning.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Its for the courts to decide. Remember that in law the courts do not have to take a litteral meaning.
    Well that seems unfair to me. Someone might get away with having a knife with a kilt because kilts are older than fake Burberry. Why does something being older make it more legitimate? I don't know the reasons why someone might wear a knife with a kilt, but I bet the origins of it are similar to the reasons chavs carry knives (i.e. intimidation).
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Well that seems unfair to me. Someone might get away with having a knife with a kilt because kilts are older than fake Burberry. Why does something being older make it more legitimate? I don't know the reasons why someone might wear a knife with a kilt, but I bet the origins of it are similar to the reasons chavs carry knives (i.e. intimidation).
    The difference is when its being used for something illegal. Where it can be shown that it is worn for a lawfull reason its legal. Its only when you cant show a legal reason its illegal.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    The difference is when its being used for something illegal. Where it can be shown that it is worn for a lawfull reason its legal. Its only when you cant show a legal reason its illegal.
    Yes I realised that legal things are legal and illegal things are illegal. I'm saying that the law is arbitrary and ill-defined. So it's legal to wear it if it's part of a national costume. So what is a national costume, and why are those clothes counted and not others? Laws should be defined the way they are for a reason, and I don't see a reason for certain types of clothing having a special status.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In regards to Sikh's being allowed to carry Kirpan's, yes it should be allowed.

    In regards to the more general question of should religious people be subject to different laws, I think it should be dealt on a case by case basis.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Psyk)
    Yes I realised that legal things are legal and illegal things are illegal. I'm saying that the law is arbitrary and ill-defined. So it's legal to wear it if it's part of a national costume. So what is a national costume, and why are those clothes counted and not others? Laws should be defined the way they are for a reason, and I don't see a reason for certain types of clothing having a special status.
    Everything is arbitary. You usually just have to draw the line in the best place. Either we have knives everywhere or we ban knives everywhere if we don't want to be arbitary. Of course then what if you need them for work? What if your work involved acting for tourists wearing a knife and a national costume?

    The point I was trying to make is that if you can show that you are wearing it for legal purposes (I don't mean purposes legal in that Act, I mean for things like work or anything other than intimidation, stabbing etc.) Then there is no problem. That is all the law really requires, that you can show you are not carrying it for anything other than a legal reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Religion and other personal beliefs should not be given extra priveleges. We live in a secular society, and as such, customs that conflict with our secular way of life should be forbidden. I'm all up for improving injustices in the legal system, but imposing unfair laws just because minority groups lobby for it is ridiculous.

    Having different laws for different demographics is silly. How do you regulate it? How do you tell who is a member of a certain religion?

    Don't bring up irrelevant points. Lots of people gave their lives for the wars. Also doesn't make sense because the descendants of these Sikhs played no part in the war. Why should we unfairly reward the whole demographic for the actions of select members who are dead by now?

    The points you put forward make little sense. How do Sikhs have any more/less rights than other people in this country? You make them sound like a really oppressed group of people. Forbidding them to have rights that the rest of us don't have is not taking away rights. We'd have to allow everyone to carry out knifes for ceremonial purposes by that logic, because we're removing their rights. Also, one of your posts said that Sikhs do not have any exclusive rights. Well, why should they have exclusive rights?

    Just no.
    Is this a serious post or are you taking the piss?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Should religious people be subject to different laws than the rest of us?

    Absolutley ******* not!
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Actually, if these ceremonial knives had to be blunted, and were accessible to anyone, then I'd have no problem.
    They kind of are avalible to anyone, so long as you can show you have reason other than an illegal one to be carrying them. As long as you have a proper reason (IE not 'no make me look hard, innit') then your legaly allowed to carry them. Religious reasons is just on of the reasons you could have.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The law is only stating that they are allowed to carry them, not go around stabbing people, so I don't understand you problem here? It's not as though there's a known problem with Sikh's/Or non-Sikh's pretending to be Sikh's walking around and stabbing people with Kirpan's.

    Sometimes common-sense applys you know, not everything has to be as clearly defined as you so wish.

    What exactly is your problem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    How can the Sikh community stop someone from carrying one?

    It's all well and good saying that only baptised Sikhs can carry one and they've got to prove they'll be responsible for it. But does it have any legal backing? Do you get a legally recognised licence for carrying one when you have been baptised? And if so, wouldn't it be a bit unfair if that licence was only available to Sikhs? As far as I can see, there's nothing stopping someone carrying one as long as they look the part. There's no guarantee they actually follow the Sikh ideals of peace.
    What are you on about!?

    There is no 'license'! How is it unfair to anyone, if a person has shown they are responsible to carry a symbolic instrument and are therefore committing themselves to respecting the ideals, morals and principles of their established religion? There is no guarantee that you are going to be safe full stop, from a sikh, or from a christian, or from an atheist, or from your neighbours cat. Theres no guarantee that a sikh will not attack you. Equally well there is no guarantee a tree will collapse onto the road whilst you're driving and crush you.


    Actually you know what, lets just ban knives altogether! Lets make sure that everyones always safe at all times. how can anyone be trusted to ever have a knife? how can anyone be trusted with scissors? how can you justify letting someone use a sharpened pencil? How can you justify blah blah f.cking blah?

    Sikhs have principles, its a very simple thing to understand, even if you aren't religious yourself. carrying the kirpan is a sign of those principles, the principles of defending the vulnerable.


    some people are in a complete bubble..

    :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by desi_jatt)
    The law is only stating that they are allowed to carry them, not go around stabbing people, so I don't understand you problem here? It's not as though there's a known problem with Sikh's/Or non-Sikh's pretending to be Sikh's walking around and stabbing people with Kirpan's.

    Sometimes common-sense applys you know, not everything has to be as clearly defined as you so wish.

    What exactly is your problem?
    There's not a known problem with children hijacking planes, yet they're not allowed to carry sharp objects or liquids in more than 50ml bottles.

    I guess it's because kids can't be trusted with dangerous items.
    And people other than the kid could then have access to a dangerous item.


    Spot the analogy with kids taking daggers to school.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    They kind of are avalible to anyone, so long as you can show you have reason other than an illegal one to be carrying them. As long as you have a proper reason (IE not 'no make me look hard, innit') then your legaly allowed to carry them. Religious reasons is just on of the reasons you could have.
    Well, if these ceremonial knives were actually blunted, there couldn't possibly be any illegal reason to be carrying one, because they've been designed in such a way that they could not be specifically used to cause serious harm. An equivalent comparison would be a replica gun.


    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    What are you on about!?

    There is no 'license'! How is it unfair to anyone, if a person has shown they are responsible to carry a symbolic instrument and are therefore committing themselves to respecting the ideals, morals and principles of their established religion? There is no guarantee that you are going to be safe full stop, from a sikh, or from a christian, or from an atheist, or from your neighbours cat. Theres no guarantee that a sikh will not attack you. Equally well there is no guarantee a tree will collapse onto the road whilst you're driving and crush you.
    Incorrect. Just because someone carries around a kirpan does not mean we can guarantee that they follow the ideals of Sikhism. I could EASILY masquerade as Sikh. Furthermore, Sikhs as a group (I think it's silly to evaluate people as part of a demographic, but I'll go along with what you're saying for now) have NOT proven themselves to be non-violent. Look up the film "Beshti". The reception to that from the Sikh community was pretty darn violent. I'm not comfortable for a community with such a high number of violent members to be granted freedom to carry around weaponry. Furthermore, your idea that 100% safety cannot be guaranteed does not mean that security measures should be abandoned. What a silly concept.

    Actually you know what, lets just ban knives altogether! Lets make sure that everyones always safe at all times. how can anyone be trusted to ever have a knife? how can anyone be trusted with scissors? how can you justify letting someone use a sharpened pencil? How can you justify blah blah f.cking blah?
    Because knives have a far higher capacity for damage obviously. Most objects could be used to cause harm if you used them in a certain way, but knives can cause a lot more damage.

    Sikhs have principles, its a very simple thing to understand, even if you aren't religious yourself. carrying the kirpan is a sign of those principles, the principles of defending the vulnerable.

    some people are in a complete bubble..

    :rolleyes:
    Honestly, you go around demanding respect for Sikhs and various religious people, and in doing so completely disrespect the secular way of life we lead here. Guess what, us secularists have "principles" too. Why should our principles be cast aside?!

    My verdict is that if Sikhs want the freedom to carry the kirpan, this can only be acquired through permitting anyone to carry around ceremonial knives, and all ceremonial knives would have to follow certain regulations (main one being that they are very blunt).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    No, they shouldn't be subject to different laws.

    Isn't it strange how Sikhs are permitted to carry knives in schools, but if I recall that one girl wasn't allowed to wear a religious bracelet as it conflicted with jewellery rules?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    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.
    Sure, sure and the catholic church would never allow someone who might have intentions of molesting young boys into any position of power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doyle&TheFourFathers)
    There is no 'license'! How is it unfair to anyone, if a person has shown they are responsible to carry a symbolic instrument and are therefore committing themselves to respecting the ideals, morals and principles of their established religion?
    But the point is, there's no way to be sure that they have shown they have committed themselves to those ideals. They are legally allowed to carry a knife regardless of whether they've been baptised. Now if you got some kind of legally approved licence from being baptised, there wouldn't be a problem.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Then there is no problem. That is all the law really requires, that you can show you are not carrying it for anything other than a legal reason.
    I was under the impression that the law should require you to be proven guilty, not for you to prove your innocence. :confused:
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by n00)
    I was under the impression that the law should require you to be proven guilty, not for you to prove your innocence. :confused:
    You do have a good point. My interpritation is that the prosecution would have to prove you were not wearing it for a good reason (so ruling out intimidation etc.) For a sucessfull prosecution.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    You do have a good point. My interpritation is that the prosecution would have to prove you were not wearing it for a good reason (so ruling out intimidation etc.) For a sucessfull prosecution.
    Which just seems like a workaround to me to allow for the assumption of guilt. Either carrying a knife is illegal, which is clearly ridiculous, or carrying a knife with the intent to use it as a weapon is illegal.

    Which made me wonder, do juries still have the right to nullify in this country?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.