Turn on thread page Beta

The Burkha Controversy - Now Sikhism watch

  • View Poll Results: Should the Kirpan be banned?
    Yes
    75
    50.00%
    No
    75
    50.00%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    sikhs getting away with something so ridiculous
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheLeader)
    This TSR poll seems to show that most people are in favour of banning the kirpan. I'm sure you wouldn't be best pleased if the local chav was carrying around a sword with him.


    Who cares if they are allowed to wear the hijab. That's like saying Sikhs are allowed to wear Turbans so it doesn't matter if we ban the kirpan.

    Your hypocricy is unblievable. Either support the ban of both or the ban of neither. You are clearly prejudiced against Islam.

    [EDIT] Oh and because you keep bringing it up I would also like to point out that wearing the kirpaan is not considered compulsory by all Sikhs just as the niqab isn't considered compulsory by all Muslims [/EDIT]
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picaa)
    I repeat, what planet are you on?
    Feel free to point me to those Kirpan massacres.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    Should guns be permitted by law afterall if someone wants to use it a law isn't going to stop them. What about drugs and just about any other contraband. If the authorities reprimand those who carry weapons then they will be reluctant to carry that weapon, thus relieving them of the oppotunity to use it when the situation arrises.
    Frankly yes. I think properly licensed, law abiding people should be allowed to possess firearms for their protection. I also think most soft recreational drugs should be legal.

    Also i dont know how many times i have to say it. Someone hellbent on causing harm to another is not going to be phased by some minor weapon carrying offence. The laws on carrying knives and other weapons have become increasingly strict over the past two decades, yet armed crime has not gone down, infact it seems to have increased. Why is that?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    100 abstentions is a pretty big deal tbh, 3 or 4 would be a non-issue. I'm not arguing to ban people from wearing a hat, so if you have BDD which means you're insecure about your head/hair you'd be allowed to cover it before you leave the house. Why should I respect the law if it's a stupid one? If they voted in favour of a ban on hats or skirts by a similar margin would you say the same thing? They're not required by any religion (it's not even compulsory in Sikhism) and depending on what interpretation of Islam you follow, you might think the niqab is compulsory. The fact that some other countries have a dress code doesn't justify the French following suit. In some Arab countries the hijab is banned but you said you'd be opposed to a similar move by the French.
    Which Arab countries strictly ban the hijab? If there are any cases of that then no, I don't agree with it. And 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.

    Why are you bringing up skirts etc? Do they obscure ones identity? Believe it or not the ban on covering your face isn't because the French deem it to be a crime against fashion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Feel free to point me to those Kirpan massacres.
    I refer you to the post I made after that one. Please read the whole thread before posting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Feel free to point me to those Kirpan massacres.
    Massacre? I think you may actually be from another terrestrial world or at least on a drug called Charlie Sheen, But check the edit in my OP for more news stories about kirpan-related attacks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picaa)
    I refer you to the post I made after that one. Please read the whole thread before posting.
    You said "I repeat" as if you've addressed me or a prior point I have made then tell me to read a post you made after that, none of which appear to be relevant. Go away.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    You said "I repeat" as if you've addressed me or a prior point I have made then tell me to read a post you made after that, none of which appear to be relevant. Go away.
    If you think a man being stabbed more than 100 times with a Sikh ceremonial sword isn't relevant, or Sikhs at a Sikh fair trying to murder a man with a Sikh ceremonial sword isn't relevant, you're obviously a custard short of a pudding. You go away. Or wait, you're trying to cover up the fact that you don't like to read before mouthing off. And you're supposed to be a student??
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why a Sikh individual wouldn't be able to keep a small, dull ineffective Kirpaan which posed no more a risk than a pair of safety scissors.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Some people's sense of 'mission' is so pathological it overrides their sense of humanity and right and wrong. A guy whose body was left to rot after being stabbed by a psycho over 100 times is big news for me. Pretty [expletive] shocking to a normal human being. Perhaps I just haven't seen the 'light' yet about how a Sikh can never do wrong...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Frankly yes. I think properly licensed, law abiding people should be allowed to possess firearms for their protection. I also think most soft recreational drugs should be legal.
    OK that's reasonable but if that is your reason for opposing the ban then you should still oppose this right only being privelleged to Sikhs.

    (Original post by Greenlaner)
    Also i dont know how many times i have to say it. Someone hellbent on causing harm to another is not going to be phased by some minor weapon carrying offence. The laws on carrying knives and other weapons have become increasingly strict over the past two decades, yet armed crime has not gone down, infact it seems to have increased. Why is that?
    It's due to incrased poverty and an increase in gang culture. Also yes a ban will not prevent a premiditated attack but it would have prevented the 2 attacks described below. Because they didn't know the situation in which they could use their swords to attack was going to be there. So only by having possession of the swords around the clock were they able to use them when the situation arrised.

    Here and Here
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In order to be allowed to caryy the Kirpan, I think a Sikh must be obliged to disembowel at least one chav a year with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jumpingjesusholycow)
    I don't see why a Sikh individual wouldn't be able to keep a small, dull ineffective Kirpaan which posed no more a risk than a pair of safety scissors.
    That isn't the problem, however the types of swords which are used are effective and can easily kill someone, as you can tell from the news stories posted in the OP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    In order to be allowed to caryy the Kirpan, I think a Sikh must be obliged to disembowel at least one chav a year with it.
    The terms Sikh and Chav are not mutually exclusive - What if you allow a Sikh Chav a Kirpaan :eek:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    The terms Sikh and Chav are not mutually exclusive - What if you allow a Sikh Chav a Kirpaan :eek:
    Well then they've gotta go all 18th century Japanese on their own asses and Hari Kiri it up in they're yard.....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R.B.G)
    Massacre? I think you may actually be from another terrestrial world or at least on a drug called Charlie Sheen, But check the edit in my OP for more news stories about kirpan-related attacks.
    Do you even read the sources you post? One of them was a drug fueled attack on a housemate near their actual house. What makes you think he wouldn't have used any other knife or weapon to carry out such an act? The one regarding the Muslim, the victim describes it as a "samurai". Pretty sure he was describing one of these, especially when you consider this took place at a festival. The other one also describes "ceremonial swords" used at a celebration. I'm not sure we're discussing the type of Kirpans Sikh's carry on a daily basis here.

    And well done, you've managed to find 3 incidents only one of which elicits the use of a common Kirpan. There's years between these incidents and I don't recall any of them receiving significant coverage. Why on earth are you trying to make out as if there's some sort of epidemic here? Please stop trying to invent a problem because it agitates you and the your questionable idea of hypocrisy.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iron Mike)
    That isn't the problem, however the types of swords which are used are effective and can easily kill someone, as you can tell from the news stories posted in the OP.
    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?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thisisnew)
    Do you even read the sources you post? One of them was a drug fueled attack on a housemate near their actual house. What makes you think he wouldn't have used any other knife or weapon to carry out such an act?
    Exactly! Which is why ANY type of knife which can cut through flesh should be banned.

    (Original post by thisisnew)
    And well done, you've managed to find 3 incidents only one of which elicits the use of a common Kirpan. There's years between these incidents and I don't recall any of them receiving significant coverage. Why on earth are you trying to make out as if there's some sort of epidemic here? Please stop trying to invent a problem because it agitates you and the your questionable idea of hypocrisy.
    Most say ceremonial sword because many of their reader's wont know what a kirpaan is. Also I never claimed there was an epidemic - Stop with the strawmans, it's getting pathetic.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,109

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.