I have a very knowledgable Sikh friend who has taught me much about Sikhism.

Based on what he has told me, I don't have a problem with a Sikh child wearing the kirpan. I do have issues with it being removed against said Sikh's will and used against him.

All Sikhs who are baptised must wear the kirpan. It goes beyond symbolism and identity of the Sikh. All those undergoing baptism have strict requirements including using the kirpan (as a weapon) only when in need. Before the British invaded India, all Sikhs had huge-ass kirpans - the size of proper swords. Because the Sikhs were so dangerous, especially in battle, they outlawed all of the Sikh warriors, leaving alone those who basically could be controlled. Sikhs then wore smaller kirpans. Despite this, all British captains leading their armies ensured that their Sikh infantry were baptised as Sikhs. They encouraged non-baptised Sikhs to become baptised. These British soldiers would even grow their beards and hair to look like their Sikh soldiers.

Such was the relationship between the British and the Sikhs, they were allowed to wear their kirpans here in the UK. Sikhs wearing turbans are also allowed to avoid helmets when riding motorbikes and bicycles (though I don't know whether this is because of the same reasons).

The link by HK is written by someone who, despite the name Singh and the appearance, is a non-practising Sikh. Doesn't that invalidate his opinion?

In essence, if Christ told his followers to wear crosses, you can sure it would be enshrined and protected in law.

Ok,

1) Remember the story of the BA stewardess who was forced to remove a crucifix while on duty? It patently isn't the case that your right to religious expression overrides your obligations within the law and/or any contract you may sign. If a christian can be forced by her employer to remove a religious symbol, there's no moral imperative for any other religion to be allowed to wear theirs.

2) It's a fairly spurious comparison. A crucifix is not a weapon, whereas a kirpan patently is, or is at least meant to represent one. If the kirpan can be made so it is functionally impossible to use it as a weapon then it is without the law and can be worn anywhere. if it could be made so it is permanently attached to a belt for example then it would (IMO) be without the law (although IANAL). If a kirpan can be wielded as a weapon (even if a fairly primitive one) then it still counts as a weapon and is within the law on possession of weapons.

Religion should not allow you to ignore the law of the land - the law is a representation of the society that makes it and if you wish to live in that society you should conform to the laws as they exist. I for one would genuinely like to see this decided in a court, because this kind of thing will keep coming up - it's basically the same issue as muslim women being allowed to wear the nijab in places where security is an issue - until we get a decision about it one way or another.

Jon

++;

But the law of the land was altered to allow Sikhs to live within the UK and practise their religion when they migrated in the 60s. Remember, back then the UK opened up to Asians to help with the workforce. They deliberately made allowances so they could stay here.

I have never, ever met a Sikh who I would not trust with a kirpan. I can't think of any other group in society I would trust more with a knife of any size.

Considering that as a nation, the sikhs renounced Hitler in the 40's....even knowing that he could help them get the British out of India....and actively helped the British beat the 3rd Reich, I have no problem with the kirpan.

I've said it many times before, I consider that when it comes to a sense of justice, sikhs are more British than the British.

That's not a valid reason for doing it again.

Jon

Commendable, but irrelevant. Sikhs are either subject to the relevant law, or they are not. If they are not, there has to be enough justification. "because we think we have to' is not enough justification, because all sorts of people could use that excuse for all sorts of things.


Most of the sikhs who performed the admirable acts you state are dead by now. I'm sure if you ask the manager of the Birmingham theatre Sikhs nearly rioted outside because they objected to the content of a play that was being staged they might have a different opinion of the modern generation. I have no particular prejudice against Sikhs, I'm merely illustrating that making law on the basis of a generalisation is very bad form.


Sadly, justice and the required objectivity of the law are two different things, but both are required.

???
Doing what again?
The law was changed to allow Sikhs to live in the UK. The right of all Sikhs to wear the kirpan is protected by law.

Do bear in mind not all Sikhs wear the kirpan - only those who are baptised. Even then, very few will be children. More importantly, all those undergoing baptism have to understand the requirements and rules etc. None of the kids are likely to be under ten. Most are probably around 16-18 when they have made their minds up and decided to be baptised.

Personally this sounds a bit like Gurkha problem that was recently highlighted. Gurkhas helped the British on the basis of conditions including pension and able to live in Britain. They were then screwed over.

Ok, this makes sense to me. However, my problem isn't with Sikhs, it's with weapons in schools.

Doesn't matter who's carrying one, once they are there, they become a serious risk. Just because you can "trust" Sikhs, doesn't mean they could prevent somebody stealing their weapon and using it.

AFAIK, Christ didn't ask his followers to wear the crucifix as part of being a Christian. If he had, it would have been a different matter entirely. The guru of the sikhs told them to wear the kirpan as part of baptism - essentially they're not true sikhs if they don't. This is what I've been told.

Correct.

In fact he taught pretty much the opposite


From what I know this also correct. Given that the dagger is usually shrunk to a couple of inches or less, I really don't see the problem. After all, there are plenty of other sharp objects and lethal weapons in schools.