Word of the Day: Kirpan
(Discussion on this post has been moved to here)
The kirpan is one of five items of faith which are worn at all times by orthodox Sikhs. We’d call it a ceremonial dagger. It’s worn (or carried) as a symbol and the Sikh religion prohibits its use in anger or malice.
Today’s Rupertian reports that the Education and Training Committee of the Victorian Parliament has recommended…
… that schools should work with the Sikh community to allow male students to carry a kirpan - a small, curved ornamental steel dagger carried by all initiated Sikh men.
The Committee also recommends that female Muslim students should be allowed to wear the hijab at school.
Under Victoria’s Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, it’s unlikely that the committee could have recommended otherwise - one of the rights protected by the Charter is “freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief”. Since, for some Sikhs, carrying the kirpan is integral to the practice of their religion, a blanket ban on kirpans in schools would be a denial of this freedom.
Brian Burgess, head of the Victorian Association of State Secondary School Principals reckons the committee got it wrong on this issue (so do a couple of bloggers, which is how I picked it up) and it may be that there are one or two school principals, and school councils out there who share Burgess’ fears of what a kirpan armed Sikh student might do in response to one playground taunt too many, or what might happen if the kirpan falls into the hands of another student.
Expect a pointless controversy over this committee recommendation; that’s what happened in Canada when a Sikh student accidentally dropped his kirpan in the playground, in 2001. The result was a dispute that dragged out until March 2006, when Canada’s Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that:
a total ban of the kirpan in schools violates the Charter of Rights because it infringes on the Charter’s guarantees of religious freedom. But it does allow school boards to impose some restrictions on the carrying of kirpans to ensure public safety. (CBC News, March 2, 2006)
In fact, such a solution had been proposed, adopted, and then withdrawn earlier in the Canadian case:
Quebec Superior Court Justice Danielle Grenier rules that because the kirpan is an integral part of his religious beliefs, Gurbaj can wear a real one to school as long as he follows several conditions. The kirpan must be sheathed in a wooden case, wrapped in heavy fabric and worn under his clothes. The belt holding the kirpan must also be sewn into his clothing. The judge calls these conditions a reasonable accommodation of Gurbaj’s religious freedoms and the need for public safety. The school board, backed by Quebec PQ government at the time, appeals. (as above)
You’d think that with such stringent safety precautions, and the Supreme Court ruling that would be the end of the matter. Not for some of Canada’s bureaucrats:
Quebec’s biggest school board is successfully accommodating the religious and cultural differences of its diverse student population — unless a student wants to wear a ceremonial dagger or a face-covering niqab, the head of the board told the Bouchard-Taylor commission Tuesday.
These are simply not allowed, the chair of the Commission Scolaire de Montréal, Diane de Courcy, told the Quebec commission on reasonable accommodation of ethnic and religious minorities, which returned to Montreal Monday for its final hearings. ((CBC News, November 27, 2007)
It would be pleasant to think that we could avoid imitating the Canadians on this issue and following them down the same weary road to obstinate idiocy; but I’m nowhere near that much of an optimist.
Yeah!And are the Sikhs unable to find a creative way that doesn’t interfere with tradition,like a bit of fashion experiment that adds a lock to the opening of the Kirpan and dangle a key.Or make them prefects or monitors,because they are very good at being responsible,and a tradition that isn’t the flick knife might still be useful in emergencies if we keep tracking down the All Northern and Southern American path.Add some fluoride as well so IQ. diminishes and everyone is passively accepting their lot in life!?
Comment by philiptravers — December 6, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
The problem of interpreting secularism as the freedom to express one’s religious beliefs rather than the containment of religious beliefs leads to such bizarre pronouncements as the right to wear kirpans. The wearing of kirpans in our Western context has to be seen as cultish, and should be discouraged.
Comment by silkworm — December 6, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
Methinks too much fluoride for you Phil but in light of your scepticism, I’m in broad agreement. If these recommendations apply to public schools in Victoria as I believe they do then I’m with the School Principals Assoc. If Rudd gets the chance or gives Julia her head then a French style declaration of secular state principles should be brought in. No kirpans, no hijabs no religious symbolism full stop.
Comment by pablo — December 6, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Silkworm, the urge to control what other people wear in our Western context has to be seen as backward, and should be discouraged.
Why should anybody feel compelled to dictate what other people can wear, or restrict them from wearing? And why is it so often discussions about the “spiritual” and the “sacred” that ends up obsessing about people’s clothing, or lack thereof?
Comment by Mercurius — December 6, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
Why exactly is that, pablo, in defense of some abstract principle? What, in everyday human terms, does it achieve to prevent people from wearing a kirpan or hijab?
Comment by Klaus K — December 6, 2007 @ 4:31 pm
In other words, if you believe in liberte, egalite, fraternite, on what basis can you argue for the restriction of other people’s preferred garb?
Individualism collides with the Enlightenment!
Comment by Mercurius — December 6, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Yeah, Mercurius, but surely the real issue is this: if there is a general prohibition on something in society, do you get a special exemption from the rule on account of religion?
If so, would any religion do? Jehovah’s witnesses? Scientologists? Rajneesh cultists?
The Danes were recently grappling with this.
“On October 24, 2006, the Eastern High Court of Denmark upheld the earlier ruling of the Copenhagen City Court by which wearing of Kirpan by a Sikh was declared illegal. By this Denmark has become the first country in the World to pass such a ruling. …
Danish Weapons Law allows carrying of knives in public places if it is for fishing, hunting, sports or any other purpose recognized as valid. The High Court did not find religion as being a valid reason for carrying kirpan.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan
Comment by Paulus — December 6, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
There is a clear distinction between wearing a head scarf (or a necklace with a cross on it) and carrying a dagger.
The real question is: would we allow the practice without the religious justification?
Do we allow kids to carry knives at school? Of course not, a no matter what your religion says it is unsafe for children to carry knives. It doesn’t magically become unsafe because your sky fairy demands it.
Do we allow kids to carry dope at school? Of course not. But if you allow orthodox Sikhs to carry their Kirpans, on what grounds do you oppose Rastafarian children from walking around with weed?
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
Sorry for parroting your question Paulus. I didn’t see your comment there before I made mine.
You make the excellent point that these kind of rulings force the state to decide what a ‘real’ religion is. And in doing so they can get themselves in a lot of trouble.
Obviously the big three are ‘real’ religions and Hinduism and Sikhism also count. But why, besides their number of followers, are they more worthy of legal exceptions than, as you point out, the scientologists or Rajneesh cultists?
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
If the knife is sheathed and bound in agreed upon ways, why not?
Let the various groups put forward their proposals, and then they can be discussed. When there is a constituency asking for weed to be carried by children, then address the request on it’s merits.
Some secularists have a funny way of trying to sway the religious to their way of thinking. Or perhaps that is less important than the loud denunciation and specular banishment of religious symbols?
Comment by Klaus K — December 6, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Mercurius, I am not talking about prohibition of religious garb in society generally (your strawman argument), but in schools only. For a start, hijabs should be proscribed in public schools.
I would like to see hijabs banned in Islamic schools as well, but I don’t see that as practical in a political sense, as there would be too much resistance from the principals of Islamic schools.
I also fear that the principals of Christian and Jewish schools would side with the principals of Islamic schools in this debate as they would see that, for the sake of consistency in the secular argument, i.e., for social fairness, the containment of religious expression would apply to their schools as well.
It is in the interests of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic schools to defend each other against their common enemy of secularism.
Comment by silkworm — December 6, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
Paulus asks: if there is a general prohibition on something in society, do you get a special exemption from the rule on account of religion?
Well, often people do get a special exemption. I’ve travelled in Muslim countries where an infidel like me gets a special exemption on account of religion to eat pork, drink alcohol, dance to music &c. I don’t see what we have to fear from a boy wearing a ceremonial dagger (a.k.a. a trinket).
And it also works in our society for general obligations. For example, we have compulsory voting on a Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. Anybody whose religious beliefs are contrary to voting on that day are permitted to vote early by legislation.
This may annoy your average militant secularist, but it’s commonly known as “respecting difference”.
Comment by Mercurius — December 6, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I would think that respecting difference is the basic condition of promoting secularism effectively. That is the only way that secularism can position itself as a mediator between religious positions, rather than an enemy to all. It is also the best way to lure students from religious backgrounds into secular education.
Comment by Klaus K — December 6, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Some religions [plural] regard women as ‘unclean’ and inferior.
In the name of ‘religious’ freedom do we allow that to become an integral part of our society?
Is regarding women as ‘lesser’ OK, just because a religion says so?
For example if a person who, because of religious beliefs, considers a woman to be unclean and inferior and yet that person is employed in, lets say, a government mediation and counselling job that inevitably involves men and women, do those beliefs render such a person less competent to deal with disputes between an inferior and superior person than one who does not believe such?
Justice for whom?
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
“In the name of ‘religious’ freedom do we allow that to become an integral part of our society?”
See, this is an example of the exaggerated rhetoric that emerges every time related issues are discussed, and in this case is simply beside the point. Nobody is proposing that the kirpan become mandatory, or even that it be promoted, only that some people be permitted to carry them.
Comment by Klaus K — December 6, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
“But if you allow orthodox Sikhs to carry their Kirpans, on what grounds do you oppose Rastafarian children from walking around with weed?”
Ummm the fact rastafanarians don’t require that children walk around with weed?
I’m with Klaus on the exaggerated rhetoric and that this kind of rhetoric is a lack of good faith in the way these things can be resolved rationally,fairly and publicly.
Comment by anthony — December 6, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Surely the problem would be best solved by the application of blogger’s libertarianism.
If every child were allowed to conceal knives around their person, an equal market in threat would ensure peace, and they’d be able to organise together to stab to death any unbalanced child who tried to go on a kirpan slicing spree.
In fact, a free society really should demand that school students carry weapons.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
And take an oath to oppose Fractional Reserve Banking. Voluntarily of course.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
#15 Klaus K
“and in this case is simply beside the point.”
Maybe in the case of a knife.
But my point, which you have ignored, is that there are very real cases where the “freedom” of some, because of their religion, directly results in a lessening of the freedoms of others.
It may be a cute and amusing example to talk about ceremonial knives and Canadian laws and so on but here in Australia today persons are employed by government bodies to mediate in judicial cases involving men and women and those mediators have a religious belief that women are unclean and inferior.
Sorry, ignoring a comparatively trivial issue which is part of a much deeper problem is not exxaggerated rhetoric, it’s addressing the heart of the problem.
Does one persons ‘freedom’ detract from those of others?
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
It’s not exaggerated rhetoric; it’s the logical conclusion of giving religious exemptions.
Do we allow Christian literalists to remove their children from biology because evolution contradicts their beliefs? If so do the children fail a subject because of their religion? Surely this is discrimination.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
AA, take everything to its logical conclusion and everything gets pretty silly. In fact, take things to its logical conclusion, and you have silkworm who wants to ban Islam in Islamic schooling.
If you’re so contemptuous of other people’s ’sky-fairy’ beliefs, why does it bother you so much?
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
Because their sky fairy beliefs are going to have daggers in our schools.
Because they rubbish science in the name of Biblical literalism.
Because they oppose birth control and sex education.
Because they want to deny civil unions to same sex attracted couples.
I could go on but don’t want to derail the thread. Religious beliefs bother me because they have harmful real-world consequences.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
I’m with Klaus K on this one.
Secularism is not the same thing as atheism. To have the state ban all forms of religious expression would be a kind of atheist theocracy and unfairly pushing a certain ideology onto the citizenry. As an atheist I wouldn’t have a problem with this, but the state sanctioned ideology could just as easily be Islam or Judaism, Christianity etc.
Therefore we champion the secular state as the means of getting a consensus from a diverse multi-cultural society. You are free to practice your religion as you see fit so far as you do not violate other’s civil liberties.
I think wearing something that covers your face as a matter of religious practice is pretty silly but people, including school children should enjoy that freedom as I enjoy my freedom not to wear silly things on my head or around my neck.
If there were widespread reports of people being stabbed with kirpan’s then obviously that would be a considerable problem. Instead we are dealing with the fear of some imagined incident in a context of an Anglo-Christian nation respecting the rights of a minority. If the trinket can be worn safely then that’s the end of the issue.
Comment by Illusive Mind — December 6, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
I’ll have a post up that’s pertinent to this issue on Friday afternoon. We need to decide whether we really believe in an inclusive public education system that keeps people inside the tent. Currently we are allowing separatist schools to flourish, partly because we object to the trinkets their children wish to wear in the playground.
Comment by Mercurius — December 6, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Look, if we are speaking about trinkets here I have no problem. I too would like to make public school as inclusive, within reason, as possible.
But if we are talking about letting children carry daggers, which any other non-Sikh would be expelled for, then we have a problem.
That is the question. Can a non-Sikh carry a dagger/trinket like the Kirpan? If he/she can then obviously there is no problem with the dagger/trinket. If they can’t then there is probably a safety issue and no one should be carrying one.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Glad to see you’re thinking of the children, AA. Won’t somebody else think of the children?
First of all, the kirpan is, as others here have pointed out to you, a trinket. It’s as dangerous as a pair of compasses and a lot less dangerous than a steel ruler, both evil instruments of pain of which I remember being a victim when I was in school.
Second, anti-choice beliefs and homophobia aren’t limited to the religious. Hating fags and uppity women is hardly a function of faith, and there are a great many religious people who believe in both a woman’s right to choose and in marriage equality for gays and lesbians. If they can get a word in edgewise against embattled secularism, some of them might say hello.
As for science, I rather think it can defend itself.
Your points against ‘religion’ are matters of politics, not freedom.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 6:42 pm
Hello!
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Of course these things are not confined to religious people. But religious people use religious arguments to oppose gay rights and contraception.
The problem is that when you have religion behind your bigotry it is seen as somehow more acceptable. In the USA for example some pharmacists refuse to provide contraception because of their religious beliefs. If a non-religious person did this he/she would be told to get out of the profession. But because these people are Christian they get away with it.
But back to the topic, can non-Sikhs wear a Kirpan-like trinket? Or are they too dangerous? If the Muslims, Jews and atheist kids can carry ‘daggers’ then I have no problem with Kirpans in schools.
(Hello Mark.)
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
That’s the same way I feel about silkworm, AA. He doesn’t like Catholicism or Catholics much, but because he’s a ’secularist’, he gets to blame the Vatican.
I’m with you on the pharmacists—in civilised Australia that rubbish doesn’t wash.
Let’s do the thought experiment properly, and imagine they’re as sharp, savage and pointy as an ROTC bayonet. The question remains not just a matter of safety and fairness, but also whether a restriction that would significantly affect of one group of children carrying them would infringe a minority’s right to participate in a critical part of civil society.
Non-Sikhs would say, were the knives banned “why would I want one anyway”?
Sikhs would say “where can my children go to school”?
That’s the difference.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
Hello, Australian Atheist.
It probably doesn’t need saying but I agree entirely with Liam’s position. Secularism - as in separation of religion and state - does not and should not imply that religion disappears from view, merely that it doesn’t influence public policy and that its practices are condoned provided they don’t harm others. There doesn’t appear to me to be any argument about harm being made out in all this talk. If some (hypothetical) people take offence just because others have religious convictions, that is not a matter for the state to sort out. It’s their private view. Just as same-sex marriage shouldn’t be prevented because some find it offensive.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
Thanks for addressing the question. And I like your thought experiment.
I’m glad you concur on the pharmacists.
But I wish you could see that it is exactly the same as the problem with the Kirpan.
In both cases the people ‘not of the particular faith’ (non-Christians in the first case and non-Sikhs in the second) are harmfully affected (no contraception or daggers at school) by religious beliefs.
In both cases there are down-sides. The Christian literalist can not work as a pharmacists and the Sikh literalist can not go to public school.
But in the public sphere when we are dealing with people of different faiths (and no faith) we must stick to arguments that do not rely on religious grounds.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
That argument falls down, AA. In the case of contraceptives being dispensed, there’s direct harm because someone is being deprived of a service whereas in the case of a Kirpan, there’s only a very indirect harm, perhaps, and there only if someone else apprehends danger since it appears clear that the dagger itself wouldn’t do harm.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
G’day Mark.
The harm argument is the only one I’m making. Sorry for not be clear.
The reason the Sikhs need exemptions is because governments/schools have seen fit to ban daggers/ceremonial daggers from schools. Obviously because they are dangerous. Why else would an exemption be needed?
I have said that I have no problem if the ‘daggers’ are just trinkets - if they are not dangerous. The test of this, surely, is whether non-Sikh kids can carry them. If they can’t, why not? Is it because they are dangerous?
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
It seems my lack of confidence in our ability to avoid the Canadian experience with this issue wasn’t misplaced.
Comment by Gummo Trotsky — December 6, 2007 @ 7:44 pm
That’s not obvious at all, AA.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
Well what is the exemption from then? Surely it is from the ‘carrying something dangerous’ rule. Or the ‘no knives at school’ rule. Which is a more specific version of the former rule.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
I, for one, don’t exclude the hypothesis that some of the principals and/or parents who are urging such a policy are acting out of prejudice or fear of difference. You know, the things secularism is supposed to counteract!
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Which policy?
The ‘carrying something dangerous’ rule or the ‘no knives at school’ rule already existed. And it wasn’t introduced to keep out ‘the ethnics’. It was introduced to make schools safer. A long time ago.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
Sure. But I have no doubt that this parliamentary enquiry didn’t suddenly decide to look at the issue of its own accord. Obviously there would have been principals refusing to give exemptions from the policy. And since it appears doubtful that a Kirpan is a dangerous knife anyway, I wonder whether the application of the policy to prevent them isn’t in some instances motivated by prejudice.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
Quoted in the post;
‘… to allow male students….”
Why not female?
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
Exemptions, rules, rationality. As Puzo’s Don Vito might have said, if we are reasonable people, let us reason together and find a solution to our mutual problem.
The example of fundie pharmacists’ refusal to sell contraceptives is only similar to public schools’ banning of Sikh knives in that they’re examples of toxic people who can’t recognise worldviews other than their own. In the first case, it’s women with control over their own bodies, in the second case, it’s a religious interpretation of an object.
A parallel example from the pre-multicultural Australia: wine. you may be familiar with the Catholic sacrament of Eucharist, AA, or not, I don’t know. In many cases this involves the ritual serving of alcohol to children, an offence otherwise seriously looked upon by fair-minded enforcers of the law.
The critical differences between Father Giovanni offering the blood of Christ, though, and Uncle Dodgy offering a can of UDL vodka & lemonade is interpretation, context, and intent.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
AA,
Do you actually have anything of interest to say? Or are you content to just create vicarious embarassment among the other atheists who read LP?
Comment by gummotrotsky — December 6, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Presumably, hannah’s dad, it’s worn by male Sikhs not female Sikhs.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
I see it as happening the other way around.
Kids want to bring their Kirpans to school. Schools say: no sorry the ‘carrying something dangerous’ rule forbids it. Victorian parliamentary committee alerted to the problem.
But we come back to whether the knife if dangerous. If it’s not, then there is nothing from the Sikhs kids to be exempt from. And all kids should be allowed to carry similar trinkets. In which case I have no problem.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 8:19 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with AA’s comments, Gummo. He/she is enabling those of us who oppose the position being argued to sharpen our arguments. Forgive the bad pun!
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
This stuff is SO all around the edges.
Local Sikhs will have had this issue well organised for ages. They have been in Australia almost since almost the year dot. Just after the whitey’s got in and stole.
Can you just be clear what you are trying to say Gummo?
Comment by joe2 — December 6, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Don’t be obtuse, hannah’s dad @ 8:14pm. Just as no male Muslims are affected by any new rules against the religiously required hijab for orthodox female Muslims, no female Sikhs are affected by any new rules against the religiously required carrying of the kirban.
ETA: Back in my day at school there was a rule about knives based purely on the length of the blade, and many kids had penknives which they took to school and used to peel apples and carve desks. If the kirpan falls within the traditional length of blade of a penknife, which is my impression, then where’s the harm?
Comment by tigtog — December 6, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I don’t think hannah’s dad was being obtuse. I followed the link to the description of the Kirpan and it’s not particularly informative for a range of reasons - and nor is the identical Wikipedia article. I didn’t see anything about its limitation to males, so it seems to me to be a reasonable question to ask.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
Tigtog, let’s continue my thought experiment from before, and imagine the kirpan is a metre and a half long, made of stainless steel, with a blood channel down the centre and a guarded two-handed pommel.
Ask yourself now: for what purpose are Sikh students expected to carry it? It’s not for stabbing or slashing, the reason non-Sikhs might carry a heavy, annoying bit of weaponry to school. It’s for religious ritual, probably a pain in the arse for most fifteen-year olds shitty with their parents. My uncle tells the story about carrying a heavy, cumbersome .303 rifle to Cadets, and having to clean and maintain it at home when he’d rather have been doing other things. That was in an era and in a country town saturated with machismo and ammunition, and it still alienated him from guns for life.
I ask, really, what intrinsic value does a sharp cutting blade have, that a religious group might be victimised as a matter of policy for carrying one?
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
“Don’t be obtuse, hannah’s dad @ 8:14pm. Just as no male Muslims are affected by any new rules against the religiously required hijab for orthodox female Muslims, no female Sikhs are affected by any new rules against the religiously required carrying of the kirban.’
Thanks Mark.
I wasn’t being obtuse, I was pointing out that the religious belief is being used to justify
sexism [Encarta dictionary:sexism [séksizəm]
n
1. sex discrimination: discrimination against women or men because of their sex]
And tigtog has kindly provided a second example where sexism is being excused on the grounds of religious belief.
And I have informed you all that there are persons operating in semi-legal areas today who have considerable power to exert in making fundamental decisions affecting men and women [and children too, lets not forget the children] whose religion teaches them that women are inferior and unclean.
I find it highly questionable that we can allow discriminatory sexist practices in our society on the grounds that they are part of a religion.
Its easy to poke fun at the knife/scarf issues here but the real issue is whether or not certain values that our Australian society allegedly espouses [sorry about the jingoism and Howardism] re equality and non-sexism can be negated by an appeal to religious belief.
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
OK, obtuse was too harsh. I agree it’s not as obvious as I thought it was.
It seems that the last Sikh prophet did pronounce that women were to be regarded as full Khalsa entitled to observe the 5 K’s just as much as men, so presumably some Sikh women do wear the kirpan if they are Amritdhari.
Comment by tigtog — December 6, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Excuse me. I used the word ‘pommel’ when I meant to refer to a ‘hilt’, the handle of a sword. The pommel is of course the bottom end of the hilt, designed for balance and for striking weight.
All of these terms and violent principles, I expect, are taught with the approval of their reasonable parents, at the presumably secular Fencing For Kids:
If the kirpan is to be banned, I expect Australian fencing also to decline, and our Olympic medal tally to reduce proportionally.
…
Hannah’s Dad, you’ve done not much informing at all. You’ve obviously got a chip on your shoulder about some kind of God-bothering mediator—who exactly do you mean? And why should their claimed religion bind them to all of the beliefs you think it does?
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
As a laid-back secularist, I find it disturbing that displayers of material appendages signifying religious faith/mystic spirituality are being encouraged by governments to continue displaying them in State schools.
Religious schools, madrassas and Rasta Junior Highs should be able to set their own dress codes. Their turf, their call.
The “no paraphernalia” rule works well in French government schools, or at least I havn’t noticed reports of rioting, rolling mellees or wide-spread pandemonium as a result of the French govt’s handling of this sensitive matter.
What happens when the shy, retiring kirpan-carrying kiddie converts to Ninjaism, then appears in the playground in full Shintaro clobber sporting a samurai sword and an intense demeanour?
Now there’s a difference that compels respect!
Comment by Enemy Combatant — December 6, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
I don’t know, EC. Are they ready to totally flip out?
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
A school playground in Melbourne, an attempted lunch money extortion is in progress……
student sniggers: “That’s a kirpan?? *swish* NO! THIS, IS A KIRPAN.”
Comment by Enemy Combatant — December 6, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Harsh Gummo at 8:18 pm. Sorry for embarrassing you but I’m arguing from principle in a civilised manner. You must blush easily.
Thanks Mark at 8:20 pm.
In this instance there seems to be one fact we are missing: whether the ‘dagger’ is dangerous.
Therefore we have two scenarios:
1. The kirban is not dangerous. It is indeed, as has been argued, a trinket. In that case there is no good reason to keep them out of schools. Nor is there any reason why non-Sikh kids can’t carry one. In that case I support the trinkets in schools.
2. The kirban is dangerous. It is a sharp dangerous knife. Sharp knifes are banned in schools. There is a reason. They are dangerous. And there is no good reason to allow some kids to carry them, and thus endanger all children and teachers in the school, simply because of their literalist interpretation of their Sikhism.
As far as I can tell, very few are arguing that in the case of 2. kirbans should be allowed in school.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
And I have informed you all that there are persons operating in semi-legal areas today who have considerable power to exert in making fundamental decisions affecting men and women [and children too, lets not forget the children] whose religion teaches them that women are inferior and unclean.
Hannah’s dad: any examples off hand in Australia? Let’s ignore other countries for the moment.
Personally, I’d be more suspicious of judges of the “She was asking for it because she was wearing…” persuasion. Misogyny often doesn’t need religious justification - just an ability to rationalize oneself into what one wants to believe.
Comment by Down and Out of Sài Gòn — December 6, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Before you start celebrating the French government’s policy (which actually rests on what the French call laïcité which is not equivalent to the concept and practice of secularism in the English speaking tradition), EC, I’d suggest you look into it some more.
And generally, it would be helpful if people who seek to defend secularism so vigorously would go to more trouble to educate themselves as to what it actually does and doesn’t mean and entail.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
[Raises hand]
I am. Danger, as I tried to explain before, is a function of intent and context. In any State high school classroom dedicated to science or design/technology you’ll find dangerous things that’d give the boys from Al Qaeda hardboard-and-nails erections. Even the 30cm steel rulers most high school students have could quite easily do nasty damage.
I’m sure you’ll allow the presence of potentially deadly instruments in high schools for the purpose of education. Why not for the purpose of religious freedom?
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
#55
Ya know religion is such an emotive issue and to criticise any particular aspect of it leaves one wide open to accusations of racism, bigotry etc as a knee jerk response.
So I’m reluctant to give details but because the issue is serious and to give some credibility here goes.
I have met several [repeat 'several'] family court and family relationship centre counsellors and mediators whose religion, as in some cases they themselves have informed me or demonstated in my presence, informs them that women are second class citizens, whose role in marriage should be that of obedience, that divorce should not be an option for anyone [these are people paid by the Federal govt.to be directly involved in divorce cases] particularly women and in some cases women are ‘unclean’ and cannot be touched etc by the counsellor/mediator [as in shake hands in greeting etc].
These people have strong legal power with regards to property and child custody issues between men and women and their children.
I find the situation that such persons, and I refer to ones who hold fundamental/orthodox beliefs strongly, should have power over persons they rank as superior/inferior very strange and an example of where such religious beliefs should be grounds for rendering those persons inelible for the job they perform.
There is more I could say. For example, there are also implications where views less strongly held but still a part of religious dogma are known to influence the outcomes of cases in these areas of family dispute on an organizational [ I wish I knew how to emphasize words such as 'organizational']as well as individual level.
We have blatant documented cases where religious dogma is resulting in sexist discriminatory treatment.
I therefore urge strong caution when consifering the cry of “religious freedom’ because such may and does equate to loss of freedom for others.
The sexism of the dagger is a symbolic case in point.
I would rather not identify the specific religions [plural].
Specific enough?
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Yes I know you are Liam. You were the ‘few’.
A knife is much more dangerous than a metal ruler. Metal rulers were banned at my school anyway.
In home ec, yes there are knives. But it is in a supervised environment.
Can non-Sikh kids carry a similar dagger Liam? If not, is it because they are dangerous?
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Presumably if the Sikhs can carry a religious dagger, non-Sikhs would be allowed to also carry a religious dagger. They can ask their own Gods why they would want to.
I take back my Flandersish mocking about you being concerned overly with The Children, as it’s obviously not danger we’re arguing about, but exceptionalism. The point you don’t seem to concede is that arbitrarily universal rules are themselves a danger in plural societies.
A fifteen year-old with a kirpan, or a steel ruler, or even a copy of the Anarchist Cookbook, a soldering iron, a Tandy handbook and a grudge, is hardly a danger to society in the same way an uncontrolled ’secularist’ agency with rules is.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 9:46 pm
My problem isn’t with exceptionalism per se. My problem is with exceptionalism from rules set up for a reason. So I am still worried about children. (And it was Mrs. Lovejoy I believe.)
The “arbitrarily universal rule” of ‘no knives at school’ is not arbitrarily. It is there to make the school a safe place. It has a reason.
You seem to think there is no reason to outlaw knives in schools. If that is you position argue it. I don’t think many people will agree.
Are the universal rules, commonly called laws, outlawing murder arbitrarily and dangerous?
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
‘arbitrarily’ supposed to read ‘arbitrary’. All three times.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
[EC, I’d suggest you look into it some more.]
No worries Mark, your suggestion is my scholarship. I’ll get on it right away. Whatever’s helpful. They say you’re a hard marker but I’m gonna shoot for an HD!
Comment by Enemy Combatant — December 6, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
You’re right about the Simpsons. You’re wrong about law.
Legislation is made in a political environment, and the common law has a political history. Both necessarily encompass religion and tolerance of minority groups’ difference and deviance. All good law allows itself to be subject to interpretation in courts and to the application of jurisprudence.
I encourage you, as Mark has, to read up on the history of secularism, toleration/emancipation and sectarianism, especially in Australia.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Wow, so many people, so little moral high ground. Quite a stampede we’ve got on our hands.
It’s a while since I’ve seen so many people taking such principled stands in defence of inflated fears based on ignorance. Silkworm doesn’t need to know what the significance of a kirpan is in the Sikh religion - religion’s outmoded, ergo Sikhism’s outmoded and it’s damned silly of Canadian Courts and Victorian politicians to endanger schoolkids by allowing religious whackos to carry knives around their person. Case closed.
Australian Antitheist adds a little more nuance - why should Sikh kids be allowed to carry knives when other Aussie kids aren’t. One rule for all, he cries! But which rule - the rule enacted by the Victorian Parliament in the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 or general school based rules about packing some sharps in with the cheese and vegemite sandwiches, the apple, and the Uncle Toby’s mueslu bar? Well obviously the latter - these Sikhs with their “god-fairy story” are obviously irrational, superstitious people, and who knows when they might run amok and go the slash. Things could get real ugly if it happens at the school sports carnival or, god forbid, speech night.
And hannah’s dad gives us the gender equity argument - it should be banned unless it can be shown that female sikhs are required to carry a kirpan too. Or something like that.
Hilarious. From here on in I think I’ll just abandon any attempt to foster reasoned debate, so to hell with asking anyone if they can come up with empirical evidence to show that kirpan carrying is a danger to public safety.
Nah. I’m just going to sit back and watch all you “highly principled people” make utter fools of yourselves trying to pass off your panicked response to the shocking facts disclosed in this post - facts that you could have learnt any time in the past if you’d ever met a Sikh and asked him about his religion - and the “unprincipled” people - the genuine secularists - kick seven shades of bullshit out of your arguments.
Comment by gummotrotsky — December 6, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Incidentally, a well-crafted, sturdy rosary makes an excellent garotte - I think I saw that in a film once. Or maybe it was on Cracker or Wire in the Blood. And if the crucix is big enough, I suppose you could use it as a nun-chukka, Bruce Lee style.
Comment by gummotrotsky — December 6, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
That may well be the case, hannah’s dad, but irreligious Aussie blokes don’t seem to need anything but cultural justifications for domestic violence and worse. In many (not all but many) instances the primary cause is being missed because of the justification offered. No one particularly likes to own up to being a violent misogynist, I’d imagine, so they’ll tend to cloak their actions in some sort of belief system - whether or not that belief system is nominally religious is a cultural variant.
Liam has already answered that question, AA, but if, as some who characterise their belief system (and it is a corpus of beliefs not an absence of belief) as atheists do, you claim some privileged relationship between rationality and the absence of religious faith, I’d invite you respectfully to reflect on your own argumentative strategies.
EC, I’m an easy marker, but I do like students to be committed to learning!
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
“And hannah’s dad gives us the gender equity argument - it should be banned unless it can be shown that female sikhs are required to carry a kirpan too. Or something like that.”
Actually gummo I don’t think I said what you claim or imply.
I think this is the closest to a couple of lines summary of my thoughts:
“I therefore urge strong caution when considering the cry of “religious freedom’ because such may and does equate to loss of freedom for others.
The sexism of the dagger is a symbolic case in point.”
So I don’t think your condescension is warranted.
And your comment hardly qualifies as reasoned debate.
Pity, cos I usually read your stuff carefully.
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
In this case, happy to disappoint hd.
Comment by gummotrotsky — December 6, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
x2
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 10:17 pm
x3
Gummo, if you’re going to claim that others are behaving like “utter fools” the basis for that claim might be more secure if you treated arguments with respect and responded to them.
Comment by kimberella — December 6, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
x4
At least I’m not presuming that my opponents are ignorant.
I already knew Sikhs carry Kirpans. I have meet Sikhs, I have spoken to Sikhs. I used to work with some. I have discussed their traditions with them.
I have also written a 2000 word paper whether cultural or religious beliefs/practices should receive exemptions from the law. So I have thought deeping about these issues before.
I’ll post it on my blog when I find it and workout how to hide stuff below a fold.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
Mark at #69.
Sorry Mark I was accidentally ambiguous.
The ‘blatant documented’ cases to which I refer is where the ‘religious dogma’ of a Federal govt. funded family relationship centre, run by a church charity organization, was itself practising the sexist discriminatory treatment. That is, it was the church dogma behind the FRC that was the problem [still is in some cases] not the individual religious or otherwise Aussie blokes whixh is a separate issue.
The church concerned refuses to acknowledge domestic violence and CSA as issues in family separation.
In 7 years of practice at one of their centres [not a FRC but general counselling service] they failed to acknowledge a single case of such.
When this was shown to be incredible by one of their own employees, who studied past files and current cases, the administration simply did not understand what was the problem.
Outside their mind set.
Scary.
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
And I allowed for the fact that the Kirpan may not be dangerous. So if it is, great. I have no problem with it.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
X5
Always put the boot in when a bloke’s down!
Comment by Enemy Combatant — December 6, 2007 @ 10:31 pm
“Incidentally, a well-crafted, sturdy rosary makes an excellent garotte - I think I saw that in a film once. Or maybe it was on Cracker or Wire in the Blood.”
There was the pentacle garotting scene in Polanski’s “The Ninth Gate”, but I’m sure Polanski was paying tribute to prior filmic tradition.
I live in a small community with a large Sikh population and I was unaware of any local activism in regard to the Kirpan. If the law were to require the observant (boys) among them to uncover their heads, however, I think there would be an outcry. Allowing them to carry a ceremonial weapon with no greater capacity for inflicting damage than other implements readily available in school (and in a high school with a fully equipped metal workshop these are many and varied) seems pretty reasonable.
Comment by Su — December 6, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
hannah’s dad, I agree that’s scary, but I’m not sure I’d make any inference from that as to whether other religious groups are likewise problematic, which is how I read your comment. My apologies if that’s not what you intended to convey.
AA, if you’re in wordpress, there should be a “more” button to post stuff beneath the fold. If not, use this code where you want the break:
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
Sorry, the comments field ate the code. I’ll email it to you.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
“In fact, a free society really should demand that school students carry weapons.”
At last Liam the Reasonable emerges .
I’m all for teachers carrying lugurs too.
Comment by murph the surf — December 6, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Well, Liam, you’ve convinced me.
I just want to note that as a life-long science fiction fanboy, I shall be raising any children of mine in the Klingon culture and religion.
That means that my son or daughter will be bringing to school a bat’leth:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Image:Batleth%2C_Barge_of_the_dead.jpg
As I’m sure most people here are aware, the first bat’leth was forged by Kahless the Unforgettable in the 9th century. Kahless cut a lock of his hair and dropped it into the lava of the Kri’stak volcano, then plunged the burning lock into the Lake of Lusor and twisted it into a blade. After forging the weapon, he used it to fight the tyrant Molor, and then gave it its name.
Of course, my child will never use the weapon in aggression, but it is so heavy and sharp that it might just accidently decapitate one of your kids, Liam. I do hope you will not make a fuss about it.
Comment by Paulus — December 6, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
I’m forever reasonable, Murph.
Alas, if all we had were universal rules blind to context and interpretation, we could both find ourselves in a whole lot of trouble with that gun-friendly kind of talk.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 6, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
I’m going to be consistent and oppose the nerd weapon exemption as well.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 10:59 pm
I’m starting to get the feeling this is going on too much.
But what the hey.
Mark, that’s just one church, one particular religion.
Another church [different denomination] claimed at a seminar of counsellors that their FRC had done a survey of their clients and only 4% presented with DV/CSA issues.
30 professionals, from a variety of organizations, suggested [well it was a little stronger] that something was wrong with their figures and maybe they ought to have a good close look at themselves and their systems and protocols.
The 2 persons concerned walked out in a huff.
I was talking, in an consultative capacity, to a MHR whose fundamentalist church of which he was an Elder [different church to the previous 2 examples] had won the tender from the Federal govt. to run the new local FRC.
He point blank refused to admit the possibility of DV/CSA within separation calling it ‘feminist nonsense’. I presume cos I’m a male he felt safe in saying that.
I could go on, maybe I have too much already, don’t all rush to agree.
But religion can do funny things to the values of some people and I’m really wary of the ‘religious freedom’ defence for what is, IMO, frequently indefensible.
How do I put this clearly?
Religious freedom should not, IMO, be the excuse for discrimination that directly or indirectly, symbolically or whatever, negates principles of equality. It [religious freedom] should not be the grounds for sexual discrimination. I’m conscious that denying people religious freedom is in itself a dangerous practice and I don’t want to see blanket statements, but I think we need to be very careful and realize that the dagger and scarf issues are tip of the iceberg stuff. Underneath is what I’ve been trying to show where I’ve given examples where individuals and organizations exercising their religious dogma are trampling on the freedoms of others.
Comment by hannah's dad — December 6, 2007 @ 11:04 pm
Well, I agree with that, hannah’s dad, and I’m a long time opponent of the exemption of religious bodies from anti-discrimination law, but I don’t see that there’s any explicit relevance to the matter under discussion.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
So the Catholic Church should have to ordain female priests Mark? I agree.
But if you can disregard their religious tradition why must we accept the carrying of daggers in schools. Can’t we disregard that tradition also? For the greater good.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
The Catholic Church, understood in its broad sense (and also in its narrow sense) already has, AA. But that’s not what I’m talking about. Priests aren’t church employees but clerics and the way a private organisation chooses to order itself is a private matter. What I am referring to is when the church carries out a public function - for instance education or the provision of welfare and counselling services) - and when it’s doing that with public money it ought not to discriminate on the basis of gender and sexuality or whatever. You seem to be confused about the public/private distinction. The point of secularism is also to protect civil society from a totalising imposition of any belief system - any one whatsoever - so it’s not designed to impose your ideology or a Sikh ideology or mine on anyone else. The exact opposite, in fact. If people choose to wear clothes that express their beliefs or carry symbols they should be free to do so just as you (unlike in the Soviet Union where it was constitutionally enshrined) have the freedom “of atheist propaganda”. Your last question is either facetious or betrays bad faith in trying to carry your argument at all costs. It’s been pointed out that no one is being harmed by carrying a Kirpan and that is not the same thing as “the carrying of daggers in schools”. You surely understand that, so I’d ask you to argue in a mature and sensible fashion, please, rather than resort to rhetorical obfuscation.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 6, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Yeah, you’re right about the priests. The Catholic Church has a right to discriminate within its religious structure. I didn’t think about it properly. My bad.
Back to the Kirpans. I have said repeatedly that if the Kirpans we are talking about are simply trinkets then I have no problem with them.
But we can’t seem to decide whether they are in fact harmless. I am more than happy if they are. But if they are harmless they will not need an exemption from school rules.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 6, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
The most dangerous weapon I saw at school,was a young man wanking himself in the classroom,whilst the teacher wasnt there to prove that sperm ejected can fly like a rocket!? If my memory serves me it hit the roof! The discipline of us students broke down pretty badly into laughter,admiration and sort of being threatened..because corporal punishment occurred with gay abandon, and that kid would of been told to leave permanently.Thinking back ,the understanding was rocket science calibre,but, I guess from observation he was embarassed by his sense of humour later on in life.He could of been a sexologist with a unique insight already tested and observed.Or even a rocket scientist.The French are boring secularist that have stopped some natural rocket scientists from moving on from life experiment to real technical experiment,by means of the all encompassing condom cover-up.Eh!And the Sikhs are great at tug-of-war around Coffs Harbour way due no doubt to hard work and eating amongst other things bananas.The day is over.Good night morning!
Comment by philiptravers — December 7, 2007 @ 12:03 am
I’d suggest reading the relevant chapter of the report, as I’ve just done, as a basis for discussion.
http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/etc/fs_inq_dress.html
Comment by mbahnisch — December 7, 2007 @ 12:11 am
Thanks Mark. I read it and here is my slight summery. (The most relevant pages are 57-
“In a recent media interview, a spokesperson from the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development suggested that the kirpan could be replaced with a small replica or pendant.”
This was rejected by Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria:
“To suggest the using of a replica or any form of material is to belittle the religion. A replica or pendant is not acceptable. The kirpan cannot be of any material other than steel.”
As a result the report advises that “schools work with Sikh students and their communities to negotiate appropriate standards for the kirpan.” It gives very little guidance beyond that however.
If the Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria is successful in lobbying schools it will be the full steel dagger.
And the kirpan is the real thing. Justice Campbell in Ontario Human Rights Commission and Harbhajan Singh Pandori v. Peel Board of Education:
“There have been, in the Metropolitan Toronto area, three reported incidents of violent kirpan use. One involved a plea of guilty to attempted murder after a stabbing with a kirpan. In one street fight, a man was stabbed in the back with a kirpan. In one case, a kirpan was drawn for defensive purposes.”
http://www.sikhcoalition.org/LegalCanada5.asp
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 7, 2007 @ 12:27 am
Oh for pete’s sake. I’m an athiest, and a secularist, and female -and lesbian because hey! It might be relevant. I also happen to know lots of Sikhs and have traveled extensively in India. It would be really nice to see people educate themselves before launching into ridiculously ill-informed arguments. About 30% of the posts on this thread are a waste of time because people don’t understand what a Kirpan is. From ‘About.com’ as the Wiki article is pretty crap Sikhism:
…Kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords, to tiny knives small enough to be worn about the neck. All Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear the kirpan.
The kirpan is stricly a religious symbol, and it is never used as a weapon.
And yes for those wondering, Khalsa Sikhs of both sexes adhere to the 5 Khalsa practices. Sikhism is actually pretty enlightened on the issue of equality between the sexes, and not particularly bloodthirsty, if you care to check.
As for those who think France’s “secularist” policy of removing all religious symbols was a good idea, I suggest further reading. Mainly what it led to was a lot of Muslims withdrawing their daughters from the well-rounded and open state education system and placing them in Muslim schools so that they could wear a head scarf - strike a blow for feminism.
People arguing on this thread about religious values & equal rights etc. need to learn to make a few disctinctions, such as
a) a religious practice doesn’t automatically threaten equal rights and thus I’d like to think we all have the intellectual ability to distinguish between the complete non-impact of wearing a Kirpan for example on women’s rights, and refusing them access to abortion or contraception.
b) some brisk reading of the very active Mulsim feminist movement might open some eyes to the rather nauseating paternalism practiced by many in the west, who think they know what’s best for Muslim women’s equality, such as assisting the poor hapless petals are ‘assisted’ to be ‘freed’ of the head scarf - when in fact many Muslim feminists offer articulate and oddly more culturally appropriate arguments for why its 1) their choice and 2) actually quite empowering within their cultural contexts.
And hat-tip to Liam for common sense and wit.
Comment by myriad — December 7, 2007 @ 12:34 am
I see you’ve cherry picked it, AA! But never mind that for the moment, although again it doesn’t give me much confidence that you’re approaching this with an open mind as opposed to a preconceived view. It seems to me that the Committee reached some sensible conclusions.
If you want to argue on the basis that no religious symbols should be allowed (which, as I’m emphasising is not a secularist argument according to Anglo-American law or political philosophy) please do so openly and drop the stuff about “danger”. It’s obviously just a figleaf for your underlying position, and it would be much preferable for you to argue it openly. Since it would come down to a claim for discrimination in public education on the basis of religious belief, which is contrary to all the principles of liberal society, I doubt you could sustain it but it would be preferable to a spurious set of objections based on partial evidence, with respect.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 7, 2007 @ 12:35 am
I’d also endorse what myriad said, and thank her for the clarification on the Kirpan!
Comment by mbahnisch — December 7, 2007 @ 12:36 am
Me too. The point about feminism is well made, and is very close to what I argued numerous times about FGM:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/index.php?s=female+genital+mutilation
Comment by kimberella — December 7, 2007 @ 12:39 am
talk about selective quoting AA. For starters regarding your exciting Toronto Kirpan incidences, going by Wiki data, there are about 100 000 Sikhs in Toronto, a city of about 5 million.
Secondly, you left out the most critical quotes from the ruling, the ones that clearly stated there was absolutely no evidence of violence resulting from kids wearing kirpans, or any recorded incidents of violence in schools involving kirpans.
The kirpan is a religious symbol, and being made of steel is critical to its symbolism, as it is for the Khalsa of wearing a steel bracelet. The kirpan is also removed from its sheath for some rites, so sewing it in is not acceptable.
I wonder if it ever occurs to people like you that the practice of demonising a religious practice for which there is exactly bugger evidence to suggest it’s a problem might actually encourage those under attack to become more intractable in their own views?
Comment by myriad — December 7, 2007 @ 12:46 am
I’m sorry you don’t take me at my word but I have no problem with the turban, the hijab, the Christian cross etc. all being worn at public school. I think the French law mentioned earlier is silly.
I am not trying to outlaw peoples’ beliefs. Or stop them from expressing them. I want people from as many religious backgrounds as possible in public schools.
I want religious education to be compulsory so that children learn about the faiths of the world.
But when those religious beliefs conflict with a school’s ‘no weapons’ policy I don’t think it wise to grant exemptions.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 7, 2007 @ 12:47 am
Sorry myriad but I’m not demonising Sikhs.
The earlier discussion was over whether the kirpan is dangerous. By this I took to mean whether it can cause serious injury or death. I simply quoted a judge saying the kirpan is dangerous. Of course the vast, vast majority of people are not violent. My point was simply that the kirpan can do real harm.
I was not trying to prove a kirpan stabbing epidemic.
Comment by Australian Atheist — December 7, 2007 @ 12:51 am
“Kirpan” means “strapped sword”. It is slightly bigger than a dagger. Here is a picture of a kirpan.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/CIMG0308.JPG/800px-CIMG0308.JPG
The Wikipedia page states:
“[The] injunction was primarily in order to protect the weak from tyranny and slavery, to maintain a state of harmony and security, to allow for the free development of trade, craftsmanship, arts & literature and to safeguard and protect the universal right of all beings to live their lives in a peaceful, stable and sheltered environment.
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. Symbolically, the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the cutting edge of the enlightened mind.”
I don’t buy the argument that it is an instrument of non-violence. What they really mean is that historically these swords acted as deterrence against violence, but this deterrence only works if the sword is visible.
If a boy was running with it on and tripped, he could easily injure himself or another. It is a sharp object and inherently dangerous. There are good reasons to ban it. There is only one good reason to allow it, and that is for “religious freedom”, which appears to be Liam’s and Mark’s interpretation of secularism.
Mark said:
“It’s been pointed out that no one is being harmed by carrying a Kirpan and that is not the same thing as “the carrying of daggers in schools”. You surely understand that, so I’d ask you to argue in a mature and sensible fashion, please, rather than resort to rhetorical obfuscation.”
Mark all too easily overlooks the danger that carrying such a sharp object entails. Banning it is the mature and sensible thing to do.
It is a matter of harm minimization. What harm is done to the Sikh by banning the kirpan? He may get a little upset, but that is a small sacrifice he should pay for the greater good of public safety - which is after all what wearing the kirpan is supposed to represent. What irony!
Comment by silkworm — December 7, 2007 @ 12:53 am
Silkworm, you seem to get more than a little upset when people challenge your preferred atheist world view, but you’re quick to dismiss others’ beliefs. If “harm minimisation” is the issue, what’s the problem with a sheath as in Canada, and what’s the problem with negotiating that with the Sikh community? It really does seem to me that a lot of anti-religious prejudice is hiding behind some spurious arguments here, I’m afraid. I’m happy to accept your abjuration of that AA, but then I wonder why you’ve spent so much time arguing (selectively) about the issue if it’s of no importance to you whether or not Sikhs wear a Kirpan if it’s not dangerous.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 7, 2007 @ 1:01 am
And I could just as easily say that a lot of religious prejudice is hiding behind your spurious argument.
“… what’s the problem with negotiating that with the Sikh community?”
The problem is that the Sikh community is refusing to negotiate. They are acting in exactly the way we would expect religious fundamentalists to act.
Comment by silkworm — December 7, 2007 @ 1:07 am
silkworm, as Mark says your posts have a lingering smell of prejudice. How many Sikhs have you met I wonder? I have travelled and visited, know and known many hundreds. AS the article I quoted states, Kirpans vary considerably in size. Most of the Sikhs I have known wear one about the size of a letter opener. It can also vary from fairly curved to quite straight, and can range in sharpness from completely blunt on both sides to a single sharp edge. Most Sikhs carry them either in a pendant form, attached to their belt, and most frequently sheathed.
And it’s not just “he’s” but “she’s”, thanks.
I don’t buy the argument that it is an instrument of non-violence.
read a lot of Sikh history and doctrine have you?
There never has been and never will be a rash of injured or dead little Sikhs because they might carry a sharp kirpan. It’s a religious symbol treated with great respect, and integral to their religion. Asking a Khalsa Sikh not to wear a kirpan is more akin to demanding a Christian does not pray as opposed to say asking the latter to forgo the optional adornment of a crucifix (clue: for different belief systems, different actions and symbols have different levels of significance). In short, your profound religious ignorance and bigotry against same is showing, and your ‘harm minimisation’ argument is tosh.
Comment by myriad — December 7, 2007 @ 1:10 am
Silkworm, the art of negotiating is to begin with your preferred position. Surely you understand that. I’ve never heard of Sikhs described as “fundamentalists” before. As myriad suggests, there’s a lot of (wilful?) ignorance on display on this thread.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 7, 2007 @ 1:12 am
AA, thanks for your last comment, I really appreciated it.
Comment by myriad — December 7, 2007 @ 1:15 am
Ps- I think one of the reasons this issue upsets me is that Sikhs are not only overall incredibly mild and constructive as a religious group, they’ve also been horribly targeted for insults, death threats and outright death because their prominent turbans and beards have made them an easy target for Islamophobes.
I’m sincerely all for a strong separation of church and state, and secular pluralistic state education, but I think when we start going after people for wearing harmless symbols of their beliefs that are integral to their cultural paradigm, we step over the line of ‘ good secularists’ to ‘paternalistic intolerant pricks’
Comment by myriad — December 7, 2007 @ 1:18 am
‘Paternalistic intolerant pricks’? No need to be rude.
“Wearing harmless symbols.” Sharp objects are not harmless. That is the very issue which your religious blindfold prevents you from seeing.
Comment by silkworm — December 7, 2007 @ 1:25 am
We’re good secularists, as I’m arguing, if we leave people to make their own decision regarding religious dress and symbolism if there is no harm to others and encourage as many people as possible to access the public education system. The imposition of ideological codes has nothing whatever to do with secularism or liberalism, and is in fact its antithesis because it does harm to choices legitimately made within civil society and by individuals. It’s precisely the same philosophical argument for the state staying out of women’s reproductive choices.
Comment by mbahnisch — December 7, 2007 @ 1:31 am
As a regular carrier/wearer of a Skein Dubh I don’t see the problem with a ..er.. “Kirpan”, provided it is likewise ceremoninal, (ie, weak, flimsy & ornamental, rather than real)
At school I, (along with many other students) used to keep a rifle & ammunition. There wasn’t any trouble with it, though permission to keep them ended after a few “unauthorised discharges” occured. However withdrawal of permission is a far cry from actual physical removal of the hardware, & business went on as usual. We still attended the range every second Saturday, & had our photos taken armed on school photo day.
Comment by steve at the pub — December 7, 2007 @ 6:02 am
Post #109 summarised: I’ll see your Kirpan & Raise it by one Brno & a handful of Remington 29 grain kopperklads.
Comment by steve at the pub — December 7, 2007 @ 6:03 am
Boy, would I ever love to really wade into this one, but I want to stop being overly argumentative. So I’ll content myself with a few mild peripheral observations.
For one thing, everyone seems to be focused exclusively on the rights of the kirpan-carrying (or not) student, and no one is concerned with the rights of other individual students, or of the non-Sikh students as a whole. How does one feel if one has to attend school with kids who are visibly carrying daggers strapped to the outside of their clothing? It doesn’t matter what the purpose or context of the weapon is; if it is in fact a weapon, how might you feel? And if you feel uncomfortable or threatened by it (which you reasonably might), then why can’t you have one yourself? Why does the law protect some, and not others? (or, why does the law protect the Other, but not plain old-fashioned others?)
Conceptually, everyone seems concerned here with freedom of religion, but few seem concerned with equality before the law, which strikes me as every bit as important in this case. Either the kirpan counts as a trinket or a pen-knife, or else it doesn’t. Either it’s a genuine bona-fide dagger, or it isn’t. How can we tell? Well, it looks like a job for that great super-hero, “L’Homme Moyen Sensuel,” using his amazing powers of personal observation and common sense. If the kirpan can be reasonably taken for a trinket (offhand I’d say a tiny ceremonial dagger in a sheath on a chain around one’s neck counts as a trinket), then it doesn’t seem like a problem. Kirpan allowed. But if it can reasonably be taken for a dagger or a dagger-like weapon (personally I’d say a blade much longer than roughly two joints of a grown man’s finger is past the pen-knife stage, and a candidate for this classification, but others might differ), then it falls under the applicable laws. I don’t know what those laws are, but if they are “no weapons-class blades in school,” then this fits the bill, the law should be applied evenly and equally, and so no kirpans allowed. No fuss no muss. If the Sikhs complain, they should just have kirpans made that fit the legal specs. What’s the problem with that?
It is a ridiculous argument to say that other objects in school are readily dangerous, and therefore the law should be twisted for special pleading, and objects whose sole purpose is to be a weapon should be allowed, on the questionable grounds of an often extra-legal multiculturalism. The rulers and compasses and shop tools have a specific purpose in school, that is what they are there for. We can’t legislate the whole world out of existence, but we make laws about the things we think are of interest, like actual weapons. We cannot get on without pens and pencils, even though they make great stabbing tools. We don’t primarily perceive them as such. One can weaponize just about any object close to hand, including one’s wristwatch (ask me how! on second thought, don’t), but we don’t ban pencils and wristwatches, because their primary functional being does not consist in being a weapon.
The functional purpose of a dagger is to be a dagger, and (equally importantly) to be seen as such by others. Whether it is used or not, it constitutes an implicit threat, and confers an advantage on the carrier that is inherently imbalanced if you can’t have one, too. Sikhs don’t ruffle my feathers in the least, I know perfectly well they are not going to stab me with their kirpans, but that isn’t really the point. Everyone doesn’t necessarily think as I do, and it seems to me an undue burden on the rest of the student body for them to a) put up with blatant exceptionalism as regards the law, and b) bear an extra burden of having to learn extra facts about Sikhism just to feel at ease in their own school, and also to always have to just TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT that they are not going to use their daggers in school, in clear contravention of the law applied to others. Oh, and then attend civics class with a straight face.
Seems to me that people are privileging the freedom of (culturally exotic) religion over (culturally normative) equality before the law. We don’t allow human sacrifice in school either, but from a long-term perspective it probably has a far more venerable religious history among the human race than any number of kirpans, yarmulkes and prayer beads. If a kid brings a bona-fide dagger to school that he openly sports, then I, another kid, feel threatened by it and demand to have one, too. I don’t care a fig about the context and intent of the dagger. Prove that I don’t feel threatened. See the problem? If the kirpan is a harmless trinket, then simply let it be made and seen as such, and then the whole issue becomes easy to cure.
Comment by j_p_z — December 7, 2007 @ 7:21 am
Why would a child wear a religious symbol?
At what age do we decide people are mature enough to make an informed decision about the wearing of religious symbols?
Why should any child wear any religious symbol before that age?
Isn’t the symbol (kirpan in this case), being worn to satisfy the religious beliefs of the parent?
Comment by Tony D — December 7, 2007 @ 8:08 am
The AK-47 has pride-of-place on the flag of Mozambique (a Commonwealth country!) and on the official Coat of Arms of East Timor.
Should moppets of Mozambiquan and East Timorese heritage be allowed to carry AK-47s as a symbol of national pride?
Comment by Katz — December 7, 2007 @ 8:59 am
“Should moppets of Mozambiquan and East Timorese heritage be allowed to carry AK-47s as a symbol of national pride?”
Interesting question, but only insofar as ‘national pride’ has the same legal and metaphysical protected value as ‘religion.’ Which I reckon it’s starting to. Besides, what nation? I thought these moppets were Australian.
Comment by j_p_z — December 7, 2007 @ 9:13 am
JPZ, equality before the law is of course a critical principle, but it doesn’t lie in simply banning all exceptions and making one-rule-for-everyone. Equality before the law can only be culturally normative in culturally homogeous societies, in which neither you or I live.
Equality before the law also consists of the effects of its ‘equal’ application, as I’ve argued before. Non-Sikhs are relatively unaffected by a prohibition on ceremonial weapons in schools, while the education of Sikhs would be very strongly affected.
Furthermore:
That’s not obvious at all. As I’ve explained, religious symbology *specifically* changes the meaning of things. A wooden cross, a symbol of Roman torture and execution, for instance, has a far different meaning when it’s nailed to the roof of a church, or when it’s carried by someone playing Jesus in a passion play, than when it’s left burning in someone’s front yard. The functional purpose of wine is to get people drunk, as I argued before, and is rightly kept away from children, except when it’s a part of the Catholic ritual. See?
Oh yeah. One of my classmates whipped up this terrifying weapon out of three red rubber bands, a piece of bent aluminium and a box full of tacking staples left by a bunch of builders. He could punch a hole in a soft drink can from across the room.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 7, 2007 @ 9:18 am
“That is the very issue which your religious blindfold prevents you from seeing.”
Imputing motives is an interesting strategy for an argument designed to convince as opposed to alienate an opponent.
I think it is worth dwelling on the polarising effects of certain atheist and secularist positions argued here. The surest way to promote fundamentalism or insularity is to give no ground at all on religious practices. Whereas, if we have a nuanced, informed and negotiated response to the demands of religious groups, their children can continue to be part of the educational mainstream. It’s simply good PR for secular education, surely?
Comment by Klaus K — December 7, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Benedict Anderson, paging Benedict Anderson. Your argument on nations as metaphysically constituted entities is needed for a cleanup on aisle four.
JPZ, of *course* national pride has legally protected value as an imaginary irrational construct. The Second Amendment of which Americans are so fond, for example, is looked upon as either outdated nineteenth-century bourgeois militancy, or rank irrational insanity in the rest of the world, but national pride keeps it current, fresh, and perpetually interesting. Religious practice, at least, tends towards the absurd.
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 7, 2007 @ 9:38 am
Anyone feel like addressing the issue of why we as a society sanction the religious brainwashing of our youth?
Kirpan’s etc act to satisfy the religious beliefs of the parent, not the student.
Comment by Tony D — December 7, 2007 @ 9:39 am
Ok the Sikh boys get to take the kirpan to school.
As the school principal in Gummo’s intro stated - “what about when the kirpan is taken and used by another student ?” To menace or taunt either a Sikh or non Sikh class mate?
Where is the responsibility of the teachers here ? Do they have the various Dept of Ed suspending their responsibility for the presence of a dagger on school premises?
Allowing any weapon/object designed as a dagger is going to be a major hassle for the teachers .
Kids are violent to each other and this just seems destined to afford an opportunity where the religious significance of the implement disappears and it reverts to it’s true form.
The teachers should also be protected from being liable for injuries suffered by children in their care if the kirpan is allowed on school premises.
What has the teachers union said about this situation ?
Teachers are responsible for seeing that the children in their care don’t come to grief - be from something as simple as running on asphalt, climbing fences to truant or using lathes in desin and tech classes.
So that boy at the back, Liam’s friend with the slingshot- you’re on detention immediately!
Comment by murph the surf — December 7, 2007 @ 9:42 am
design that is - good grief.
Comment by murph the surf — December 7, 2007 @ 9:43 am
Fair cop.
Comment by Gummo Trotsky — December 7, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Now I think I’ll sit this one out and treat myself to some off-line quality time.
Comment by Gummo Trotsky — December 7, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Hmmmm… actually, that ties neatly into the thread on official australian values…
‘..In Australia, we believe it is every persons inalienable right to brainwash their kids into believing whatever crud they (the parent), believe… and make ‘em wear some form of distinctive bling to prove it…’ or something.
Comment by Tony D — December 7, 2007 @ 9:45 am
Tony D, when I saw all of the youngsters getting around with their parents, during September, in their Manly jerseys or wearing maroon-and-white, I started to die a little bit in my heart.
Why are people so unkind?
Comment by Liam Hogan — December 7, 2007 @ 9:47 am
But nationality can and does have the same protected value as religion under some circumstances, j_p_z.
Item: Under the Israeli “Law of Return” persons deemed to be of Jewish heritage are deemed to be Israeli citizens regardless of their desire to be Israeli citizens.
Item: Persons with a British father are automatically deemed to be British citizens. Persons with a British mother are not.
Item: The Constitution of Australia embodies the metaphysical property call “race” as a component which may be material in any action by the Australian government, including the granting of citizenship.
Metaphysics rules, OK?
Comment by Katz — December 7, 2007 @ 9:53 am
Ah yes Liam, Marx was right for his times, that religion was indeed to opiate of the masses - and still is no doubt in many LDCs. But in DCs it seems to be Pro Sport that fills the hole to a large extent…
Generational sporting, political, religious beliefs - uncritically accepted from ones family, or reacted against. Oh what fun.
I accept that all education is a form of brainwashing as it changes the way you think. But I’d be guessing that everyone would disagree on what constitutes ‘acceptable’ forms.
Comment by Tony D — December 7, 2007 @ 9:57 am
Well, look, Tony. I’m sure we as a society can try and come to some workable compromise about religious education and the freedom of minorities before the law. We’re grown ups, aren’t we?
is nothing less t
There’s a limit, though. Allowing children to grow up following the Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles (pronounced with a silent “Warringah”