Canada Supreme Court Allows Daggers in Schools - For Some

TheBluesMan

Moderator Emeritus
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/2006....wAFwViyL4F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Top court quashes school ban on Sikh daggers, citing religious freedom

JIM BROWN Thu Mar 2, 3:11 PM ET

OTTAWA (CP) - The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a Montreal school board's ban on the wearing of ceremonial daggers by Sikh students - delivering a ringing defence of religious freedom in the process.
ADVERTISEMENT

In an 8-0 judgment Thursday, the court quashed a decision that barred teenager Gurbaj Singh Multani from attending class wearing the dagger, known as a kirpan.

The court left room for some restrictions on kirpans in the name of public safety. But a blanket ban goes too far and violates the Charter of Rights, wrote Justice Louise Charron.

"A total prohibition against wearing kirpans to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others."

Religious tolerance lies "at the very foundation of our democracy," Charron said, and schools must teach respect for minority groups and multicultural values.

Gurbaj Singh is now 17 and in his last year of high school, a private school that allows him to wear his kirpan. He acknowledged the five years it took for the case to get through the courts were stressful.

"I was a little scared but the community supported me a lot, they stood by me shoulder by shoulder," he said. "I'm thankful to them."

The ruling will ease the way for younger students still in public schools in Quebec, he said. "I feel very good that we won our rights."

A number of school districts in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario have long permitted the wearing of kirpans subject to certain conditions.

The rules often include a size limit on the dagger, or a requirement to keep it sheathed and to wear it under clothing and out of sight.

Those conditions are acceptable to the vast majority of orthodox Sikhs, said Palbinder Shergill, counsel for the Canadian branch of the World Sikh Organization.

"I certainly hope this decision will put that matter to rest once and for all."

The judgment could also have an impact on other disputes - for example, the controversies that have erupted in some Quebec schools over the wearing of the hijab, the traditional Muslim head scarf for women.

The Supreme Court didn't directly address that issue Thursday. But the judges made it clear that schools must produce hard evidence to justify any curb on a sincerely held religious belief.

"This decision does assist, I believe, in an interpretation that would permit the hijab in schools as well," said Shergill.

Orthodox Sikhs, who make up about 10 per cent of the estimated 250,000 Sikhs in Canada, are required by their religion to wear the kirpan at all times.

It symbolizes the fight for justice, but there are religious prohibitions on using it as a weapon.

Charron was scathing in rejecting a contention by school board lawyers that the dagger is emblematic of violence, calling that factually wrong and "disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion."

Four other judges subscribed to Charron's reasoning, while three more reached the same conclusions by different legal means.

The Montreal dispute arose in 2001 when Gurbaj Singh, then aged 12, first wore his kirpan to school.

Authorities initially sought a compromise that would allow him to continue wearing the dagger. But the governing council of the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school board rejected that approach and imposed a total ban.

During a Supreme Court hearing last April, Julius Grey, the lawyer for the Multani family, noted there has never been a school assault committed with a kirpan anywhere in Canada.

Francois Aquin, the lawyer for the Montreal board, retorted that there have been no school assaults with kitchen knives either. "That doesn't mean we will allow students to carry kitchen knives in school."

The board issued a statement Thursday saying it was "disappointed" with the court decision but would comply and explain the situation to parents.

The kirpan has sparked controversy not only in schools, but also in other public institutions, producing a patchwork of policies across the country.

Sikh MPs can wear kirpans in the House of Commons and visitors can wear them in the public galleries.

It's all right to wear them in the Supreme Court of Canada, but trial judges in some provinces have banned them from their courtrooms.

Most airlines once allowed passengers to wear kirpans, but in the security crackdown that followed the 9-11 terrorist attacks Transport Canada decreed a ban.

The Supreme Court judgment is confined to school situations and does not apply to other areas. "Each environment is a special case," wrote Charron.
This is a great decision by the court and a victory for the freedom of religion in Canada. I wonder if there is any case law in the US with a similar decision, or if zero-tolerance supercedes the freedom of religion.
 
I know I read somewhee that the courts upheld the right of a Scottish student (American citizen) to wear a dagger to a school dance. Not really religion, but the same freedoms. I'll dig up a link in a bit...
 
Since we are living in a country of Prohibition and limited rights, then yes, I would say zero tolerance supercedes religious tolerance here. Although, recently the Supreme Court upheld the rights of Americans in Arizona(?) that practice a South American religion to ingest the Ayhuasca(sp?) root in a religious ceremony. The root contains DMT which is outlawed here in the U.S. and causes heavy hallucinations. There are less than 300 Americans who practice this religion. What if you are a Rastafarian? Good luck obtaining a permit to grow marijauna. The only Americans I am aware of who have full religious freedom are Native Americans, and their situation is a bit different than your 'average' citizens'. What if someone witnessed your family having Communion and you gave a child a sip of wine representing the blood of Christ? Have fun explaining that to the stormtroopers and CPS who come to get you and take your child away.
 
What if someone witnessed your family having Communion and you gave a child a sip of wine representing the blood of Christ. Have fun explaining that to the stormtroopers and CPS who come to get you and take your child away.

Exar how familiar are you with the Christian religion. I started taking communion in 8th grade, right after I was confirmed in the Lutheran Church. During every communion I've ever been to I've seen numerous people under 21, and even under 18 :eek: drinking wine representing the blood of Christ. I've never seen a police officer, stormtrooper, CPS or any other person demand an explanation for this behavior. Talk about being paranoid. Have you ever been to a church service where communion was administered? Has anyone ever tried to take your child away for giving him/her communion? If so please show me examples of when this occured. I would really like to know.
 
I was raised in church, Methodist my whole life. My grandfather is a Baptist minister in Tennessee. I've participated in Communion every month since I can remember. Guess what? They never used alcohol for that very reason. We drink grape juice instead. I have only seen alcohol used once and that was because my family was invited to attend the local Catholic church. My parents and I did not partake in their traditions. Besides, why would your fellow parishiners turn you in? I was actually loosly refrencing if 'hypothetically' in your home you were practicing your customs and an outsider perhaps witnessed you actions. That same person who would call the police on you for giving wine to a minor is also the same type of person who will call the cops if they see your registered handgun holstered at your hip. Not eveyone will be as understanding as you are to the customs of religion. It takes all kinds.
 
Exar,

I apologize, I guess I jumped the gun. The only time my church, or any church I've been to in the area, uses grape juice is for alcoholics or those alergic to alcohol. I've just never heard of substituting grape juice for wine just because someone is under 21. Learn something new everyday:D Do those over 21 have to drink grape juice also?
 
I think the court made the wrong decision. I am all for freedom of religion and I'm a person of faith myself, but to me this is not a religion issue. If weapons are banned from certain places (schools, etc.), then they should be banned, with no exceptions made using religion as an excuse. But this is very typical of Canada. A nation of kinder gentler people, in all the wrong ways and for all the wrong reasons. This kind of stuff really ticks me off.
 
No prob Fal 4.:D No alcohol is offered at anytime for anyone. I would personally prefer to use wine to be more traditional and express my religious freedom. I think I will ask the minister his personal feelings on the use of grape juice instead of wine next time I see him.
 
A very interesting decision...

I wonder how the Supreme Court of Canada will limit this precedent when confronted with a case involving an "honor" killing.
 
Here is some information on the Kirpan - carried by all orthodox Sikh men.
The kirpan is the ceremonial dagger carried by Sikhs, as a reminder to fight for justice and against oppression. One of the five khalsas, or dress rituals. The word kirpan has the literal meaning of weapon of defence, as opposed to the talwar, the weapon of offence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan
 
I wonder how the Supreme Court of Canada will limit this precedent when confronted with a case involving an "honor" killing.
Although that is a different issue, their argument to justify it would be the same.
 
Its the Canadian way. In 1990, an turban wearing sikh, sought to join the ranks of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). He was denied on the basis that his turban, which of course he wouldn't remove, violated the RCMP's dress code. There was a huge court battle where he maintained it was his religious right to wear his turban and the RCMP should change their legendary dress code to accommodate him. He eventually won, and he was accepted into Depot (6 month RCMP training academy). He is still with the RCMP today.
 
Their comes a point when you can have so many laws, or so many "rights" that they become incompatible with each other.

Religion is supposed to be a personal thing, and the government has no say in it. So if my personal religion defies a law, the People have lost their right to make laws? We live in a classless society, but one's religious affiliation or belief system gives one group of people a pass on laws that the rest of us can be prosecuted for?


Mainly, this issue underlines how fundamentally offensive weapon control laws are. But it also provides an avenue through which people can violate the rules of their society.


If this happened in the US, I would hope the Mormons would be slamming the courts with polygamy challenges.



The apostles of Jesus carried swords. I wonder how my religious convictions will be honored next time I wear my katana to the mall?
 
The word kirpan has the literal meaning of weapon of defence, as opposed to the talwar, the weapon of offence.
There is no difference between offensive and defensive weapons. The difference is in how a weapon is used.

These daggers shouldn't be banned from school, but if they are, religious people shouldn't be exempt, because it decreases the number of people who will fight for repeal of stupid weapons laws.
 
Which knife draws blood?

Is that the ones where the knife must draw blood if it is taken from it's sheath, therefore if they don't stab anyone, they have to like, cut their finger or something before putting it back? I noticed that they made the exception if they carried the dagger under their clothing. If they are patted down are they charged with CCW? If I was patted down and had a big hunting knife under my clothing, would I be charged with CCW, depending on the mood of whomever? I guess they saw what happened in France with the headgear in school, and chickened out. Now I wonder when some Sikhs in the US will challenge the zero tolerance ruling. BTW what is considered "defensive" use of the thing if it is not for offense? If another kid slaps one, can he defensively defend his honor with a dagger in the chest?
 
I'm an orthodox Tacticalist. My religion requires me packing a Desert Eagle.
This was obviously a joke, but its also logical. Anybody can make up a story about their religious beliefs and demand special treatment. But I don't think religion should ever be an excuse for breaking existing laws.
 
to choochboost etal

You can only carry a kirpan if you are a Sikh. I carry a Swiss army knife but not on an aircraft or any International flights,Its still a religious thing ! Our laws protect Minorities and as a WASP I'm fast becoming one in this country,Am I still xenophobic??? YUP!!:barf: :barf: :D
 
Back
Top