# Is This A Dagger I See Before Me?



## Admin (Apr 7, 2010)

It seems that the beans have been spilled all over. The people, who were always waiting for this opportunity when the Sikhs would commit a Hara Kiri, are making merry of this debacle.

Just look at the following news article... Now, where are all those people doing the BIG TALK? 

*I think, the only way this situation can now be redeemed for Sikhs is by Akal Takht excommunicating these so-called Sikhs criminals, who have brought Sikhi into grave disrepute. 
*
Gurfateh!

****************************************

 *Is This a Dagger I See Before Me?
Sikh symbol may not  be meant to cause  harm, but sometimes a knife is just a knife
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/791380--dimanno-is-this-a-dagger-i-see-before-me#article*


<di3>I</di3> could, I suppose, use the small crucifix at my neck to  take out somebody's eye.


    But, leaving aside its religious significance, a cross is primarily  a decorative ornament, a piece of jewellery, and no more inherently  dangerous than an earring post or hatpin – or a yarmulke or turban, for  that matter. 


With a great deal of imagination, one might posit that a yarmulke  could be used – to what, choke a person to death by stuffing it into a  victim's mouth? – and an unravelled turban wielded as ligature for  strangling. Such arguments would be rightly dismissed as absurd.


Yet we live in an era of aggressive pre-emptive measures, when  airline travellers can no longer bring bottled water on to a plane, or  concertgoers carry umbrellas into a stadium. 


The ingenuity of those with mayhem on the brain – shoe bombers,  undies bombers, crazed alchemists mixing up explosive liquids from  chicken soup and nitroglycerine – has compelled security agencies to  restrict so much of what once seemed harmless, X-ray peering right into  our entrails.
    The kirpan, though, still gets a pass. 


Why should it?


While the Sikh faith maintains that the kirpan is an instrument of _ahimsa_  – meaning non-violence – and to be used only as a defensive weapon, by  way of preventing harm from being done to oneself or another person, the  thing is still essentially a knife, for all that Canada's top court has  danced on a pin to rule otherwise in allowing it as a mandatory  religious observance.


It now seems probable – witnesses have said so – that a kirpan was  used to stab a prominent Brampton lawyer after he tried to disperse an  angry mob that had gathered to protest the planned – subsequently  cancelled – lecture by an excommunicated Sikh preacher at the Sikh Lehar  Centre Friday night. 


Manjit Mangat was taken to hospital with stab wounds to his  abdomen, thighs and legs, plus cuts to his face.


Religious confrontations are often combustible. 


With daggers to hand, this one got ******, fast.


Gun enthusiasts are always saying: Guns don't kill people, people  kill people. Strictly speaking, that's true – a firearm is a benign  object unless utilized for the purpose for which it was invented, which  is, well, to shoot people. 


That's why Canadians are prevented from owning or carrying sidearms  except in limited circumstances, with strict requirements for storage  and transport.


But we tread softly, in a legal context, when assessing the virtues  and non-lethality of a kirpan, weighing constitutionally guaranteed  religious rights against the public's right to security. 


Back in the age of innocence, that might have made sense, though  there has always been widespread controversy.


The Supreme Court of Canada, in its unanimous wisdom, ruled in the  culmination of a long legal battle (Multani v. Commission scolaire  Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 2006) that Quebec's highest court had erred in  siding with a school board that tried to prevent a 12-year-old Sikh boy  from wearing his kirpan to school. 


Because the child's parents chose to pull the boy out of public  school rather than take away his kirpan – doing so posed an  "irreconcilable friction" with their tenets of faith – the Supremes  concluded the child's religious rights had been compromised under the  Charter.


The court ruled that the kirpan need not be addressed as a  "weapon," allowing the boy's family to demonstrate merely a "personal,  subjective belief in the religious significance of the kirpan," and  accepted that prohibiting the youth from carrying it was more than a  "trivial interference" of religious rights enshrined in the Charter.


To buttress their decision, the Supremes noted there had never been  a known case of a kirpan being used violently in any school across  Canada.
    But there have been cases since.


Further, this isn't just about boys taking kirpans to school – the  same schools where zero tolerance has prevented girls from bringing  Midol to class in their purse.


Courts in many countries have been struggling with this issue.  Denmark's High Court, as an example, has ruled that religion is not a  valid reason for carrying a kirpan. 


More often, compromises on size and proper sheathing – as in Canada  – have been reached, as was the case during the Vancouver Olympics. 
     In Canada and the U.S., Sikhs are permitted to fly with their  kirpans, but must turn them over to the aircraft's crew before boarding.  


Yet just two years ago, Sikhs were dropped from an interfaith  delegation scheduled to meet with the Pope because of their refusal to  set the kirpan aside.


There is a historical context for the kirpan, its use arising from  necessity centuries ago.  


Symbolism has now replaced necessity, and baptized male Sikhs must  wear a kirpan, along with the turban.


It is not for me, a mostly non-practising Catholic, to lecture  Sikhs about anachronisms in religious observance. All faiths have 'em. 


But a dagger used to stab a man in Brampton – which is hardly the  Punjab of 1708 – has made this, once again, a matter of communal,  secular concern.


As an aside, it's interesting to note that Bill 94, proposed by  Quebec Premier Jean Charest to ban face coverings for Muslim women in  Quebec, with accommodation specifically denied for reasons of "security,  communication or identification," does not outlaw the kirpan.


Surely a dagger worn by men is more of a security compromise than a  piece of fabric over a woman's face?


----------



## spnadmin (Apr 7, 2010)

This is a very thought provoking article. Thanks for posting it. And yes, I agree with you, *I think, the only way this situation can now be redeemed for Sikhs is  by Akal Takht excommunicating these so-called Sikhs criminals, who have  brought Sikhi into grave disrepute.* We have layers of tragedy in this situation.


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 7, 2010)

To - mostly - repeat myself:

I agree this is a heavy blow to our fight to get our kirpans recognised  as articles of faith and not weapons.  However, with all due respect,  there is something very wrong here.  No one was  attacked with a kirpan and no one ever will be.  In the very instance   that a kirpan is used as an aggressive weapon, it ceases to be a kirpan,  an article of faith;  it is merely a knife or a dagger or a sword. And  the person who wields it ceases to be a Gursikh and becomes a common  criminal, a thug.   These thugs must be treated as the criminals that  they are.

I realise that this is a distinction that will be lost on the general  public, but it must be made here, among us Sikhs.  I also realise I am  leaving myself open to attack for bluntly stating this, but it is the  truth and, I am certain, the opinion of the vast majority of Sikhs who  are good, peaceable. law-biding citizens of the respective countries.  

Also  it cannot be overlooked that a kara was also used as an offensive  weapon.  Vaheguru!  Is there no end to this?

Our prayers are with  those injured and their families.

Now, what sort of damage control is possible?


----------



## BhagatSingh (Apr 8, 2010)

Mai Harinder Kaur said:


> In the very instance that a kirpan is used as an aggressive weapon, it ceases to be a kirpan, an article of faith; it is merely a knife or a dagger or a sword. And the person who wields it ceases to be a Gursikh and becomes a common criminal, a thug. These thugs must be treated as the criminals that they are.
> Read More:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=29875 (Is This a Dagger I See Before Me?)


 
Mai ji,
A win-win situation, how convenient. :}

If kirpan is always kept to oneself --> No harm is done by the kirpan --> "You see! Kirpans are harmless..."

If kirpan is used to attack --> If its used to attack its not a kirpan anymore (the person wasn't even SIKH! how can you say its a kirpan? yadi yada) --> "You see! Kirpans are harmless..."

Here's a challenge, when is a Kirpan actually dangerous?

Guns are always safe too you know.
Yes when a gun is fired, its not even a gun anymore because it was fired, it has one less bullet, originally it had 1 more. So when we called it a gun it had X amount of bullets and now it has X-1, its not a gun! Guns are always safe!

Can we do better than this? Yes we can! :meditation:


----------



## Mai Harinder Kaur (Apr 8, 2010)

BhagatSingh said:


> Mai ji,
> A win-win situation, how convenient. :}
> 
> If kirpan is always kept to oneself --> No harm is done by the kirpan --> "You see! Kirpans are harmless..."
> ...



A kirpan is actually dangerous when the holder is using it either to defend herself or some oppressed person.  My kirpan was most dangerous, indeed, in Delhi when I efficiently cut the throat of the attacker who had killed my son.  That is the righteous use of the kirpan both as a article of faith and as a weapon.

Anyway, I think you are being purposely obtuse.  You are an intelligent man.  If you think about what I am saying, I think you'll be able to understand what I'm getting at.


----------

