Shocker: "The black hole strikes again."

So that's it! That explains all! It must have been painful. No wonder you're a shockaholic.

May 2008 bring you a speedy recovery.

I thought you weren't "wasting time with Shockadelic" anymore, Frankie Wankie.
But here you are again!

You're the black hole Frank, but unfortunately there's no explaining you.

Sikhs can do whatever they like, demanding legal amendments to suit their beliefs.

But Hell will freeze over before FrankGol gives Christians, Jews or Satanists the same privilege.

One rule if you're Judeo-Christian, another if you're 'exotic'.
So much for 'non-discrimination'.

The Gospel According to Frank:
"All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL ?

yes.. it's just dawned on me.. "Goverment shall make no law promoting a religion" something like that right?

Well the Kirpan is SPECIFICALLY Sikh, and to make an 'excemption' from a law, is tantamount to making a law... thus, as such it is unconstitutional?

I'd value feedback on this, because I'd like to persue it.

Happy New Year.

BD dabbles in 'tolerance'

Ok.. here is what I'm prepared to accept.

1/ SMALL symbolic kirpans of no larger than 2 cm length.
2/ Fully enclosed, so that they weapon cannot be removed from it's sheath.
3/ Sheath and Weapon to be fully enclosed in some difficult to remove material, rendering it totally harmless and impossible to use as a weapon.

Or.. just wear one about the size of a small crucifix.

The idea the Kirpan is not viewed as a symbol of violence (in a defensive sense) is (to Quote Franks terminology) "preposterous".. just take a look at Sikh history to find out.

blessings.

Quick! Somebody call the DA's office. Boazy's ready to cut a deal.

It has something to do with covering his weapon with a sheath.

Happy new year all!

BOAZ-David:

With your usual precision you declare that the Australian Constitution has the answer to your kirpan problem: "...it's just dawned on me.. "Goverment shall make no law promoting a religion" something like that right?"

"Well the Kirpan is SPECIFICALLY Sikh, and to make an 'excemption' from a law, is tantamount to making a law... thus, as such it is unconstitutional?

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution says: "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth."

Notice: 'prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'. So your constitutional ploy fails.

Now, let's go back to your original posting David. The article from the Herald-Sun (6 December 2007: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22879059-2862,00.html)

"The Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria...told the committee that only a small number or Sikhs have been initiated and an even smaller number of students carry the kirpan.

"The kirpan, carried in a sheath and worn on a strap, is one of five articles of faith that initiated Sikh males have to carry. It is not allowed to be used as a weapon."

Note: "It is not allowed to be used as a weapon."

Note: "carried in a sheathe and worn on a strap". Have you gone off half-cocked again, David?