Frank, it's been quoted elsewhere that the kirpan is carried in part for defensive purposes. Is there a bit of semantics here or are the earlier quotes incorrect?

Is it a weapon only if used for an attack (Bill Clinton's definition of sexual relations springs to mind) or does the quote you made cover both offensive and defensive use?

I still don't see the validity in allowing any child to carry a knife at school. I don't see that religious beliefs should carry greater weight than other reasons for allowing something. If it's OK on the basis of religion then it should be OK on the basis of other reasons which might be equally important to the individual concerned - cultural, obsessive devotion to fishing, hunting etc.

As a parent I'd not want any child at my son's school routinely carrying a knife around regardless of how some may choose to interpret a particular religious belief.

R0bert

R0bert,

The issue here is truly one of definition. And who is doing the defining, and for what purpose? As you rightly point out, Bill Clinton used a convenient - and legally, if not morally, acceptable - definition when he denied having sexual relations with 'that woman'. The definition was available to him and he made the most of it.

When is a traditional 'religious symbol' a 'weapon'? When does the word 'weapon' connote 'attack' and when 'defence'?

When does a 'kirpan' become a 'knife'?

The answer to all these questions is - When people want to use fear of poorly understood symbolism as a weapon against the equally poorly understood policy of multiculturalism.

I returned to and quoted the Herald-Sun article that BOAZ_David used to open this thread. Typically dishonest, BOAZ failed to quote from the article the Sikh Interfaith Council of Victoria statements - that only a small number or Sikhs have been initiated and an even smaller number of students carry the kirpan which is not allowed to be used as a weapon.

In the hands of spinmeister BOAZ, the tiny ornamental kirpan becomes 'a concealed unlicenced weapon'. This unleashes the fools and dullards who rush in with fears of children armed to the teeth with AK47s, machetes and sundry other tools of terrorism, 13 year olds Jews being allowed to truant willy-nilly, and governments turning a blind eye to FGM, forced arranged marriages, pedophilia and incest. All because of an inoffensive symbol the likes of which have been around in schools for decades.

I remember an incident in a Catholic school in which a child whacked another with the altar cross, splitting his head wide open. I've never heard - don't expect to hear - any suggestion that crosses are weapons or that Catholic children should be banned from wearing crosses around their necks (no matter what size).

As a New Year's resolution - let's keep this religious weaponry issue in perspective...and let common sense be our friend and companion in 2008.

FrankGol: "Only a *small* number of Sikhs" carry "the *tiny* ornamental kirpan."

And a *small* number of Muslims with *tiny* knives couldn't do any harm either, could they Frankie Wankie?

A kirpan is a "sword" or "dagger".
Swords, daggers and knives are all metal *blades* attached to a handle, capable of cutting or stabbing.
Your semantic games can't get around this.

That's why kirpans are *not allowed* on planes or in prisons.

Referring to kirpans only as "symbols" is dishonest.
They're supposed to defend the wearer against assault.
Therefore they must be *capable* of physical damage to one's aggressor, otherwise they would have *no defensive value*!

Sikh culture is unrelated to the cultural history of Australia, on which our legal code is based.

Sikhs living in Australia cannot expect our laws to change to suit their cultural history.
They moved into our land, not vice versa.

If I moved to the Punjab, I would be expected to live by *their* laws, based on *their* traditions.

"Why don't you live by Aboriginal law?" comes the predictable yawn-inducing response.
If it were 1788, I'd agree.
But over 200 years of irreversible history have changed Australia into *something else*.

I'm not entitled to expect Sikh culture in the Punjab to be compatible with Australia, but I am entitled to expect compatibility *within* Australia.

Why is your embracing of "cultural diversity" inconsistent?

You allow legislators to make exemptions for Sikhs based on religious tradition, but not Jews.

You leave the issue of religious "symbols" in the hands of legislators if it's Sikhs, but school principals if it's Satanists.

It would be so much easier to accept your opinion, if it had any internal consistency.

Kirpan (noun): a sword or dagger.

Contradiction (noun): inconsistency; discrepancy; something that contains contradictory elements. See also FrankGol.

If we can reject "religious" human sacrifices and cannibalism as unacceptable, we can reject "religious" weapons too.

Embrace the "wonders" of multiculturalism if you like, Frank, but do it *all the time* for *all people* (not just Sikh saint-soldiers, but also human sacrificing Aztecs, cannibalistic Papuans, Satanists and Jews) or shut up.

Happy New Year to you Shocker,

I find your dissertations on contemporary multiculturalism very diverting. I think you're winding me up.

Next time I'm in Mexico I'll look out for those 'human sacrificing' Aztecs; and likewise when next in Papua I'll be most wary of inviting cannibals to dinner. I actually get on very well with my Papuan neighbours in Footscray but I was puzzled when one of them when the turkey came on the table at Xmas and he said he was a vegoe. Here was I thinking them all headhunters...

My own family has plenty of first-hand knowledge of Jewish customs and traditions so no issue there except that they all seem to be overly ambitious for their kids schooling and I couldn't find any of the kids wanting to leave school at 13.

But I have to confess I've never met any Satanists so I'll have to bow to your greater knowledge of how multiculturalism is short-changing them. I'll keep a look out at the beach and the cricket next week. Alert but not alarmed, I am.

FRANK SAID:

"In the hands of spinmeister BOAZ, the tiny ornamental kirpan becomes 'a concealed unlicenced weapon'."

*ouch*.... err Frank.... I have to say the shoe is on the other foot mate.

1/ I looked up the "Kirpan" and gained an impression of it's size. (considerable)

http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/bldefkirpan.htm
<<Kirpans range in size from large ceremonial swords, to tiny knives small enough to be worn about the neck. All Khalsa Sikhs are required towear the kirpan.>>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan#In_the_USA_.28Legal.29
<<In most public places in Canada a Sikh religious Kirpan is allowed but there some places where it is not clear cut. In the 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite&#8209;Bourgeoys the court held that the banning of the kirpan in a school environment is against Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a reasonable accommodation. The issue started when a 12 year old student dropped a 20 cm (8 inches) long kirpan in school. School staff and parents were very concerned, and the student was required to attend school under police supervision until the court decision was reached.>>

PROBLEMS.
1/USA has problems with Sikh's at Airports!
2/Denmark has ruled "Religion not a valid reason to break the weapons law"
3/HOW brilliant do you have to be, to realize that it doesn't matter a scrap what the ATTITUDE of the child is. OTHER kids KNOW he has a weapon, and could easily remove and USE it.
Game/Set/Match

THE ISSUE is not one of 'human rights'... oh wait.. it IS.. the right of children to attend school without FEAR of Sikh students carrying deadly weapons.

Boaz, you will not rest until everyone shares your fear and loathing of otherness, will you?

Here are extracts from your last four posts:

>>...FEAR of Sikh students carrying deadly weapons<<

>>pandering to minorities who eventually end up acting like the Sikhs, and wanting to get exceptions from laws about deadly weapons so they can fulfil their supposed religious obligations<<

>>"Islam"-a-phobia is entirely justified... when the Muslim community feels confident, has the numbers, and access to power... well the others said it already... Bomb attacks all around the world<<

>>Taken as true, this would make 'Allah' -the approver of rape/abuse of captive slave girls, -the approver of unspeakable cruelties<<

Tell me, do you really think that these are valid contributions to discussion? Or are they simply renewed attempts to rally others to your exclusionary, bigoted and fearful view of life? You had been a little subdued on the topic for a while, and I wondered if the joy and fellowship of the Christmas holidays had mellowed you a little.

Sadly, this appears not to be the case.