BOAZ_David

I don't know why I'm bothering - your post is so spectacularly unintelligent and vacuous - but here we go again.

What is the typical size of a ceremonial kirpan? Was the one in your selected picture typical of the size of ceremonial kirpans?

Can you tell OLO how many times terrorists have posed as Sikhs, boarded a plane and hijacked it using their kirpan?

Can you tell us how many Australian Sikhs have used a kirpan as an assault weapon:
(a) in Australian schools?
(b) on the streets in Australia?
(c) in any other public place in Australia?
(d) anywhere in the world?

Can you point to any evidence, anytime, anywhere where Sikhs have used the kirpan for non-defensive purposes?

What do you mean when you use the expression 'alleged exemptions for Sikhs at the political level'? Are you saying the law doesn't allow exemptions? Have you looked at the relevant law?

And what do you mean when you say (without the 'alleged' this time) by saying the kirpan exemption is intended to buy votes? Who's buying votes from Sikhs with these exemptions? In what seats has this vote buying been carried out? Which particular politicians bought these votes?

David, I don't really expect an answer to any of my questions because you're not a serious scholar or a thinker. Nor do you have a conscience, so unwarranted vilification is OK. In fact, I've concluded that you're essentially a red-neck ignoramus with scores of prejudices bubbling under your skin and a superficial smattering of Biblical knowledge (though I wouldn't be surprised if you use a Concordance to get your quotations).

You excrete racial and religious accusations without proper evidence or logical warrant. Is this because you have a deep psychological craving to create fear and loathing of people who are different from you?

Surprise me - give yourself an early Christmas present. Go talk to some Sikhs and tell them what you've been telling us. Then listen to their gentle response. You might learn something about humility. Now THAT (shout) would be a Christian act.

Horus,

Democracies are fragile, and there's where I prefer to live as opposed to theocracies and other authoritarian states which are brutal and inhumane.

Liberty and personal integrity are the delicate threads that hold democracy together and make it worth fighting for. There are always people wanting to tell us what's best for us and how necessary it is becoming to take way freedom and liberty in the interest of 'safety', 'security', 'the greater good', 'the national interest' and other euphemisms for control.

The would-be controllers can achieve more control by stimulating fear and by persuading citizens to be compliant in the loss of some liberty 'in your own best interests'.

I refuse to be cowed by artificially contrived fear and smear campaigns especially when the scapegoats - the stranger, the other, the outsider among us - are innocent of all intention to cause harm or to damage the democracy they have struggled so hard to join.

I am not averse to laws that really protect us. But in the past decade we have seen government legally but rapidly reduce our liberties and endanger our personal integrity for spurious reasons - like holding on to power for the sake of power. And the saddest thing is that many Australians have been sucked in by a deliberate campaign to make people feel they are at risk and then to feel grateful for the government stepping in to make us safer by making us less free.

People like BOAZ and SCOTTY aid and abet the process by making free with group slander and vilification. You can give away your freedom if you like, but I'm damned if I will.

If Aztecs were in Australia today, I suppose we'd have to let them perform human sacrifices to Huitzilopochtli during recess.

Thinking of the discrimination Aztecs would suffer in our Judeo-Christian dictatorship, it tears my heart out.

Frank Gol
>> Can you tell OLO how many times terrorists have posed as Sikhs, boarded a plane and hijacked it using their kirpan?

Can you tell us how many times terrorists have highjacked planes and flown them into skyscrapers?

In modern risk management we take into consideration
1) The likelihood of an adverse incident
2) The possible damage of an adverse outcome

It is not enough to merely consider the history of kirpan attacks, the possible damage the kirpan could do to a child is of equal importance. When we look at a risk management matrix it is clear that although the chances of an adverse outcome is low, the possible damage could be quite severe. The risk isn’t worth taking and in any case isn’t necessary. The Sikhs have survived so far without carrying their kirpans to school, why do they need a change of law now.

Horus is bang on, when he points out that modern risk management regularly deals with loss possibility, high damage risks by introducing regulations. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. Eg. Do you insure your house? Why? How many people do you know who’s house has burnt down?

BTW. I am very interested in knowing which members of the kirpan cheer squad believe in gun control. My bet is its most of you.

I am not really surprised that you consider opposition to introducing these weapons to ours scools, “racial vilification.” Its typical of the soft lefters, highly unimaginative. This issue has nothing to do with the merits of the Sikhs as a people. It is the abrogation of a simple, sensible law, that no weapons are taken into our school yards. That you and others would consider it some kind of persecution that we don’t want to make exceptions to a perfectly sensible law shows how far out of touch you multiculturalists have become.

Dear Paul L,

Again with the labelling... I'm a "Multiculturalist" as you put it.
But have you read my posts. I agree with you about the Kirpan.

But, what's with you guys, always labelling people who have a different opinion to you. Or is attack, your best form of defence?
I would have thought you'd have more intelligence than to stoop to that.

Shame on you!

Paul.L

You make good sense up to a point. The analogy with house insurance is much more reasonable than Shockadelic's Aztecs who would tear his heart out (the brain would be more difficult to locate).

The insurance analogy is not a perfect fit, but it does suggest that we must be prudent about managing the risk with the kirpan as with other aspects of life. But while no amount of insurance will prevent a car crash, that doesn't mean we must be frozen into inaction, never taking to the roads. Nor should politicians tell us we can't drive cars because they are killer machines.

What is more likely to prevent the terrible consequences of crashes are preparation, education and a strong supervisory presence (police on patrol). Young drivers must be trained to know the lethal nature of speed, wet roads etc. They must know there are sanctions for breaches of the law and that every time they drive they have their lives - and those of others - in their hands.

Young Sikhs are taught respect for their religion and its customary laws by their parents. They would not be initiated without showing a profound understanding of the potential to break the law and cause serious harm with the abuse of the kirpan.

The analogy with the potentially dangerous tools in the woodwork and cookery classrooms comes to mind. We don't ban these dangerous weapons because there is a risk - instead we teach young people to respect their potential for harm and to use them for their intended purpose. We supervise them carefully. We impose sanctions if there is disrespect or tomfoolery.

Can we guarantee there will never be a tragic accident? No! Just as we can't guarantee that a student won't drown on an excursion to the beach. But we don't ban swimming schools; we manage the risk, and teach even more that the sea is great fun but it is also treacherous.

Those who use the kirpan issue as a device to skittle multiculturalism are desperate to find any lame excuse to peddle their monocultural world view.