The topic of kirpans was brought up recently in a
discussion. Saying that in NSW Sikhs were allowed to
carry ceremonial daggers (kirpans) as part of their
dress. Should this be allowed? A kirpans is still a
dagger - and could be used as a weapon.

Your thoughts please?

As the forum's No 1 champion of multiculturalism, at least where Muslims are concerned, there is no need to hide your light under a bushel. So what do you say? You are going to 'educate'(sic) us all in due course as per usual, right?

On the other hand it would be prudent to ensure that the facts are on the table first up, one being that Sikhs are reliable in defending others in India and elsewhere. Not prone to strapping on a suicide vest, but exactly the opposite.

Also useful to know tat the ceremonial knives they wear where knives are not lawful in public in the world are just ceremonial size, tiny and blunt - you could ride to Yorke on one.

Here is someone who knows and also interesting for his comments on travelling sportspeople, eg cricketers.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/67420736/Sikh-kirpan-dagger-may-be-permitted-on-planes-after-cricket-fans-barred

Some of us may get irritated because some imports are notorious for resolving even minor disagreements with weapons and imported gang culture have required the regulation of edged weapons to be extended to even that lunchtime apple peeler that many once carried. That has nothing at all to do with Sikhs though and few would argue against bringing in more Sikhs in lieu of Islamists.

Now by all means do exercise the free speech that others must defend (and are constantly being required to defend) and state your own position. Even though this is likely just another opportunity for an astroturfing NGO that wants to make money out of asylum seekers, even where that means thousands drowning at sea, to weave some crooked spin against the government and the interests of Australia.

Para 3 above, that should be York. Although some of OLO's notorious Anglophobes would object to the reference to the UK. A raspberry to the self-loathing leftist 'Progressives' and their foul political correctness.

otb,

Actually, kirpans come in various sizes and some
of them are quite sharp. The Sikh Association
of Australia itself wants kirpans banned from
schools and I agree with them. Kids tend to grab
things they like the look of, and in schools
this could be a problem. They should leave the
kirpans at home. They are supposed to be part of
their national costume and worn on special occasions
only. They should not be allowed in schools.

That of course is only my opinion.

Me, a No 1 advocate of multiculturalism?
Especially of Muslims?
How on earth do you know that?
What does that make you then?
What "ism" are you an advocate of?

Fox,

What about you provide a quote and link? Because there is obviously something odd in your claim that Sikhs want the ceremonial version, which is all they say is necessary, banned from schools. About as dangerous as a sports locker key and probably smaller.

otb,

Kindly look up - "Don't take kirpans to school."
And "Sikh Council of Australia - and kirpans."
And - "images of kirpans." It's all there on the
web.

I will await the inevitable sting in the tail spin when you work your way around to it as usual. By a circuitous route you will be dumping on Australians somehow, right? Australia Day being on the way.

Dearest Foxy,

Until Sikhs start stabbing old women and young pregnant women in the back with their ceremonial daggers, I think they should be free to wear them. Cultural respect and all that.

Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a Sikh wearing one.

On the other hand, if I saw a young bloke waving an ISIS flag and what might be a gun or a knife, I would keep out of his way, and let the police do their job, as quickly as possible.

Love,

Joe

otb,

Are you incapable of having a normal well-reasoned discussion
without stooping to personal insults?

Obviously not.

The only inevitable "sting" only always comes from
yourself.

How about actually trying to take part in the topic of the
discussion. Try sticking to the topic. You can do it.
At least give it a go. The rest is simply stirring.
You do have a problem but I don't want to play your game.
Besides deliberate provocation is against forum rules.

Dear Joe,

The biggest danger does not come from adults,
but is in school where other
children
who have no concept of specific
religious practices would consider
it great fun to taunt the child in
his costume and attempt to
remove the religious dagger which
could cause serious injury.

Bullying is common in all schools.

I have a relative who at the age of ten was sent to a
religious school his parents were migrants from post-war
Europe and they would give him sandwiches with meat on a Friday.
Of course, on Fridays, meat was forbidden at that time by
religious teaching and his habit of eating meat was
frowned upon. The kid was looked upon as being "different."
In other words if you did not conform -you were picked on.
Don't eat meat on a Friday. Not at that school.

Other children would therefore take his sandwiches
away and throw them into the rubbish. Fortunately, the victim
learned to put up with this. In later years he grew extremely
tall, and bullies at his school learned to respect him.
(they were afraid of him).

Therefore, being different - whether its clothing, sandwiches
or anything else that makes one stand out from the others,
will have its disadvantages. In the case of daggers - more
serious problems can result. Kids can get hurt.

Dearest Foxy,

You suggest that ' .... in school where other children who have no concept of specific religious practices would consider it great fun to taunt the child in his costume and attempt to remove the religious dagger which could cause serious injury.'

Hypothetically, I suppose it could. Do you know of any instances ? Even in Britain, or in Canada ?

Mind you, if I was a kid again, and there was a Sikh kid in the class with his dagger, the last thing I might do would be to try to pinch it from him. Literally.

Wait a minute: would Sikh boys wear daggers to school ? Wouldn't it have to be a sort of manhood symbol, a bar mitzvah sort of thing where they got their daggers as a symbol of their new standing as protectors, at fifteen or sixteen ?

Lots of love,

Joe

Dear Joe,

The kirpan is a religious symbol similar to the cross in
Christianity. You can Google the kirpan. There's an
interesting article in Wikipedia in which there was a
case in 2008 in Montreal where a 13 year old student
threatened another student with his kirpan.

Hi Foxy,

One case ? Eight years ago ? Gosh. How many kids have been pulled up for carrying knives or guns in Canada or Australia since then, I wonder ?

Still, probably more than the number of people who have been threatened violently by crosses. Says an atheist.

Joe

Dear Joe,

You're wise to stay out of the way of kirpans,
crosses, boomerangs, spears, and any other sharp
religious object - Sister Mary Virgilius was a
holy terror with her rosaries in my school.
But then you could always get hit by lightening.

A gentleman in Highland dress traditionally carries a sgian-dubh - a single-bladed dagger tucked into the hose (on the same side as your dominant hand). I don't see that as being much different to carrying a kirpan, so it wouldn't be fair to ban one and not the other.

The Scots won't like it if you try to take their sgian-dubhs and I wouldn't want to try it. The Scots have a well-deserved reputation for fierceness.

//Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a Sikh wearing one.//

How many Sikhs have you seen? If they're baptised, it is a religious requirement for them to carry one but I don't think they're required to display it.

//Wait a minute: would Sikh boys wear daggers to school ? Wouldn't it have to be a sort of manhood symbol, a bar mitzvah sort of thing where they got their daggers as a symbol of their new standing as protectors, at fifteen or sixteen//

They're supposed to carry it after their baptism, or Amrit Sanchar. Apparently a Sikh can go through Amrit Sanchar at any age, but I would assume there are certain cultural conventions that dictate when people do. I don't know because I'm not a Sikh and wikipedia has scant information on the subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrit_Sanchar

In places where the religious requirement to carry a dagger comes hard up against the civil requirement not to carry weapons (civilians shouldn't be allowed to have weapons in court, but some American states have ruled that banning kirpans is unconstitutional), Sikhs have come up with a solution that I think is pure genius: they bolt the kirpan into its sheath so that it can't be drawn. This satisfies the requirement to carry one, whilst rendering it entirely harmless. Brilliant.

Fox,

What about Sikh girls? The Five Ks apply to both sexes. Do you have sleepless nights fussing about what they must have hidden in their drawers too?

Dear Toni,

A truly brillian idea - if the kirpan was sealed or
secured so that it could not be physically removed -
it would be rendered harmless and not a problem.

Although kids being kids ...

Ho, hum, a kirpan is not a dagger, and it would be difficult to find anything less daggerish in the real knife world.

A dagger has a straight sharp pointed blade, a kirpan is usually curved.

Only if they are rubber.

Dear Is Mise,

Kirpans can be pointed, curved, blunt or sharp.
They can be from 3 inches to 9 inches in size.
I still think that children should not bring
them to school.

These kirpans are usually razor sharp and curved for a quick slice of flesh.
If they are purely for ceremonial use there is no need for them to be sharp or have a serious point.

I don't have a problem with Sikhs possessing and carrying the kirpan as a distinguishing mark of the Sikh Khalsa. They are, after all said and done a very proud, warrior race of people and in my time it would be very rare indeed to hear of any Sikh misuse or carry out an illegal act with this symbolic dagger. Reckon we've got more to concern ourselves with, than the law abiding Sikhs!

Ultimately this gets down to the multicultural argument.
The law says you cannot carry a knife in public places.
Chefs have many times had some explaining to do when traveling.

The only real problem that I see is someone pretending to be a Sikh.
If you were an airline steward, what would you feel about it ?
The sikhs seem to be adopting a realistic attitude, putting it into
checked in baggage, but it might give the scanners some pause for thought.

Bazz,

The law doesn't say that you cannot carry a knife in a public place, what it does say is that you must have a legitimate reason for doing so.

I, and many of my friends, frequently carry knives in public places, in plain view and none of us has ever had one objection raised.

Yes, probably right, except I am sure I have read of someone being
searched and having the knife confiscated.
Fishermen are another example of common use.
Legitimate reason seams reasonable.

I agree that adult Sikhs are peace-loving and not
a problem. My objection is for school children
being allowed any kind of instrument that could
potentially cause problems. School is not the
place for that.

Maybe this brief explanation may help a little...

Most of you are completely correct with the interpretation of the lawful possession of edge-ware, in or near a public street or place;

All the coppers wish to know? Does the individual have a legitimate purpose for having it, firstly in his possession, and secondly its subsequent carriage? And what is the individual's INTENT concerning its use?

Eg; A person may carry a large sheaf knife during the day, for the purpose of his work on a building site, for which he can fully justify? But to carry the same knife while out socialising, at say 1.00am on a Sunday morning, would clearly be illegal, particularly if he couldn't furnish a satisfactory explanation, for doing so.

Another issue that police must also take into consideration - is the edge-ware in question, considered a 'proscribed weapon'? I realise the law can be a real pain, but there you are

Foxy,

"My objection is for school children
being allowed any kind of instrument that could
potentially cause problems. School is not the
place for that."

Neither is it the place for 12 inch (or whatever these days) rulers; compasses, dividers, 60 and 45 degree geometry instruments, ball point pens and particularly the deadly wooden pencils which can kill in an instant and are also useful for blinding an opponent.
Shoe laces make a most efficient garrote as do some waist belts.

It is very easy to deliver a crippling blow with the corners of a hard cover book, and a killing blow with the spine of a paperback.

These things pose a greater risk than a ceremonial kirpan.

It is surely time to ban all woodworking and metal working classes; chisels, screwdrivers and three square files are just waiting to be used as stabbing weapons.

Is Mise, as you well know, all the items you mention in your post above are useful items for school.

A ceremonial dagger, like guns, has no place in schools unless it is a day of 'bring your family cultural items to school'.
Is Mise, as a well known son-of-a-gun, could bring in his shiny metal bang-bang to show the other boys :),

SOL: A ceremonial dagger, like guns, has no place in schools unless it is a day of 'bring your family cultural items to school'.
Is Mise, as a well known son-of-a-gun, could bring in his shiny metal bang-bang to show the other boys :)

Agreed.

Suse,

Of course they are useful items for school but if cutting and stabbing things should not be in schools then those things should not be there either, their presence makes schools dangerous places.
No one in this day and age needs shoe laces, there are other more effective ways of securing footwear; likewise waist belts have been superseded by other forms of securing the trousers/skirts.

All geometric studies can be done/simulated on the computer so no need for sharp pointed instruments,
Pens and pencils can be done away with and only soft writing implements used.

Think of the children.

//Is Mise, as you well know, all the items you mention in your post above are useful items for school.//

Hijabs are not. But any scarf properly wielded can be used to garotte somebody. Should we also ban hijabs?

No, that would be silly. This isn't France. If we let the Christians have their crosses and the muslims have their hijabs, then we must also let then Jedi have their lightsabers, the rastafarians their marijuana and the sikhs their kirpans.

Toni,

"//Is Mise, as you well know, all the items you mention in your post above are useful items for school.//"

All the items can be done without.
I forgot to mention that particularly deadly weapon, the chain and padlock used to secure the children's bicycles; this is a nasty one and features in more than one internet list of improvised weapons.

"Violence in our schools has always been a problem, now more than ever before. Each year many students are injured and some are even killed during so-called 'school-yard brawls.'; In fact, more than 1,000 students are seriously injured per year during school violence in California alone. (http://www.geocities.com/area51/stats/7403.html) In most cases of serious injury, weapons were involved, including common school supplies such as pencils and pens....."
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=93259

It goes without saying that leftists, (Big) Statists all, would always be in favour of increasing State control over the individual.

Among them, the radfems from last Millenium would definitely be out for more control of boys.

No-one would be expecting OLO's entrenched totalitarian leftists to reconsider their jaundiced world views and opinions. However, others who enjoy open discussions and relish free speech would be interested in this research,

School Violence Myths
Curry School of Education, University of Virginia
http://curry.virginia.edu/research/projects/violence-in-schools/school-violence-myths

I guess that should carry a warning to the resident hoplophobes and boy/men haters that their opinions might be challenged (and they can rest easier). Just joking, there is no way Suseonline and her lock-step mates would read anything that isn't in accord with the opinions (prejudices) they have nurtured since the year dot.

otb,

Isn't it interesting that for somebody who's
supposedly for "free speech" et cetera, its
always those that stoop to personal insults
and attacks -
against people whose views disagree with theirs?

Hmmm.

The Dagger should only come out for the same reason the Kilt or other National Dress. On the National Day of that Country. In the Case of Sikhs Dagger on their Ceremonial Temple Days.

Jayb,

The Kilt is not a form of National Dress and the Sikhs don't carry a dagger; just so we all know that of which we are writing.

Is Mise: The Kilt is not a form of National Dress and the Sikhs don't carry a dagger; just so we all know that of which we are writing.

Suma suma (Malaysian), for Same, same. You knew dam well what I meant. Either that or one of ya sheep got out, & you, can't afford to lose any.

No, Jayb, I thought you meant that the Kilt was a form of National Dress and that Sikhs carry a dagger; if that's not what you meant then why say it?

Dear Is Mise,

I looked up Scottish kilts on the web.
This is what I found:

"When it comes to national costume, we don't think
there's anything that can match Scottish kilts."

"They're colourful, exotic, stylish... and just
plain cool!"

"Although it's not only we Scots who can lay claim to
the kilt as a form of national dress, traditional kilts are
recognized around the world as a symbol of Scotland."

"In its most original form the kilt was a piece of
clothing uniquely suited to the practical needs of
Highlanders and may have its roots in the type of
clothing worn by the numerous invaders who landed on
Scottish soil so long ago."

"It has changed a lot since,
is now often seen at ceremonies and official occasions ranging
from weddings to military processions."

Google it for yourself - there's heaps more on the web.
All very interesting.

Foxy,

Interesting but wrong; the kilt, as we now know it, was the invention of an Englishman, a foundry master, he devised a division of the kilt into two halves, the 'little' kilt and the cloak.
The Kilt in all its forms is Highland Dress, the Lowlanders, the majority of Scots, dressed differently:
"According to the English military chaplain Thomas Morer, in 1689 Highland men wore plaids about seven or eight yards long, which covered from the neck to the knees except the right arm. Beneath the plaid they wore a waistcoat or a shirt to the same length as the drape of the plaid. These were "belted plaids." Their stockings were made of the same stuff as the plaid and their shoes were called "brocks" (brogues). Bonnets were blue or "sad" coloured. Morer noted that the fineness of the fabric varied according to the wealth and status of the man. Scottish Lowlanders were dressed much like the English, except both men and women also used a plaid as a cloak. The Lowland women wrapped their plaids over their heads as hoods."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_dress#Historical_descriptions

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks for that.

Here's one for you:

http://www.scottish-history.com/kilt.shtml

In their fascinating book, 'The Invention of Tradition', Terence Ranger and Eric Hobsbawm included a chapter on the invention of the kilt and of tartans - the first in the mid-1700s, by an English bloke who had been given a lease on forests in Scotland, to cut the timber for his cotton mills in England; and the second invented for a visit by William IV by Walter Scott and others in about 1821.

When that English bloke was employing Scots to cut down trees, they wore only a blanket, and when they used both hands on the axes, the blankets flew in all directions, so he provided them with a belt to conserve some form of decorum [and perhaps parts of their anatomy].

Bag-pipes, of course, are used all over Europe: doodle-sacks, they are called in eastern Europe. Sorry, just getting in before somebody claims them as Scottish-only.

Traditions are often what we fervently want to believe: the very first reference ever, anywhere in Australia, to an Aboriginal Earth Mother was in 1977, by the Aboriginal Christian minister Gondarra Djiniyini - within a year, it was taken for granted: 'Take a journey to the Earth my Mother', remember ? Well, I suppose if Blacks are utterly different from Whites, and Whites have a male, Sky, God, then Blacks can have a female, Earth-bound, goddess - dirty technology versus pristine innocence, etc. You know it makes sense.

Joe

Foxy,

Lady Nancy may well believe what she has written:

"The kilt has now become, beyond any doubt the national dress of Scotland; let us keep it that way and ensure it is not allowed to decline into mere fancy dress."

But the fact remains that Scotland has no National Dress and many Scots would be insulted to be told that their's is the kilt.

Dear Joe,

It certainly does make sense.

Each country has their own myths and legends
and they're passed down from one generation
to another.

Then there are the myths invented and maintained by political interests cynically pursuing their secondary agendas.

Politically correct factoids presented on the ABC and taught in schools as fact.

Oral traditions of myths and legends have
existed in all cultures since time began.
Some well known others not so. They've been
passed down from generation to generation
and form the tapestry of each nation.

As with folk tales every culture has its store
of legend. Indeed most families treasure their
private and local legends. "Tell me about..."
demand the youth of the clan, the tribe, the
nation. So exploits are passed down, gaining heroic
detail with each new generation.

In the fullness of time the actual historic events
become clouded and sometimes as in the case of
Arthurian legends, become tinged with the
supernatural. For even before the birth of
Arthur, Merlin the prophet and messenger had foretold
the coming of one that was greater than he.

Doesn't Australian law already indicate that knives should not be carried in public? Not that that necessarily means much within the sphere of this pathetic multicultural muck.

Dearest Foxy,

Oy. Myths and legends and fairy tales are not necessarily true. They are 'explanations' of the unknown or dangerous that people have to come up with on the basis of incomplete or faulty information and understandings. Of course, they fit together because, over time, that's precisely how myths are re-worked, elaborated, modified and re-fashioned.

The Greek myths fit together, but it doesn't necessarily make what Zeus or Heracles or Odysseus were supposed to have done, true. The stories in the bible are pretty plausible, but I don't believe a single one of them as fact - as useful parables, yes; as moral guides, yes. But not as factual records.

There is so much documentation about real events in the world that one does not have to rely on yarns. Pick any topic and look it up on Wikipedia: oodles of stuff, usually verifiable independently and amply.

One can usually find some solid evidence that renders a yarn suspect, or impossible, and therefore revisable. The Hindmarsh Island scam was one of those, every aspect of it. However, what I don't enjoy is that good, decent people may feel the need, through lack of what they think is anything to the contrary, to make up stories - as happened in this case. Lying is corrupting, it destroys genuine community. And often is so pathetically transparent.

And finding one crook story makes one suspicious of other stories, such as the rabbit-proof fence yarn. One suspends belief until one has evidence, but if all the evidence that one can find renders a story impossible or implausible, then you move on.

Love,

Joe

Foxy: For even before the birth of Arthur, Merlin the prophet and messenger had foretold the coming of one that was greater than he.

The story of King Arthur is an Allegory. There are three stories in on. One for the people, one for the history of the Christian Church & one for the initiated in a Secret Society. I even knew that at School.

Jayb,

What, King Arthur is just an allegory ?! But what about the sword in the lake stuff, isn't that obviously true ?! No ? Well, what about Robin Hood ? Isn't that all true ? I want it all to be true !

Not the slightest evidence of any of it ? Okay, life has become that much more mundane.

I'm just reading a book about the Muhammad myth - it seems nothing was written about him, anywhere, for around 120 years after he was supposed to have died. Nothing, except written records of an Arab chieftain, possibly a Christian, devastating Palestine and Mesopotamia and the Persian Empire. Written records were, of course, available, by Coptic Christians, Jews, Byzantine Romans, Persians, Syrians, etc. But as the years passed, biographies of him, whoever he/they was/were, got more and more elaborate and detailed. So there you go, that's how legends get created.

Joe

Loudmouth: Isn't that all true ? I want it all to be true !

Ok, It's Ok, there, there now.

It's a collection of story myths taken from throughout Europe & Britain. Parsifal was French or Percival. Geoffrey de Monmouth gathered them up into one book.

Of course it's all true.

Myth and legend, folk and fairy tales are eloquent
and arresting stories and prototypes for modern
literature as we know it, they are a source of
linguistic, psychological and emotional satisfaction
and points of cultural contact, yet points of
departure for a lifetime's study of story.

If the blue of the Aegean deepens and intensifies as
Icarus and Daedalus fly overhead, and if at Delphi the
Oracle still speaks to men of imagination, then the
bora ring or a fish carved into rock can point to an
ordering of life's chaos, the possibility of
reconciling the present with the past and of personal
harmony in a world threatened with disintegration.

Every Myth started with some reality. Then the story tellers got involved. The Myths moved from peoples to peoples, so their myths were added to the original story line. They became the background for Codes of behaviour, Why things happen, Why some things are as they are.

Besides, no TV, what do you do around a fire on School Camp. Tell (round) stories. Great fun & the story gets weirder & weirder as everyone has their turn & the night goes on. Jolly good fun. Eh.

Oh, Is mise, <the Sikhs don't carry a dagger; just so we all know that of which we are writing.>

Let me remind you of the Topic here.
<Should Sikhs be allowed to carry ceremonial daggers ?>

Shakes head in disgust.

Jayb,

"Oh, Is mise, <the Sikhs don't carry a dagger; just so we all know that of which we are writing.>

Let me remind you of the Topic here.
<Should Sikhs be allowed to carry ceremonial daggers ?>

Shakes head in disgust."

Well to be strictly on topic, Sikhs should not be allowed to carry ceremonial daggers, but as they don't carry ceremonial daggers the topic is irrelevant, misinformed and misleading.

In Canberra you can carry a knife for entertainment, recreation, sport, official uniform or religious purposes (CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 382): http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s382.html

The issue came up when one of my colleagues mentioned that their academic regalia came with a sword. Part of the graduation ceremony was the sharpening of the sword.