Sikhs at risk of being banned from courts

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/ikhs-kirpan-ceremonial-blade-court-ban-england-wales

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm on the Sikhs side.
Does that make me not an "anti-theist"?
Do tell.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

I'm on the Sikhs side.

You surprise me - why?

What if my religious faith mandated that I should carry, say, an Uzi assault rifle. Would that be ok in a court of law too?

Also by the way I assume that Sikhs can't take their daggers onto aeroplanes. What in principle would be the difference between that and entering a law court?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm on the Sikhs side.
Does that make me not an "anti-theist"?
Do tell.

Well it looks like in respect to this matter your are protheist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seb,

You surprise me - why?

What if my religious faith mandated that I should carry, say, an Uzi assault rifle. Would that be ok in a court of law too?

Is that the faith that worships The Son of a Gun?

Also by the way I assume that Sikhs can't take their daggers onto aeroplanes. What in principle would be the difference between that and entering a law court?   

Thank you sir and do you have any clergy wot won't conduct a same sex wedding to declare?

[Sebastian Toe]

Seb,

You surprise me - why?

There is an established law which allows them to carry them in public. If a court is deemed public then it should be allowed.

There is not an established law to allow anyone to carry an Uzi anywhere in the UK
Should one be introduced though then come back and ask me.

Planes are not public.
You should always check local laws though. Some countries do allow them to be carried in hand luggage. However you might be subject to scrutiny if your destination airport has different rules to your departure one.

[Gordon]

My son has his own traditional Scottish outfit, and anyway, around here, it isn't unusual to see kilts being worn as everyday wear.

A couple of years ago he had and 'up-and down' in a day work event in London and his bosses asking him to wear his full traditional Scottish outfit (no idea why) but he was advised that he would have to wear a fake sgian-dubh on the plane, and if he turned up with the real thing it would be confiscated.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

There is an established law which allows them to carry them in public. If a court is deemed public then it should be allowed.

Yes I know there’s a law to that effect which appears to contradict the security policy of the courts and tribunals. That’s what the case is about – which of them has primacy. I don’t know whether a court will be deemed a “public place” (or perhaps just the public gallery will?) but in any case I was questioning whether the law should be as it is: ie, allowing (apparently) weaponry in a courtroom on the grounds of religious conviction.       

There is not an established law to allow anyone to carry an Uzi anywhere in the UK
Should one be introduced though then come back and ask me.

I was questioning the principle of permitting weapons on the grounds of religious conviction – if it’s allowed in one case, on what basis would it be denied in different one?     

Planes are not public.
You should always check local laws though. Some countries do allow them to be carried in hand luggage. However you might be subject to scrutiny if your destination airport has different rules to your departure one.

From the article: “In light of the HMCTS [HM Courts and Tribunals Service] guidance as it currently stands, it is apparent that a Sikh lawyer … cannot expect to practice law because he has effectively been banned from appearing in court in violation of his right to carry a kirpan as protected by UK legislation,” Gulshan’s barrister, Parminder Saini, told the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett and the vice-president of the court of appeal, Lord Justice Underhill.”

Does that mean that a Sikh lawyer who needs to fly to a court proceeding “cannot expect to practice law” because s/he is “effectively banned” too? If (as I assume to be the case) a Sikh lawyer is content to remove the kirpan at airport check in for security reasons why would s/he not be prepared to do so at the court door for the same reason?     

[Sebastian Toe]

From the article: “In light of the HMCTS [HM Courts and Tribunals Service] guidance as it currently stands, it is apparent that a Sikh lawyer … cannot expect to practice law because he has effectively been banned from appearing in court in violation of his right to carry a kirpan as protected by UK legislation,” Gulshan’s barrister, Parminder Saini, told the lord chief justice, Lord Burnett and the vice-president of the court of appeal, Lord Justice Underhill.”

Does that mean that a Sikh lawyer who needs to fly to a court proceeding “cannot expect to practice law” because s/he is “effectively banned” too? If (as I assume to be the case) a Sikh lawyer is content to remove the kirpan at airport check in for security reasons why would s/he not be prepared to do so at the court door for the same reason?   

I repeat, a plane is not a public place. He can take it with him if he checks it in as main luggage.
Or he can make alternate travel plans.

And again if a court is deemed a public place then it should be allowed in IMO.

[jeremyp]

I repeat, a plane is not a public place. He can take it with him if he checks it in as main luggage.
Or he can make alternate travel plans.

And again if a court is deemed a public place then it should be allowed in IMO.

I do not think it's a good idea to allow offensive weapons in courts and I do not think there should be exceptions just because you have a certain superstitious belief.

I also don't follow the argument about public places. In many public places, I am allowed to take photographs. What would happen to me if I tried that in a court do you think?

[Udayana]

I do not think it's a good idea to allow offensive weapons in courts and I do not think there should be exceptions just because you have a certain superstitious belief.

I don't think the Sikh kirpan is worn for a "superstitious belief" - but for an comitment that they have undertaken.

I also don't follow the argument about public places. In many public places, I am allowed to take photographs. What would happen to me if I tried that in a court do you think?

There's no rule that anyone can take photographs is a publec place though. But there is a ruling that Sikh can carry kirpans in public spaces (aiui).
 

[jeremyp]

I don't think the Sikh kirpan is worn for a "superstitious belief" - but for an comitment that they have undertaken.

You know Sikhism is just as made up as all the other religions, right?

There's no rule that anyone can take photographs is a publec place though. But there is a ruling that Sikh can carry kirpans in public spaces (aiui).

THere's no rule that says you can't take photographs in public places. There is a rule that says you cannot carry an offensive weapon, however. I don't agree that Sikhs should be excluded from that rule either.

[Udayana]

You know Sikhism is just as made up as all the other religions, right?
...

Of-course. But the kirpan (and other symbols) aren't needed for religious purposes but as part of militarisation at the end of the 17th century. Many/most Sikhs don't carry one and aren't required to. It is an aspect of political/ethnic code of conduct and identity rather than religious.
 

[jeremyp]

Of-course. But the kirpan (and other symbols) aren't needed for religious purposes but as part of militarisation at the end of the 17th century.

You know the seventeenth century is over don't you?

Many/most Sikhs don't carry one and aren't required to. It is an aspect of political/ethnic code of conduct and identity rather than religious.

So they don't need to carry them in court rooms then.

[Udayana]

You know the seventeenth century is over don't you?
...

True, but humans remain unchanged in nature, motivations and responses.

[ProfessorDavey]

True, but humans remain unchanged in nature, motivations and responses.

I'm not sure that is true - certainly not in nuance. I think there are many changes in nature, motivations and responses now compared to hundreds of years ago.

But also - so what. We set rules and laws in society to manage motivations and responses. There are certain things we deem not acceptable and therefore legislate against them regardless of whether they are based on nature, motivation and/or response, however longstanding.

And those laws, and therefore what societally is deemed acceptable and unacceptable, also change over time.

[Udayana]

I'm not sure that is true - certainly not in nuance. I think there are many changes in nature, motivations and responses now compared to hundreds of years ago.

hmm..

But also - so what. We set rules and laws in society to manage motivations and responses. There are certain things we deem not acceptable and therefore legislate against them regardless of whether they are based on nature, motivation and/or response, however longstanding.

And those laws, and therefore what societally is deemed acceptable and unacceptable, also change over time.

Yes, the contexts change, and we adjust the rules, or try to, to maintain stability and security - within contemporary views of rights and morality.
 
So, the right of Sikhs to carry the kirpan in the workplace or public places is protected under equality legislation (whether on religious or ethnic basis)- as discussed here:

https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1986/1/sikh_articles_of_faith_guidance_final.pdf

Courts, imv, should continue with their current policy unless there is sufficient evidence to show that it unsafe to do so.

[ProfessorDavey]

Courts, imv, should continue with their current policy unless there is sufficient evidence to show that it unsafe to do so.

That isn't the only reason why you might change a policy.

Another is nothing to do with safety but to do with equality. There is a delicate balancing act here - effectively you are giving certain groups the ability to do something that other groups are not allowed to do. On the face of it this is discriminatory. However the justification is that not to allow this group that special privilege is counter-discriminatory and, when weighed in the balance, allowing Sikhs to carry the kirpan is deemed to be the lesser of two options both of which are discriminatory.

However this is a delicate balancing act and often the status quote is maintained in an uneasy manner until or unless someone challenges things in the courts. At that point the courts, and therefore civil law, may take an alternative view. The argument that not to allow Sikhs to carry the kirpan is diminished if it cannot be demonstrated that it is somehow a religious requirement (not sure I'm particularly keen on accepting this to be actually a 'requirement' anyhow as religion is, in itself, a choice).

But it would be further challenged if another group might claim they also have a longstanding expectation to carry weapons, for ceremonial purposes, but are not afforded the same benefit. At this point the law might extend the right further, but this of course might end up with an avalanche. Alternatively the might might determine that the greater equality is achieved by not allowing weapons to be carried by anyone.

[Udayana]

...
However this is a delicate balancing act and often the status quote is maintained in an uneasy manner until or unless someone challenges things in the courts. At that point the courts, and therefore civil law, may take an alternative view. The argument that not to allow Sikhs to carry the kirpan is diminished if it cannot be demonstrated that it is somehow a religious requirement (not sure I'm particularly keen on accepting this to be actually a 'requirement' anyhow as religion is, in itself, a choice).
...

It is a delicate balancing act and needs careful consideration. Hence, it is essential to understand why people act as they do.

Within the religion (which may indeed be superstitious or nonsense) the Amritdhari Sikhs have publicly committed to acting according to a particular code of conduct which includes carrying the kirpan for non-offensive use. Even if the religion is "superstition", the wearing of the kirpan is not.


   

[Outrider]

It is a delicate balancing act and needs careful consideration. Hence, it is essential to understand why people act as they do.

Within the religion (which may indeed be superstitious or nonsense) the Amritdhari Sikhs have publicly committed to acting according to a particular code of conduct which includes carrying the kirpan for non-offensive use. Even if the religion is "superstition", the wearing of the kirpan is not.

Given the history of violence by and against Sikhs in this country, I'm in favour of allowing them to continue to carry them as far as it's safe to do so.

That said, if the justification for carrying them isn't explicitly religious - superstition, as some might be inclined to term it - then how is it any different from anyone else carrying a knife under the auspices of 'self defence'? So far as it's a religious expression I see the justification (I think it's a little silly, but given that the evidence suggests it's harmless there's little point in arguing about it) but if it's not that, then why do Sikhs get to carry a knife for self defence but inner-city youths (of other or no religious persuasion) don't?

O.

[Udayana]

Given the history of violence by and against Sikhs in this country, I'm in favour of allowing them to continue to carry them as far as it's safe to do so.

That said, if the justification for carrying them isn't explicitly religious - superstition, as some might be inclined to term it - then how is it any different from anyone else carrying a knife under the auspices of 'self defence'? So far as it's a religious expression I see the justification (I think it's a little silly, but given that the evidence suggests it's harmless there's little point in arguing about it) but if it's not that, then why do Sikhs get to carry a knife for self defence but inner-city youths (of other or no religious persuasion) don't?

O.

Well it is religious, as the whole thing is within the Sikh religious context - similar to medieval knights making vows in a Christian context. And, they are not for self-defence but mostly symbolic.

...

A while back I was at an event where the local Lord Lieutenant was casually chatting to us - with a rather long sword attached to his belt - don't think anyone had an issue with that.
In fact - iirc, a couple of recent new MBE/OBEs were later presented with large, dangerous looking, Kukris as gifts!
   
As a boy, I always wore a sheath knife as part of my Scout uniform - again. never any issues with it, though clearly that is not possible/allowable now. 

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the history of violence by and against Sikhs in this country, I'm in favour of allowing them to continue to carry them as far as it's safe to do so.

I'm not sure that is a strong reason to support the ability for one group to carry what are, in effect, weapons. I think there are plenty of other groups that will have suffered violence in a similar manner and we wouldn't permit them the same ability. And in a broader sense we look to use other mechanisms to prevent people being victims of violence that don't involve people being allowed to carry weapons in, potential, self defence.

So an argument on the basis of history of violence and self-defence seems particularly weak to me. And argument that it is a reasonable tradition is stronger, but you'd have to ensure that you are treating any groups that can claim they have a traditional right to carry weapons should be treated equitably.

That said, if the justification for carrying them isn't explicitly religious - superstition, as some might be inclined to term it - then how is it any different from anyone else carrying a knife under the auspices of 'self defence'? So far as it's a religious expression I see the justification (I think it's a little silly, but given that the evidence suggests it's harmless there's little point in arguing about it) but if it's not that, then why do Sikhs get to carry a knife for self defence but inner-city youths (of other or no religious persuasion) don't?

O.

I don't think it is being justified on actual self-defence grounds - rather it is being justified as a long-standing tradition based on a prior history of the need to carry weapons due to self defence.

But this is where the nuance becomes important - what justification is strong enough to elicit a special privilege. I don't think 'cos it is about religion' cuts it as the equality legislation is about religion OR belief (including lack of) - so a religious belief, in equality terms, should not be considered to be more important prima face than a non religious belief.

So a long-standing cultural tradition clearly associated with a particular community of group would (or should) be just as justifiable, or not justifiable, regardless of whether it is justified on the basis of a religion or culture but non-religious.

[Outrider]

I'm not sure that is a strong reason to support the ability for one group to carry what are, in effect, weapons.

I don't think I was clear enough, there. It wouldn't justify allowing them to carry them just on the figures alone, but rather the evidence doesn't suggest there's a pressing safety reason to curtail the current religious exemption that's been granted.

O.

[jeremyp]

True, but humans remain unchanged in nature, motivations and responses.

How is that relevant to the question of whether people should be allowed to carry offensive weapons around in the 21st century?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think I was clear enough, there. It wouldn't justify allowing them to carry them just on the figures alone, but rather the evidence doesn't suggest there's a pressing safety reason to curtail the current religious exemption that's been granted.

O.

I suspect there is very little safety risk of allowing Sikh's to carry a knife, something that would clearly be illegal to carry in a more general sense. But that argument isn't applied in a more general sense, when many people might want to carry knives in public with no likely safety risk, but that law does not allow them to.

So the issue isn't about safety - whether safety for the individual carrying the knife nor the safety of those who could, hypothetically, be harmed by the knife carrier.

Not the argument is about the justification for carrying the knife - the justification being that it is due to a long-standing and serious belief that requires, or expects, people to carry knives. And that is where care needs to be applied - so there was mention of the Scouts previously - they also have a pretty long-standing tradition of carrying knives for legitimate purposes - outdoor woodcraft. But my understanding is that the law that applies to most folk also applies to Scouts so a Scout would not be able to carry a knife in public without good reason (based on the need to use that knife for legitimate purposes).