Sikhs at risk of being banned from courts

[ProfessorDavey]

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

It isn't - but sadly, 'we must be allowed to do this cos we've always done this' is often used as justification for inertia.

[jeremyp]

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.

If they are mostly symbolic, is there any need for them to be functional knives. For example, could they have a blunt edge? Or some form of restraint so they can't be removed from their sheaths while in public? e.g. an arrangement of zip ties?

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!

I'm not suggesting that they be banned altogether. I have no problem with people owning knives of any sort, just being allowed to wander around with them in public spaces without good reason (and I don't count religious reasons or "tradition" as necessarily a good reason).

Banning weapons in court rooms strikes me as eminently reasonable and it appears that it is not an absolute requirement for Sikhs to wear knives so I really don't see what the issue is.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

You seemed clear to me. And your support of idiocy seems clear. You support religious beliefs being privileged.

[Nearly Sane]

Some years ago, I got stopped from hiring and sending a sgian dhu. I was allowed to send a blunted version. Made sense.

[Outrider]

You seemed clear to me. And your support of idiocy seems clear. You support religious beliefs being privileged.

If that's your take away from this, I can't help you. I accept that religion is privileged, and I think there are better battles to choose than this one.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

If that's your take away from this, I can't help you. I accept that religion is privileged, and I think there are better battles to choose than this one.

O.

In a pragmatic sense I think that is correct. But I think this is how things will work anyhow. Unless there is a major change in the law at statutory level this opt-out will remain until or unless it is challenged in the courts. And presumably that challenge will be from groups who feel that not having this privilege themselves is actually discriminatory against them.

At that point the courts would decide whether to retain the status quo, extend the privilege/opt out to others (to level the playing field) or level the playing field by removing the privilege/opt out from the group that currently has it.

[ProfessorDavey]

If they are mostly symbolic, is there any need for them to be functional knives. For example, could they have a blunt edge?

I agree - to go beyond 'I need to carry a symbolic knife due to tradition' to 'and that knife has to have a sharp blade so it can actually do harm' seems a step too far. If there is no intention to actually do harm then there cannot be any sensible requirement for the knife to have that ability.

Banning weapons in court rooms strikes me as eminently reasonable and it appears that it is not an absolute requirement for Sikhs to wear knives so I really don't see what the issue is.

Again - I agree. There is a time and a place. And a weapon that could actually do harm should not be in a court, except in the hands of a trained member of the police etc.

[Udayana]

If they are mostly symbolic, is there any need for them to be functional knives. For example, could they have a blunt edge? Or some form of restraint so they can't be removed from their sheaths while in public? e.g. an arrangement of zip ties?

I imagine the government could agree something like that with the Sikh council(s) if required. But currently there is no restriction in public areas as long as the kirpans are worn for religious or ethnic reasons - ie. not as weapons. 
 

I'm not suggesting that they be banned altogether. I have no problem with people owning knives of any sort, just being allowed to wander around with them in public spaces without good reason (and I don't count religious reasons or "tradition" as necessarily a good reason).

Whether a knife is a weapon or not really depends on the intention of the person carrying it and its use. It is not like a gun or crossbow or sword even.

Banning weapons in court rooms strikes me as eminently reasonable and it appears that it is not an absolute requirement for Sikhs to wear knives so I really don't see what the issue is.

For UK courts the current policy allows short knives as agreed with one of the councils. The case, which failed, was contesting the restriction as the short knives were essentially useless and the restriction was in contradiction to the law as applied in other public areas.

[Udayana]

Some years ago, I got stopped from hiring and sending a sgian dhu. I was allowed to send a blunted version. Made sense.

Well, they are lawful as part of Scottish national dress, and sending them should also be fine - if posted appropriately packed and using age-checked tracked mail.

I was stopped (by court officials) from entering a Federal courthouse in Florida once for having a small screwdriver (about 2.5" long, in my briefcase - occasionally used for adjusting PC boards), when the US policy allows Sikhs to enter with kirpans with up to 2.5" blades.
 

[Nearly Sane]

Well, they are lawful as part of Scottish national dress, and sending them should also be fine - if posted appropriately packed and using age-checked tracked mail.

I was stopped (by court officials) from entering a Federal courthouse in Florida once for having a small screwdriver (about 2.5" long, in my briefcase - occasionally used for adjusting PC boards), when the US policy allows Sikhs to enter with kirpans with up to 2.5" blades.

So which bit of this don't you think is madness?

[Udayana]

So which bit of this don't you think is madness?

Eh? I don't think any of it is madness ... just normal human instincts and compromises.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whether a knife is a weapon or not really depends on the intention of the person carrying it and its use. It is not like a gun or crossbow or sword even.

I disagree - sure a knife can be used as a weapon or for preparing food. But a gun, crossbow or sword might be purely decorative or for recreational purposes. And a gun without bullets or a crossbow without bolts can't be used as a weapon. A knife or a sword needs nothing additional for it to be used as a weapon, if someone chooses it to be.

[ProfessorDavey]

Eh? I don't think any of it is madness ... just normal human instincts and compromises.

Not really understanding the compromise here if Sikhs are insisting that they must be able to carry a knife in all circumstances in public. Surely a compromise would suggest it to be appropriate in some circumstances, but not in others.

Not really understanding the compromise here if Sikhs are insisting that the knives they carry must have a working blade (regardless of the fact that this isn't required as they are ceremonial). Surely a compromise would suggest that you can carry a knife but only with a blunted blade so could not be used as a functional weapon.

[Udayana]

I disagree - sure a knife can be used as a weapon or for preparing food. But a gun, crossbow or sword might be purely decorative or for recreational purposes. And a gun without bullets or a crossbow without bolts can't be used as a weapon. A knife or a sword needs nothing additional for it to be used as a weapon, if someone chooses it to be.

True enough .. had not considered decorative or recreational uses.

[Nearly Sane]

Eh? I don't think any of it is madness ... just normal human instincts and compromises.

Because of what? Why is your sad indulgence avout someone's religious oddity not madness?

[Udayana]

Not really understanding the compromise here if Sikhs are insisting that they must be able to carry a knife in all circumstances in public. Surely a compromise would suggest it to be appropriate in some circumstances, but not in others.

Not really understanding the compromise here if Sikhs are insisting that the knives they carry must have a working blade (regardless of the fact that this isn't required as they are ceremonial). Surely a compromise would suggest that you can carry a knife but only with a blunted blade so could not be used as a functional weapon.

There has been a lot of compromise since the 17th century, when, as first introduced they were actual swords and certainly intended for violent if defensive activity. Later, of--course the Sikhs were exploited by the British as a "warrior race" first to suppress other areas of India, then in the two World Wars.

Not all Sikhs are "Amritdhari" so do not carry kirpans. In other areas comprises are made, so knives are stowed away from harm, blades/handles shortened, worn under clothing etc. so made less dangerous and not to be taken as threatening.

And they do not "insist". as the current laws have been extensively reviewed, discussed and agreed by Sikh leaders and governments since the 60s.

If there were significant use of such knives as weapons by Sikhs, I'm sure we would have heard no end about it.     

On the other hand, there are endless reports of other UK groups - gang members and children, involved in knife crime with little effective action to reduce the violence. Surely more important to deal with first?

[Udayana]

Because of what? Why is your sad indulgence avout someone's religious oddity not madness?

I'm not "indulging" it. I just don't think banning kirpans will reduce violence.

And my main (possibly only!) point was that they don't have it because of a "superstition" but originally because of the politics of the time - and, now as a symbolic reminder of their code of conduct.
 

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not "indulging" it. I just don't think banning kirpans will reduce violence.

And my main (possibly only!) point was that they don't have it because of a "superstition" but originally because of the politics of the time - and, now as a symbolic reminder of their code of conduct.

But allowing is just indulgence. Special treatment for whatever made up reason you think is ok, is just special treatment

[Sriram]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa

***********

The Khalsa tradition was initiated in 1699 by the Tenth Guru of Sikhism, Guru Gobind Singh. Its formation was a key event in the history of Sikhism.[7]

Guru Gobind Singh started the Khalsa tradition after his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was beheaded during the Islamic sharia rule of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.[11][12][13] Guru Gobind Singh created and initiated the Khalsa as a warrior with a duty to protect the innocent from religious persecution.[14] The founding of the Khalsa started a new phase in the Sikh tradition.

Upon initiation, a Khalsa Sikh is given the titles of Singh (male) meaning "lion" and Kaur (female) meaning "princess". The rules of life, include a behavioral code called Rahit. Some rules are no tobacco, no intoxicants, no adultery, no Kutha meat, no modification of hair on the body, and a dress code (Five Ks).[16]: 121–126 

Guru Gobind Singh Ji initiated the Five K's tradition of the Khalsa,[45][46]

Kesh: uncut hair.
Kangha: a wooden comb.
Kara: an iron or steel bracelet worn on the wrist.
Kirpan: a sword.
Kachera: short breeches.

************

[ProfessorDavey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa

***********

The Khalsa tradition was initiated in 1699 by the Tenth Guru of Sikhism, Guru Gobind Singh. Its formation was a key event in the history of Sikhism.[7]

Guru Gobind Singh started the Khalsa tradition after his father, Guru Tegh Bahadur, was beheaded during the Islamic sharia rule of the Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb.[11][12][13] Guru Gobind Singh created and initiated the Khalsa as a warrior with a duty to protect the innocent from religious persecution.[14] The founding of the Khalsa started a new phase in the Sikh tradition.

Upon initiation, a Khalsa Sikh is given the titles of Singh (male) meaning "lion" and Kaur (female) meaning "princess". The rules of life, include a behavioral code called Rahit. Some rules are no tobacco, no intoxicants, no adultery, no Kutha meat, no modification of hair on the body, and a dress code (Five Ks).[16]: 121–126 

Guru Gobind Singh Ji initiated the Five K's tradition of the Khalsa,[45][46]

Kesh: uncut hair.
Kangha: a wooden comb.
Kara: an iron or steel bracelet worn on the wrist.
Kirpan: a sword.
Kachera: short breeches.

************

Interesting - but I don't see why this is relevant to the issue of equality in 2023.

[ProfessorDavey]

True enough .. had not considered decorative or recreational uses.

Nor the issue that a gun, bow, crossbow are useless as weapons unless combined with bullets, arrows, bolts. A knife needs nothing else other than a knife wielder.

[ProfessorDavey]

And they do not "insist". as the current laws have been extensively reviewed, discussed and agreed by Sikh leaders and governments since the 60s.

Since when do laws have to be agreed by a group that may be impacted by that law. I understand that appropriate consultation is needed, but agreement is not - it is the responsibility of government to decide on the law. Do you think we'd have had a fox hunting ban if the fox hunting community needed to agree to any change in the law.

If there were significant use of such knives as weapons by Sikhs, I'm sure we would have heard no end about it.     

On the other hand, there are endless reports of other UK groups - gang members and children, involved in knife crime with little effective action to reduce the violence. Surely more important to deal with first?

The vast, vast, vast majority of knives in the UK are used for entirely legitimate purposes. I image I have perhaps a dozen that could be used as lethal weapons in my house alone, but they pose no risk to anyone (other than me if I am not being careful during use!).

The point is about equality - if you have rules that limit the carrying of knives in public places, should that apply to everyone or should some groups have opt-outs while others don't. That's what we are discussing. There are plenty of other situations where carrying a knife in public poses no serious risk to anyone and the knife-carrier is carrying it for perfectly innocent reasons. But they are still not allowed.

[Udayana]

Since when do laws have to be agreed by a group that may be impacted by that law. I understand that appropriate consultation is needed, but agreement is not - it is the responsibility of government to decide on the law. Do you think we'd have had a fox hunting ban if the fox hunting community needed to agree to any change in the law.

No, of-course (although those rules seem full of loopholes). But my point was that, in general,  the Sikh community do agree with laws restricting knives in public. The law allows exceptions on anti-discrimination and human rights grounds.   

The vast, vast, vast majority of knives in the UK are used for entirely legitimate purposes. I image I have perhaps a dozen that could be used as lethal weapons in my house alone, but they pose no risk to anyone (other than me if I am not being careful during use!).

Of-course.

The point is about equality - if you have rules that limit the carrying of knives in public places, should that apply to everyone or should some groups have opt-outs while others don't. That's what we are discussing. There are plenty of other situations where carrying a knife in public poses no serious risk to anyone and the knife-carrier is carrying it for perfectly innocent reasons. But they are still not allowed.

They are allowed if being carried for a suitable reason ... including for religion related reasons by Sikhs. It is an exception for a group, but a reasonable exception (imo).

Equality does not mean exact uniformity in a society consisting of peoples with different histories and cultural backgrounds.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, of-course (although those rules seem full of loopholes). But my point was that, in general,  the Sikh community do agree with laws restricting knives in public. The law allows exceptions on anti-discrimination and human rights grounds.

But the point is that so-called 'anti-discrimination' actually discriminates against others who aren't afforded the same privileged opt-out from the general law. The issue is all about balancing the justification for the opt-out and the balance between privileging one group at the expense of discriminating against other groups.

They are allowed if being carried for a suitable reason ... including for religion related reasons by Sikhs. It is an exception for a group, but a reasonable exception (imo).

But as far as I am aware the reasonable exceptions are typically that you have a legitimate reason for needing to use that knife at its destination. So, for example a hiker, who would need to use the knife to prepare a meal at their evening camp or a scout leader taking knifes for use at a scout event.

I think there is a difference for the kirpan - in this case there is no reasonable justification that the bearer has it because they legitimately need to use it at their destination. The justification is that they simply have to have it with them and, presumably, in virtually all cases there is no suggestion that they need to use it.

Equality does not mean exact uniformity in a society consisting of peoples with different histories and cultural backgrounds.

True - but this is where the law needs to engage in a delicate balancing act. Simply using the 'different histories and cultural backgrounds' card is not a strong enough argument in my opinion for a special privilege to be granted. We all have different histories and cultural backgrounds but that doesn't mean we should all get special, bespoke opt-outs to the law.

Personally I think we need to be careful about providing special privileges (sounds nice and fluffy) as they amount to, in reality, discrimination against others. I also think we must never place 'religion' on a higher tier to other beliefs. We all have firmly held beliefs whether religious or non-religious. Those should be equal before the law (actually they are supposed to be, but I don't see this happening much in practice) and considered on an individual basis. I'm not in favour of opt-outs for religions (organisations), but I can see that opt-outs for religious believers (people) on the basis of their belief may be reasonable in some cases, but only if similar opt outs are considered equally valid then the belief is non-religious.

[Udayana]

But the point is that so-called 'anti-discrimination' actually discriminates against others who aren't afforded the same privileged opt-out from the general law. The issue is all about balancing the justification for the opt-out and the balance between privileging one group at the expense of discriminating against other groups.
But as far as I am aware the reasonable exceptions are typically that you have a legitimate reason for needing to use that knife at its destination. So, for example a hiker, who would need to use the knife to prepare a meal at their evening camp or a scout leader taking knifes for use at a scout event.

I think there is a difference for the kirpan - in this case there is no reasonable justification that the bearer has it because they legitimately need to use it at their destination. The justification is that they simply have to have it with them and, presumably, in virtually all cases there is no suggestion that they need to use it.
True - but this is where the law needs to engage in a delicate balancing act. Simply using the 'different histories and cultural backgrounds' card is not a strong enough argument in my opinion for a special privilege to be granted. We all have different histories and cultural backgrounds but that doesn't mean we should all get special, bespoke opt-outs to the law.

Personally I think we need to be careful about providing special privileges (sounds nice and fluffy) as they amount to, in reality, discrimination against others. I also think we must never place 'religion' on a higher tier to other beliefs. We all have firmly held beliefs whether religious or non-religious. Those should be equal before the law (actually they are supposed to be, but I don't see this happening much in practice) and considered on an individual basis. I'm not in favour of opt-outs for religions (organisations), but I can see that opt-outs for religious believers (people) on the basis of their belief may be reasonable in some cases, but only if similar opt outs are considered equally valid then the belief is non-religious.

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 139, which seems to cover the issue, states:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/part/XI/crossheading/articles-with-blades-or-points-and-offensive-weapons

(4)It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
(5)Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him—
(a)for use at work;
(b)for religious reasons; or
(c)as part of any national costume.

This seems to me to be open enough to leave the courts to decide on reasonable and fair judgements in most cases. But, it doesn't seem to allow for "non-religious beliefs" at all. 

I suppose that whatever the non-religious belief was, the reason for having the knife would either count as a good reason or not under subsection 4.