Posted on 03/02/2006 2:59:19 PM PST by proud_yank
The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that Sikh students can carry ceremonial daggers to class and that doing so does not pose an undue danger to others in the schools.
The top court overturned Thursday morning a Quebec Court of Appeals ruling that had barred the kirpan from schools in the province. The Quebec court had said a limit on religious freedom was reasonable, given the safety concerns from carrying the daggers to school.
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," the top court judges wrote in their decision.
"A total prohibition against wearing a kirpan to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others."
If the kirpan is sealed inside clothing the risk of it being used for violent purposes, or being taken away by other students is very low, the judges said. "There are many objects in schools that could be used to commit violent acts and that are much more easily obtained by students, such as scissors, pencils and baseball bats."
Several other provinces have long ago reached compromises with the Sikh community, allowing the carrying of the kirpan — a requirement for baptized followers of the Sikh religion — as long as it is safely sheathed and concealed.
The 2004 ruling from the Quebec appeal court, however, dismissed any possibility of a compromise in that province.
The specific case that went to the Supreme Court involves Gurbaj Singh Multani, now 17. Five years ago, he accidentally dropped his kirpan in the schoolyard of a Montreal elementary school.
Parents of other children pressured the local school board to ban the dagger, because of a zero-tolerance policy concerning weapons.
Gurbaj's parents sued, and the case wound its way through the courts for several years.
In the wake of Thursday's ruling, he told reporters he hoped the Supreme Court decision would help students now in the school system.
"Now that we've won the case, kids like me won't have any problems any more," he said.
He also thanked members of the community who stood by him during the battle.
"I was a little scared but the community supported me a lot, they stood by me shoulder by shoulder," he said. "I'm thankful to them."
When the Supreme Court heard the arguments last April, several organizations — including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and the World Sikh Organization of Canada — intervened to support the family.
They noted that there have been no examples of any violent acts in schools as a result of wearing of the kirpan.
The youth transferred to a private school soon after the controversy erupted in 2001, and some of the intervenors were concerned that there would be a mass exodus by Sikh students from public schools across the country if the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the ban.
In its intervention, the Quebec government supported the ban, arguing that any potential weapon can cause an unnecessary risk in the schools.
Thursday's ruling was welcomed by Canada's Sikh community.
"We're very pleased that when this court did do this consideration, it came down fully in support of the right of a Sikh student to wear his or her articles of faith while attending school at the same time," Palbinder Shergill, counsel for the Canadian branch of the World Sikh Organization, told reporters during a news conference in Ottawa.
"We hope that in time that those individuals that do not understand the basic tenants of the Sikh community and the Sikh religion and the basic principles that underlie the values of the kirpan will understand and recognize that the kirpan represents what we all hold dear to us as Canadians."
ping
What he said: "Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," the top court judges wrote in their decision.
What he meant: "Idiocy is a very important value of Canadian society," the top court judges wrote in their decision.
Sure, I've got a spiritual attachment to my Model of 1911A1; can I carry it around in the U.S. without a permit?
That yoiu cannot is not a reflection of swisdom but of the general negation of the 2nd Amendment.
Unless the Second Amendment to our Constitution is meaningless you should be able to.
Does it means that the Muslim students can now take their RPGs and Kalashinkovs to school?
I guess it's just a matter of time until Abdul Jr. gets to bring his beheading sword and collection of holy, whore-stoning rocks to class.
This isn't the Third World. (Well, maybe Canada is.) I just find it amazing that the current wave of immigrants demands that their new country bow to every demand in the name of tolerance.
I've been considering for some time starting up some REALLY old time religion: druidism. Of course, this entails some human sacrifice, but, hell, it's Canaduh, who gonna stop me??
No, but it probably means that Christian students can't be banned from wearing crucifixes.
You misunderstand free exercise of religion. Christians can be banned anything.
Absolutely un-FREAKING-believable!
A reasonable accommodation for concealed daggers at school?
Let us all bow before multiculturalism!!
What are Christians banned from doing? Looking at the US, I can't think of any way that Christians are treated any differently than any other religion by the government.
Canada is so absolutely screwed.
If I lived there I would have to shoot myself.
With what?
What about those crosses removed from public lands and municipal seals?
Never carried a pocket-knife to school when you were little? What do you think happens when Junior tries to do it now?
I thought those controversies were silly. Removing those crosses did not put Christians in any worse position than every other religion. As far as I know, Muslims can't put up their holy symbols in public land, either.
Handy when vampire geography teachers start showing their fangs.
welcome to FR
As would be the Kirpan, I guess.
I think there's a movie in that concept, somewhere.
Hah! I'd better not plan on eating them, I'll get terminal indigestion.
I am tempted to find Indian (native American) symbols in similar displays and see what would happen if someone complains about them. I am pretty sure Oklahoma has some Indian-looking ornament on its license plate, just right off the top of my head.
Besides, the cross "controversy" puts Christians in a worse position than they naturally would be, even if not worse than other religions. Denial of a religious expression of the dominant culture in the public space is robbing that space. American culture is domonantly Christian, so we have crosses and not crescents as our monuments. You cannot deny us our crosses because no American community exists (still) that is dominantly Muslim.
Based on the decision in that case, I recommend that Catholics in California try to get such a program in schools. I actually think they'd win.
The Supreme Court of the United States should rule, - based on the clear words of the 2nd Amendment, -- that any person can carry concealed knives anywhere and that doing so does not pose an undue danger to anyone.
Are they religious symbols? I honestly don't know, but it's an interesting question. I think the New Mexico flag has an Indian design on it.
Besides, the cross "controversy" puts Christians in a worse position than they naturally would be, even if not worse than other religions. Denial of a religious expression of the dominant culture in the public space is robbing that space.
The Constitution requires the government to treat all religions equally. I'm personally quite happy with there being no religious displays of any type on public property. I'm paying my taxes to get my garbage picked up, not for religious symbols.
You cannot deny us our crosses because no American community exists (still) that is dominantly Muslim.
Nobody is being denied crosses. They're just being denied crosses being placed on public property with taxpayer money. I wouldn't want my tax money spent on a Star of David or Muslim crescent, either.
Some on your ping list might enjoy this thread.
Every time there is a cost attached to a monument with Christian symbolism, there is a voluntary organization of one kind or another willing to pay the cost. Its pleas are ignored and the crosses razed. Ripping emblems from buildings, stationery and uniforms actually costs money.
The distinction between a religious symbol of historical significance and that of cultist significane is nonsense. Culture is, quite simply a subset of religion. The distinction is being made only as a rearguard defensive action to protect at least some of our vanishing culture. It is like West European Jews trying to explain that they are not exactly like the schtetl ones on their way to the camps.
Oh ya, try getting it on an airplane with that excuse :)
you cant, they took you gun away....sorry :)
"Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society," the top court judges wrote in their decision.
Except of course when it comes to Judaism and Christian beliefs.
damn cultists
/s
Funny how a PC ruling on daggers just jumped up and bit the liberals in the ass.Just how will they ever deal with the Christian kids and their crosses?
A 3" magnum would be fine. Slugs or shot at your discretion.
Still probably more effective as a weapon than the 1.5" keychain trinket "pistols" for which people have been suspended under "zero-tolerance" rules.
LOL, I've got a 3-1/2 Super Mag. Just for the record....
If those are OK, then I'm going to demand that Glocks are OK. After all, their corporate offices and factory are less than five miles from my front door.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.