Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on February 09, 2023, 02:57:07 PM
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/09/ikhs-kirpan-ceremonial-blade-court-ban-england-wales
-
I'm on the Sikhs side.
Does that make me not an "anti-theist"?
Do tell.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You know the seventeenth century is over don't you?
...
True, but humans remain unchanged in nature, motivations and responses.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Some years ago, I got stopped from hiring and sending a sgian dhu. I was allowed to send a blunted version. Made sense.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
************
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 Section 139, which seems to cover the issue, states:
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.
Indeed - what that actually demonstrates is that non-religious belief is not treated equally with religious belief as 5(b) is only religious reasons.
So a person whose firmly held belief that they should be able to carry a knife wasn't religious (akin to the US right to bear arms) would have no defence. By contrast someone with an equally firmly held belief (or indeed a belief that is less firmly held) that is religious in nature would have a defence.
That's seems fundamentally wrong and also runs counter to the Equality Act that where Religion OR BELIEF are protected characteristics. Yet here it would appear that only religion is protected.
-
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.
But if belief can be justified under the general subsection 4, that would apply equally to religious and non religious beliefs. In which case 5(b) would be completely superfluous.
What is clear is that religious belief is being privileged under the law compared to non-religious belief, which shouldn't be the case under Equality Act legislation - yet it is in this case and in many others, sadly.
-
(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.
There is another element to this:
As I read it under 5(b), all an individual would need to do it to claim 'I'm a Sikh and Sikh's have to carry a knife', as the justification is 'religious reasons'. There wouldn't need to be any assessment of how committed a Sikh and individual was, whether or not they held to other tenets of that religion. Just claiming to be of that religion would be enough.
Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf
Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:
"The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected."
There is also a further inequality - lack of belief is supposed to be protected, yet it is very difficult to see how lack of belief can as easily meet these thresholds as belief (even non-religious let alone religious belief).
So it seems to me that we have ended up with a hierarchy in terms of important and ease by which you can claim protection in law with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief. In a genuinely equal society all three should be equally protected, but they most definitely aren't.
-
There is another element to this:
As I read it under 5(b), all an individual would need to do it to claim 'I'm a Sikh and Sikh's have to carry a knife', as the justification is 'religious reasons'. There wouldn't need to be any assessment of how committed a Sikh and individual was, whether or not they held to other tenets of that religion. Just claiming to be of that religion would be enough.
Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf
Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:
"The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected."
There is also a further inequality - lack of belief is supposed to be protected, yet it is very difficult to see how lack of belief can as easily meet these thresholds as belief (even non-religious let alone religious belief).
So it seems to me that we have ended up with a hierarchy in terms of important and ease by which you can claim protection in law with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief. In a genuinely equal society all three should be equally protected, but they most definitely aren't.
And we can actually bring things round full circle.
Under the Equality Act discrimination is defined as:
'... when someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation ...'
And the guide goes on to indicate that lack of belief should also be protected using the following example:
"It is also direct discrimination if someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation because they lack a particular religion or belief. For example, an atheist employee is always given a lower bonus than Christian colleagues despite performing at least as well as those colleagues."
So let's apply that to the Sikh knife scenario. Not being a Sikh (lack of belief) is also supposed to be protected from discrimination (when someone is treated worse in a similar situation). So is someone who is not a Sikh treated worse than someone who is a Sikh in a similar situation, in this case both are carrying a knife in public. You bet their life they are.
So again we see that in practice lack of belief is not protected in the same manner as belief, and in particular religious belief.
-
And we can actually bring things round full circle.
Under the Equality Act discrimination is defined as:
'... when someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation ...'
And the guide goes on to indicate that lack of belief should also be protected using the following example:
"It is also direct discrimination if someone is treated worse than someone else in a similar situation because they lack a particular religion or belief. For example, an atheist employee is always given a lower bonus than Christian colleagues despite performing at least as well as those colleagues."
So let's apply that to the Sikh knife scenario. Not being a Sikh (lack of belief) is also supposed to be protected from discrimination (when someone is treated worse in a similar situation). So is someone who is not a Sikh treated worse than someone who is a Sikh in a similar situation, in this case both are carrying a knife in public. You bet their life they are.
So again we see that in practice lack of belief is not protected in the same manner as belief, and in particular religious belief.
Except that you're not appreciating the start of the process, which is to reduce as far as practicable the number of knives being carried out and about which could be used for violence. With that in mind the principal is that no-one should be carrying a knife, and then people with an identified need to do so are identified as being exempt from that restriction.
Tradesman, for instance, in the undertaking of their business, are permitted to carry various knives and other sharp implements around. When I was practicing martial arts I was permitted to carry two full-length swords to and from practice without restriction (although it made sense to bundle them up and disguise the outlines). In that circumstance everyone is being treated equally - if you have a case to carry a blade it will be considered, and the majority don't. Whether you think being a Sikh should be sufficient exemption, I'd agree, is up for discussion, but in this instance it's not merely that non-belief is being discriminated against, Catholics wouldn't automatically be permitted to carry a knife, it's a specifically identified 'need'.
O.
-
Except that you're not appreciating the start of the process, which is to reduce as far as practicable the number of knives being carried out and about which could be used for violence. With that in mind the principal is that no-one should be carrying a knife, and then people with an identified need to do so are identified as being exempt from that restriction.
Tradesman, for instance, in the undertaking of their business, are permitted to carry various knives and other sharp implements around. When I was practicing martial arts I was permitted to carry two full-length swords to and from practice without restriction (although it made sense to bundle them up and disguise the outlines). In that circumstance everyone is being treated equally - if you have a case to carry a blade it will be considered, and the majority don't. Whether you think being a Sikh should be sufficient exemption, I'd agree, is up for discussion, but in this instance it's not merely that non-belief is being discriminated against, Catholics wouldn't automatically be permitted to carry a knife, it's a specifically identified 'need'.
O.
Of course I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to carry knives as not to allow them would be discrimination on lack of being Sikh.
All I am doing is pointing out that so-called anti-discrimination opt-outs actually create discrimination elsewhere. Further that there is a clear hierarchy in terms of protection from discrimination with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief.
And there isn't an equivalence between tradespeople, martial arts and Sikhs works. Tradespeople and martial arts practitioners need to carry blades because they will use them at their destination for a legitimate reason. That is entirely different from carrying a blade that you don't need to use because your belief system says you must. Now I'm not saying that the latter isn't reasonable, but if so it must also be opened up (at the least) to others having a similar belief that they should carry a blade, regardless of whether that belief is religious or not. But these examples are not equivalent to someone who is planning to use the blade for a legitimate purpose.
-
Of course I'm not suggesting that everyone should be able to carry knives as not to allow them would be discrimination on lack of being Sikh.
Every selection, judgement or decision discriminates, the point of the law is to minimise the range and degree of that discriminate, and to create a hierarchy of considerations. In this instances (rightly or wrongly) religious belief as a protected characteristic trumps the public good, and we're fortunate that by and large the Sikh community hasn't taken advantage of that.
All I am doing is pointing out that so-called anti-discrimination opt-outs actually create discrimination elsewhere.
Unfortunately, the legislation and common parlance making use of the term 'discrimination' is problematic, discrimination can't be avoided. The point is to achieve some degree of equity, where as many people as possible are capable of fulfilling their lives to the extent they'd wish, with as few restricted, to as little degree, as possible.
Further that there is a clear hierarchy in terms of protection from discrimination with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief.
In practice there are instances that go both ways, although probably more for particular religions because they have specific requirements and expectations that those without belief don't. It's good that the majority of the exemptions are for religion, because it means there aren't that many situations where the non-religious need exemptions or special treatment - we are, for want of a better word, the norm.
More of an issue is when religion and other protected characteristics collide, and we're starting to see religious requirements there be eased back in favour of equal rights for women, gay people and the disabled.
And there isn't an equivalence between tradespeople, martial arts and Sikhs works. Tradespeople and martial arts practitioners need to carry blades because they will use them at their destination for a legitimate reason. That is entirely different from carrying a blade that you don't need to use because your belief system says you must.
It is to you and I, but presumably to the Sikh community it is as much a requirement as, say, the Christian woman who took up a case to be allowed to wear a crucifix (I think?) whilst serving as an air steward. It seems silly to me to think of that as a requirement, but the point is that they should not be unnecessarily restricted because of our (lack of) belief - if there were a spate of Sikh related knife incidents that might get reviewed, but for the moment it seems to be working as an appropriate level of acceptance of difference.
Now I'm not saying that the latter isn't reasonable, but if so it must also be opened up (at the least) to others having a similar belief that they should carry a blade, regardless of whether that belief is religious or not.
What is the equivalent, though? What is the non-religious version of a tenet of faith? When a religious tenet or practice is, say, FMG or forced marriage we step in because we have a non-religious 'tenet' of liberty and autonomy. When a religious practice is separate schooling we should be stepping in harder than we are, and there are moves afoot to bring that about because we have a non-religious drive towards equal opportunities for all which includes a basic level of broad education (whether those standards are being adequately upheld as widely as they should be or not). What, though, is the non-religious drive that would allow knife carrying that would override the public safety benefits?
But these examples are not equivalent to someone who is planning to use the blade for a legitimate purpose.
There are very few absolutes in this, it's all a balance of rights and beliefs - if it were simple ther wouldn't be the discussion. There are no perfect correlates, but then - as I've suggested - that's part of the issue. Sometimes there just isn't a secular 'equivalent' to a religious tenet, that's why it's a religion in the first place.
O.
-
In practice there are instances that go both ways, although probably more for particular religions because they have specific requirements and expectations that those without belief don't. It's good that the majority of the exemptions are for religion, because it means there aren't that many situations where the non-religious need exemptions or special treatment - we are, for want of a better word, the norm.
I disagree - I don't think there are instances that go both ways. And I have no real issue where an exemption is about levelling a playing field, but that doesn't seem to be the case in many instances. It is too often about maintaining a non-level playing field.
So schooling is a good example. We have faith schools and we have non-faith schools, but the playing field is not level. A faith school is permitted to discriminate in favour of those of that particular faith, and in some instances not just of that faith but of other faiths. There is clear (but currently lawful) discrimination against non-religious families. Yet non faith schools are not permitted to discriminate in reverse. So a RCC family (as an example) are given preferential treatment in RCC schools, and likely in other christian denomination schools, but are treated equally to non religious families in non faith schools.
Same on employment. A faith school employing a teaching can (lawfully) select a religious person over a non-religious person in a teaching job even if the subject they teach has absolutely nothing to do with religion. They can, in fact, dismiss a person (lawfully) should they discover that person is atheist even if that person has done nothing to promulgate their atheism in the classroom. If a non faith school tried to discriminate in favour of non religious teachers or against religious ones in the same manner they be in court in an instant.
And these things aren't niche, 'get over it' issues. Nope this about fundamental equitable access to public services and fundamental employment rights.
Just because you are 'the norm' (whatever that means) doesn't mean that you might not suffer discrimination or that you should equally be protected from discrimination compared to those who I presume you consider are not 'the norm'.
-
What is the equivalent, though? What is the non-religious version of a tenet of faith?
Well I used the example of the US right to bear arms, which is of course non-religious but is also a tenet of faith to many held as strongly as a religious conviction.
So were a UK group with a longstanding, genuinely held belief in the right to bear arms - but not any requirement to be using them for any legitimate purpose - would they not be equally expecting of an exemption to the law on carrying knives in public. But currently I doubt they would as the specific exemption is for 'religious' reasons.
-
There is another element to this:
As I read it under 5(b), all an individual would need to do it to claim 'I'm a Sikh and Sikh's have to carry a knife', as the justification is 'religious reasons'. There wouldn't need to be any assessment of how committed a Sikh and individual was, whether or not they held to other tenets of that religion. Just claiming to be of that religion would be enough.
It is not clear that would be enough. In any case, the court would have to establish that there was a religious reason for holding the knife. A person, Sikh by religion, could be illegally carrying a knife for non-religious reason.
Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf
Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:
...
The criteria could be read as being applicable to both philosophical and religious beliefs, and a court could use the same or similar criteria when determining if a belief is a religious belief
There is also a further inequality - lack of belief is supposed to be protected, yet it is very difficult to see how lack of belief can as easily meet these thresholds as belief (even non-religious let alone religious belief).
So it seems to me that we have ended up with a hierarchy in terms of important and ease by which you can claim protection in law with religious belief at the top, then non-religious belief and finally lack of belief. In a genuinely equal society all three should be equally protected, but they most definitely aren't.
Yes, that is true. There is an asymmetry built in. Partly this is due to being able to define a "lack of belief" without contrasting against an actual belief but mostly because state institutions have more trust in other institutions, including religious organisations and codes, than in the "random" ideas of individuals.
-
Well I used the example of the US right to bare arms, which is of course non-religious but is also a tenet of faith to many held as strongly as a religious conviction.
So were a UK group with a longstanding, genuinely held belief in the right to bare arms - but not any requirement to be using them for any legitimate purpose - would they not be equally expecting of an exemption to the law on carrying knives in public. But currently I doubt they would as the specific exemption is for 'religious' reasons.
Ah ... but a belief "in the right to bear arms" is exactly what the law denies. Someone may believe they should have that right but it is not a right and they may not manifest/act on it.
From the Human Rights Act:
Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
-
Ah ... but a belief "in the right to bear arms" is exactly what the law denies. Someone may believe they should have that right but it is not a right and they may not manifest/act on it.
Except that is exactly the right that Sikhs claim they require and are granted by the law.
There is a difference between the right to bear arms and the right to use arms.
So if the law denies the right of someone to bear arms, specifically a dagger, knife or sword on the basis of a non-religious belief in the right to bear arms, why should that right be granted on the basis of a religious belief.
-
Same on employment. A faith school employing a teaching can (lawfully) select a religious person over a non-religious person in a teaching job even if the subject they teach has absolutely nothing to do with religion. They can, in fact, dismiss a person (lawfully) should they discover that person is atheist even if that person has done nothing to promulgate their atheism in the classroom. If a non faith school tried to discriminate in favour of non religious teachers or against religious ones in the same manner they be in court in an instant.
And it goes without saying that there is no religious requirement (e.g. in CofE or RCC) that you must be taught maths by a christian or that you cannot be taught computer science by an atheist.
-
Except that is exactly the right that Sikhs claim they require and are granted by the law.
There is a difference between the right to bear arms and the right to use arms.
So if the law denies the right of someone to bear arms, specifically a dagger, knife or sword on the basis of a non-religious belief in the right to bear arms, why should that right be granted on the basis of a religious belief.
Presumably the law makers have consulted the oracle and been assured that as long as the knives are carried for religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. But if random people were allowed to ... god forbid, we could end up like America!
-
Presumably the law makers have consulted the oracle and been assured that as long as the knives are carried for religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Then why not grant the same right to others as long as the knives are carried for non-religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Noting that the religious reasons are not on the basis that the individual will actually use the knife at their destination, but simply because they feel it important to carry one. So why not grant the same for non religious reasons.
-
Then why not grant the same right to others as long as the knives are carried for non-religious reasons it won't damage public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Noting that the religious reasons are not on the basis that the individual will actually use the knife at their destination, but simply because they feel it important to carry one. So why not grant the same for non religious reasons.
As I suggested earlier I think it could be because the institutions making the laws just trust religious organisations more than others, or unstructured groups. Religious organisations have similar hierarchical structures, well defined moral codes and objectives and, they assume, will be more likely to adhere to the restrictions - no use as weapons, but symbolically in ceremonies and/or rites - or just to feel important. For the Sikhs the knives are, after all, just to keep the vow they have sworn in the Amrit ceremony - to carry one.
This is less clear for non-religious groups - eg nationalist or community groups that may have harder political goals or objectives, and may be less likely to stick to symbolic use.
Or, say, take the Scouts: - good organisation and codes, with objectives only for acceptable uses - but they are children interacting daily with other children or youngsters some of whom are already involved in gangs or susceptible to knife crime - so can't be allowed.
Most organisations/groups would not be interested anyway and would not require or request an exception - given that work purposes are already exempt.
There are lots of examples where state institutions show greater trust in religious organisations and mores than in others. Eg. BJ taking an oath on the Bible before the privileges committee, when he is a known liar and obviously doesn't give a fig for religion. But the Bible is supposed to guarantee that he will be honest and he should be treated as though he has told the truth!
And, as you have shown, in involvement of religious organisations in education, HoL and so on.
-
As I suggested earlier I think it could be because the institutions making the laws just trust religious organisations more than others, or unstructured groups. Religious organisations have similar hierarchical structures, well defined moral codes and objectives and, they assume, will be more likely to adhere to the restrictions - no use as weapons, but symbolically in ceremonies and/or rites - or just to feel important. For the Sikhs the knives are, after all, just to keep the vow they have sworn in the Amrit ceremony - to carry one.
This is less clear for non-religious groups - eg nationalist or community groups that may have harder political goals or objectives, and may be less likely to stick to symbolic use.
Or, say, take the Scouts: - good organisation and codes, with objectives only for acceptable uses - but they are children interacting daily with other children or youngsters some of whom are already involved in gangs or susceptible to knife crime - so can't be allowed.
Most organisations/groups would not be interested anyway and would not require or request an exception - given that work purposes are already exempt.
There are lots of examples where state institutions show greater trust in religious organisations and mores than in others. Eg. BJ taking an oath on the Bible before the privileges committee, when he is a known liar and obviously doesn't give a fig for religion. But the Bible is supposed to guarantee that he will be honest and he should be treated as though he has told the truth!
And, as you have shown, in involvement of religious organisations in education, HoL and so on.
Telling that you see equality entirely in terms of organisations and groups.
Equalities legislation protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics that individual may have. It is not about protecting groups or organisations from discrimination.
-
There are lots of examples where state institutions show greater trust in religious organisations and mores than in others. Eg. BJ taking an oath on the Bible before the privileges committee, when he is a known liar and obviously doesn't give a fig for religion. But the Bible is supposed to guarantee that he will be honest and he should be treated as though he has told the truth!
But that is largely historic - individuals can also make an affirmation rather than an oath and a completely non religious affirmation is taken as having the same weight as an oath sworn on a holy text.
And the issue is one of legality - taking an oath or making an affirmation does not make guarantee that the individual will tell the truth - the point is that the affirmation or oath has legal weight and if an individual is later found to have lied under oath or affirmation they can be subject to legal proceedings, such as perjury or contempt of court.
-
Telling that you see equality entirely in terms of organisations and groups.
Equalities legislation protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics that individual may have. It is not about protecting groups or organisations from discrimination.
Of-course, equalities legislation is concerned with protection of individual rights. But legislation is drafted and agreed by committees consulting and taking requests and feedback from committees from other organisations with an interest in the areas the legislation covers; in this case "Articles with blades or points and offensive weapons".
And. I believe, such committees veer towards compromises and historical precedents.
-
But that is largely historic - individuals can also make an affirmation rather than an oath and a completely non religious affirmation is taken as having the same weight as an oath sworn on a holy text.
And the issue is one of legality - taking an oath or making an affirmation does not make guarantee that the individual will tell the truth - the point is that the affirmation or oath has legal weight and if an individual is later found to have lied under oath or affirmation they can be subject to legal proceedings, such as perjury or contempt of court.
Nah.. it's just a show. If Johnson had the tiniest sliver of honesty he could have affirmed instead, but just thought it would look better, more impressive to the committee, to swear on the bible.
-
Nah.. it's just a show. If Johnson had the tiniest sliver of honesty he could have affirmed instead, but just thought it would look better, more impressive to the committee, to swear on the bible.
Not unique to Johnson. I suspect a number of politicians might hypocritically take that option.
-
Nah.. it's just a show. If Johnson had the tiniest sliver of honesty he could have affirmed instead, but just thought it would look better, more impressive to the committee, to swear on the bible.
I don't understand your point. Taking an oath or affirmation are exactly the same in terms of their meaning - effectively that you are required to confirm that you will give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So on a presumption that Johnson is actually lying then it is no less hypocritical to lie having given affirmation than an oath.
And don't forget that in other circumstances Johnson has decided on religious options - e.g. wedding and having children baptised. So I don't doubt that Johnson considers himself to be a christian and therefore that oath is more appropriate. That he is a lying christian is neither here nor there, and being a lying christian is no better, nor worse than being a lying non religious person.
-
Of-course, equalities legislation is concerned with protection of individual rights. But legislation is drafted and agreed by committees consulting and taking requests and feedback from committees from other organisations with an interest in the areas the legislation covers; in this case "Articles with blades or points and offensive weapons".
Have you ever taken part in a government "consultation"?
-
As I suggested earlier I think it could be because the institutions making the laws just trust religious organisations more than others, or unstructured groups.
Religious institutions do not carry knives: individuals do. Why am I, a person of good standing who would never use a knife on anybody, not granted the same rights as a Sikh? I find it quite insulting actually.
-
Religious institutions do not carry knives: individuals do. Why am I, a person of good standing who would never use a knife on anybody, not granted the same rights as a Sikh? I find it quite insulting actually.
hmm .. Why? When you have no reason to have the knife?
Why do you think there is an exception for "religious reasons"?
-
Have you ever taken part in a government "consultation"?
No - at least not that I recall.
-
hmm .. Why? When you have no reason to have the knife?
Neither does a Sikh.
Why do you think there is an exception for "religious reasons"?
I absolutely do not know. I don't see any reason for such an exception other than to make the religionists stop whining about imagined persecution.
-
I don't understand your point. Taking an oath or affirmation are exactly the same in terms of their meaning - effectively that you are required to confirm that you will give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
So on a presumption that Johnson is actually lying then it is no less hypocritical to lie having given affirmation than an oath.
And don't forget that in other circumstances Johnson has decided on religious options - e.g. wedding and having children baptised. So I don't doubt that Johnson considers himself to be a christian and therefore that oath is more appropriate. That he is a lying christian is neither here nor there, and being a lying christian is no better, nor worse than being a lying non religious person.
Legally, logically, they are the same. But you don't think Johnson carefully decides what impact he will make on the committee, MPs and the wider public?
What makes him a Christian? Weddings, baptisms and so on are social events (often decided by other family members).
Nevertheless, my point was that arguments made by a member of known and long standing or respected institutions or the institutions themselves have more impact than random individuals with a view (unless they are willing to stage long hunger strikes outside parliaments gates).
You yourself have commented on how ethnic minority politicians who have risen to leadership roles in the political parties have mostly come up through a path of well known traditional institutions - Eton, Winchester, Oxbridge etc. They have networks if not talent, and the networks are self maintaining/perpetuating.
Requesting consideration because one is a Sikh, or Mormon, or Buddhist or representing some well established/establishment group gives you more clout than standing there with "no religion" but wanting to remove privileges obtained by others.
-
Neither does a Sikh.
They think they have reasons, and, presumably, have made a case that they do.
I absolutely do not know. I don't see any reason for such an exception other than to make the religionists stop whining about imagined persecution.
Yes I see, but why do you feel insulted when it makes no difference to you?
-
I disagree - I don't think there are instances that go both ways. And I have no real issue where an exemption is about levelling a playing field, but that doesn't seem to be the case in many instances. It is too often about maintaining a non-level playing field.
I guess my background is health and safety, and generally in that it's a case of people being afforded leeway to maintain their religious expression so long as the only person's risk they are increasing is their own.
So schooling is a good example. We have faith schools and we have non-faith schools, but the playing field is not level. A faith school is permitted to discriminate in favour of those of that particular faith, and in some instances not just of that faith but of other faiths. There is clear (but currently lawful) discrimination against non-religious families. Yet non faith schools are not permitted to discriminate in reverse. So a RCC family (as an example) are given preferential treatment in RCC schools, and likely in other christian denomination schools, but are treated equally to non religious families in non faith schools. Same on employment. A faith school employing a teaching can (lawfully) select a religious person over a non-religious person in a teaching job even if the subject they teach has absolutely nothing to do with religion. They can, in fact, dismiss a person (lawfully) should they discover that person is atheist even if that person has done nothing to promulgate their atheism in the classroom. If a non faith school tried to discriminate in favour of non religious teachers or against religious ones in the same manner they be in court in an instant.
Faith schools are one of the areas where, I'd agree, the exemption from the Equalities Act shouldn't apply. Even if parents have a particular belief, we shouldn't be presuming their children will share it, and shouldn't be assisting in their indoctrination. Similarly, the religious persuasion of potential teachers should only come into play if it can be shown that it would negatively impact the educational or pastoral outcomes of the children (and not the 'faith' outcomes).
And these things aren't niche, 'get over it' issues. Nope this about fundamental equitable access to public services and fundamental employment rights.
In principle they are, but in practice (barring the schools and marriage access) they typically aren't that 'fundamental'. They are typically niche issues - take the Sikh knife question. There are reportedly around 550,000 Sikhs in the UK, and so far as I can see there have been two incidents in the last ten years involving someone being stabbed with a Kirpan. It's serious, especially for the people involved, but it's a niche issue.
Just because you are 'the norm' (whatever that means) doesn't mean that you might not suffer discrimination or that you should equally be protected from discrimination compared to those who I presume you consider are not 'the norm'.
I'm not suggesting that being 'the norm' means that we can't be discriminated against or that such discrimination would be generally acceptable, it was more of a general observation about how far we've come that we can be considered 'the norm'.
O.
-
...
Faith schools are one of the areas where, I'd agree, the exemption from the Equalities Act shouldn't apply. Even if parents have a particular belief, we shouldn't be presuming their children will share it, and shouldn't be assisting in their indoctrination. Similarly, the religious persuasion of potential teachers should only come into play if it can be shown that it would negatively impact the educational or pastoral outcomes of the children (and not the 'faith' outcomes).
...
I agree... to my mind legislation has an inbuilt hierarchy with Human Rights and Equality legislation at the top. There is no essential reason a school cannot provide education within the teaching practice and observance of a religion without impinging on the human rights of the individuals potentially attending or employed by the school.
As Prof D said earlier, rights are individual, not defined for religions, organisations or other groups.
However, there is still plenty of potential for conflicts of rights issues to arise.
-
I agree... to my mind legislation has an inbuilt hierarchy with Human Rights and Equality legislation at the top. There is no essential reason a school cannot provide education within the teaching practice and observance of a religion without impinging on the human rights of the individuals potentially attending or employed by the school.
As Prof D said earlier, rights are individual, not defined for religions, organisations or other groups.
I think, for me, although I don't think that's wrong, I do feel that religion is misplaced in the Equalities Act, inasmuch as it's given the same standing as race, gender and the rest, but it's not an equivalent. Sexuality, gender and the like are traits that you don't choose or express, they are intrinsic parts of who you are. Religion, whilst culturally it might be a constrained choice, is still a choice and is not on the same footing. I'm not saying that religious position doesn't need protection, but staying in a religion and expressing the views of a religion are a choice, but you can't 'opt out' of being black or gay or female.
O.
-
I think, for me, although I don't think that's wrong, I do feel that religion is misplaced in the Equalities Act, inasmuch as it's given the same standing as race, gender and the rest, but it's not an equivalent. Sexuality, gender and the like are traits that you don't choose or express, they are intrinsic parts of who you are. Religion, whilst culturally it might be a constrained choice, is still a choice and is not on the same footing. I'm not saying that religious position doesn't need protection, but staying in a religion and expressing the views of a religion are a choice, but you can't 'opt out' of being black or gay or female.
O.
It is true that it is choice rather than a trait, however, well ... courtesy of Google Bard:
Religion is covered by the Equality Act because it is a fundamental part of many people's identities and can have a significant impact on their lives. Discrimination on the grounds of religion can have a devastating impact on people's lives, leading to social isolation, mental health problems, and even violence. The Equality Act helps to protect people from discrimination and ensure that they have equal opportunities in all areas of life.
While religion is often a choice, it is also a deeply personal and important part of many people's lives. For some people, their religion is a source of comfort and strength, while for others it is a way of connecting with their community or heritage. Religion can also play a role in shaping people's values and beliefs.
-
I guess my background is health and safety, and generally in that it's a case of people being afforded leeway to maintain their religious expression so long as the only person's risk they are increasing is their own.
Sure - but firstly equalities legislation isn't necessarily about health & safety, although it may impact. So I know there are restrictions on wearing of necklaces in hospital settings which may trump the wearing of religious symbols. But even to get to that stage you'd need to demonstrate that the wearing of them was a requirement of that religion rather than merely an optional choice.
And in this case there is certainly a safety element - carrying knives in public does pose a risk, even if a small one, that is greater than if they are not carried. And here there is a difference compared to, for example, Sikhs being exempt from wearing a crash helmet. In the latter case the only person likely to be harmed is the individual, but for a knife there are much clearer risks to others - whether directly from the knife carrier or if the knife is taken by others.
But equalities legislation isn't just about risk and is also about individuals (so you shouldn't generalise) - so in the case of a helmets whether it is fair to allow Sikhs not to wear a helmet when everyone else does. And note this isn't a blanket exception for all Sikhs as the individual would need to demonstrate adherence to Sikh doctrine in a broader sense. So in the case of knives is it fair to allow Sikhs to carry a knife while others cannot (except for legitimate reasons of use) - and as this is about the individual it isn't reasonable to claim that Sikhs as a group may be law abiding, because most individuals are, so I would argue that there is no greater or lesser risk of an individual member of the Sikh community carrying a knife in public than there is if I was to carry a knife in public.
-
It is true that it is choice rather than a trait, however, well ... courtesy of Google Bard:
As I said, it deserves legal protection - both religious views and non-religious stances in the face of religious views, I just don't think it should be on an equal standing with things like sexuality, age and the other protected characteristics.
O.
-
Sure - but firstly equalities legislation isn't necessarily about health & safety, although it may impact. So I know there are restrictions on wearing of necklaces in hospital settings which may trump the wearing of religious symbols. But even to get to that stage you'd need to demonstrate that the wearing of them was a requirement of that religion rather than merely an optional choice.
And in this case there is certainly a safety element - carrying knives in public does pose a risk, even if a small one, that is greater than if they are not carried. And here there is a difference compared to, for example, Sikhs being exempt from wearing a crash helmet. In the latter case the only person likely to be harmed is the individual, but for a knife there are much clearer risks to others - whether directly from the knife carrier or if the knife is taken by others.
But equalities legislation isn't just about risk and is also about individuals (so you shouldn't generalise) - so in the case of a helmets whether it is fair to allow Sikhs not to wear a helmet when everyone else does. And note this isn't a blanket exception for all Sikhs as the individual would need to demonstrate adherence to Sikh doctrine in a broader sense. So in the case of knives is it fair to allow Sikhs to carry a knife while others cannot (except for legitimate reasons of use) - and as this is about the individual it isn't reasonable to claim that Sikhs as a group may be law abiding, because most individuals are, so I would argue that there is no greater or lesser risk of an individual member of the Sikh community carrying a knife in public than there is if I was to carry a knife in public.
It is debateable whether there is a greater or lesser risk (on carrying knives), but even assuming that the risk is the same, surely it must be better to have an exception from the knife law than to have an exception from the Human Rights Act, unless it is absolutely necessary?
On the exemption from the motorcycle helmet rules, my opinion is that the requirement for (some) Sikhs is just to keep long hair, not wear a turban, however the exception was made on the grounds that wearing a turban is a Sikh tradition/practice. Actually, I've not seen a turbaned Sikh on a motorbike in the UK since the early 70s - so sensible behaviour may have won out?
-
It is true that it is choice rather than a trait, however, well ... courtesy of Google Bard:
"Religion is covered by the Equality Act because it is a fundamental part of many people's identities and can have a significant impact on their lives. Discrimination on the grounds of religion can have a devastating impact on people's lives, leading to social isolation, mental health problems, and even violence. The Equality Act helps to protect people from discrimination and ensure that they have equal opportunities in all areas of life.
While religion is often a choice, it is also a deeply personal and important part of many people's lives. For some people, their religion is a source of comfort and strength, while for others it is a way of connecting with their community or heritage. Religion can also play a role in shaping people's values and beliefs."
But that description doesn't just apply to religion - nope it applies to all sorts of other beliefs and values.
So for example fervent nationalism would also fit into that category.
As would white supremicist beliefs.
As would certain elements of homophobic thinking and belief.
But these are all choices - and we should never allow the manifestation of these beliefs in xenophobic, racist or homophobic actions to cause discrimination again non-nationals, people of other ethnicities or a different sexuality.
So I'm with Outrider that attributes that we have no choice over - sex, sexuality, ethnicity, age etc should take precedence over those which are a choice in the pecking order of equality and human rights.
And actually on religion fundamental human rights are absolutely clear that religion is a choice - that's why we have the right to be religious, not to be religious and to change our religion (including changing from being religious to non-religious and vice versa).
-
But that description doesn't just apply to religion - nope it applies to all sorts of other beliefs and values.
So for example fervent nationalism would also fit into that category.
As would white supremicist beliefs.
As would certain elements of homophobic thinking and belief.
But these are all choices - and we should never allow the manifestation of these beliefs in xenophobic, racist or homophobic actions to cause discrimination again non-nationals, people of other ethnicities or a different sexuality.
So I'm with Outrider that attributes that we have no choice over - sex, sexuality, ethnicity, age etc should take precedence over those which are a choice in the pecking order of equality and human rights.
And actually on religion fundamental human rights are absolutely clear that religion is a choice - that's why we have the right to be religious, not to be religious and to change our religion (including changing from being religious to non-religious and vice versa).
Yes, you are right. And, although political and philosophical beliefs are not explicitly listed as protected in the Equalities Act, there is case law, at least concerning employment, such that they are protected.
Obviously, actually manifesting or acting on some of those beliefs will often be directly against the law. In other cases, where an issue comes down to a conflict of rights, it can be decided on a case by case basis, where I would expect involuntary characteristics to be preferred over chosen beliefs or attitudes.
Hopefully if it can be seen that issues can be resolved reasonably, people might eventually come round to giving up ridiculous beliefs :) But, actually I expect that is being too optimistic.
-
Yes, you are right. And, although political and philosophical beliefs are not explicitly listed as protected in the Equalities Act, there is case law, at least concerning employment, such that they are protected.
Holding philosophical beliefs is very much a protected characteristic under the Equality Act - and indeed is supposed to be completely equivalent to religious beliefs.
I linked to the description of what comprises a 'belief' that is protected previously on this thread. I've given this again here
Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf
Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:
"The Act does not include a definition of belief other than ‘belief means any religious or philosophical belief’ and includes a lack of a particular belief. The courts have developed a definition of belief through the cases they have decided.
A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but it must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.
For a philosophical belief to be protected under the Act it must:
• be genuinely held
• be a belief and not just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available
• be about a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
• attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, and
• be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others. For example, Holocaust denial, or the belief in racial superiority are not protected.
Beliefs such as humanism, pacifism, vegetarianism and the belief in man-made climate change are all protected."
Whether political beliefs are included is, I guess, up for discussion, but provided the belief fits these criteria then I do not see why it shouldn't be.
-
Holding philosophical beliefs is very much a protected characteristic under the Equality Act - and indeed is supposed to be completely equivalent to religious beliefs.
Ah ... thanks, I've corrected my previous post.
I linked to the description of what comprises a 'belief' that is protected previously on this thread. I've given this again here
Compare that to the hoops people who hold non-religious beliefs need to jump through to be able to use 'belief' as justification under equalities legislation:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/religion-or-belief-guide-to-the-law.pdf
Note that the law differentiates between 'religious' belief and 'philosophical' belief. Religious belief is effectively just nodded through by the law (I'm a Catholic; I'm a Sikh would be enough), but a 'philosophical' belief has to meet stringent criteria as follows:
...
The Equalities Act does not address differences between religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs, so why does the guidance you've referenced? It is because religious beliefs are reasonably well understood as they will be from a religion of "sufficient seriousness which has a clear structure and belief system". But philosophical beliefs need clearer definition, coming from a wide open field. This is an example of the "bias" towards organisational support I was trying to describe earlier.
No doubt the honesty and seriousness of someone claiming a religious belief could be questioned in court if required.
Whether political beliefs are included is, I guess, up for discussion, but provided the belief fits these criteria then I do not see why it shouldn't be.
-
They think they have reasons, and, presumably, have made a case that they do.
What is the case? If people are going to be allowed an exception to a law designed to stop innocent members of the public from getting stabbed, their case for the exception should be made public. As far as I can tell, the only excuse put forward so far is "it's tradition".
Yes I see, but why do you feel insulted when it makes no difference to you?
It'll make a difference to me if a Sikh loses it* and stabs me.
*his temper, not the kirpan.
-
Ah ... thanks, I've corrected my previous post.
The Equalities Act does not address differences between religious beliefs and philosophical beliefs, so why does the guidance you've referenced? It is because religious beliefs are reasonably well understood as they will be from a religion of "sufficient seriousness which has a clear structure and belief system". But philosophical beliefs need clearer definition, coming from a wide open field. This is an example of the "bias" towards organisational support I was trying to describe earlier.
Which highlights my basic argument - that non-religious beliefs aren't afforded the same status as religious beliefs. If this is about the individual (which it should be) then there should be no difference. It shouldn't matter whether the belief is linked to an organisation - what should matter is the genuineness to which the individual holds to that belief. Yet I suspect a vegetarian who occasionally succumbs to a bacon sandwich would be treated very differently in terms of the 'seriousness' of their belief than a christian who skips church once in a while and who might not uphold many of the doctrinal beliefs of their religion.
So I suspect that a Sikh with a kirpan would be 'waved on by' by equalities legislation without assessing whether that individual always carried it (which would suggest a genuine belief) or only on high days and holiday, so to speak.
No doubt the honesty and seriousness of someone claiming a religious belief could be questioned in court if required.
But it would only get to court if the equality opt-out on religious grounds had already been challenged - see above on my two examples. Otherwise the individual would have no need to justify their belief as they'd have already benefited from the opt-out.
-
What is the case? If people are going to be allowed an exception to a law designed to stop innocent members of the public from getting stabbed, their case for the exception should be made public. As far as I can tell, the only excuse put forward so far is "it's tradition".
It'll make a difference to me if a Sikh loses it* and stabs me.
*his temper, not the kirpan.
I know some Sikhs who feel they need to carry the kirpan as they have made a personal vow, to. ie. it is a matter of personal integrity. I don't know what, if any, case was made when the Criminal Justice Act was put together in 1988.
I should think the risks of being stabbed by a kirpan carrying Sikh losing his/her temper are negligible, especially in comparison to those of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife illegally.
-
Which highlights my basic argument - that non-religious beliefs aren't afforded the same status as religious beliefs. If this is about the individual (which it should be) then there should be no difference. It shouldn't matter whether the belief is linked to an organisation - what should matter is the genuineness to which the individual holds to that belief. Yet I suspect a vegetarian who occasionally succumbs to a bacon sandwich would be treated very differently in terms of the 'seriousness' of their belief than a christian who skips church once in a while and who might not uphold many of the doctrinal beliefs of their religion.
So I suspect that a Sikh with a kirpan would be 'waved on by' by equalities legislation without assessing whether that individual always carried it (which would suggest a genuine belief) or only on high days and holiday, so to speak.
But it would only get to court if the equality opt-out on religious grounds had already been challenged - see above on my two examples. Otherwise the individual would have no need to justify their belief as they'd have already benefited from the opt-out.
Well, a belief is a belief ... it need not be adhered to absolutely to be taken seriously. I don't think, in practice, that there would be much difference in your two examples.
I can understand how some bias is introduced in formulating laws, but deciding what some law "should" or "should not" state is beyond me. The best we can hope for is that the courts come to sensible decisions in the cases that that are brought to them.
-
Well, a belief is a belief ... it need not be adhered to absolutely to be taken seriously. I don't think, in practice, that there would be much difference in your two examples.
I think there is a massive difference - I don't think a vegetarian taking court action on the basis of discrimination would get off first base if the court was told that the person occasionally ate meat. I doubt very much that the same would happen to a Sikh who occasionally didn't carry their knife.
-
I should think the risks of being stabbed by a kirpan carrying Sikh losing his/her temper are negligible, especially in comparison to those of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife illegally.
False comparison - the comparison should be between a Sikh carrying a knife and someone else carrying it legally.
And negligible isn't zero - and the likelihood of someone being stabbed by someone carrying a knife is rather higher than if they aren't carrying a knife.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/07/01/sikh-who-stabbed-woman-with-ceremonial-dagger-in-neighbour-dispute-is-jailed-for-six-years/
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime/21208098.elderly-sikh-stabbed-drinker-ceremonial-kirpan-dagger-court-hears/
People occasionally lose it - and the consequences are potentially far worse if that person is carrying a knife.
-
The best we can hope for is that the courts come to sensible decisions in the cases that that are brought to them.
But the point is that when individuals are provided with a special privilege, the only way that is likely to come to court is if that special privilege isn't granted and the individual considers that to be wrong. It won't come to court if the individual shouldn't have that special privilege (e.g. if their belief isn't sufficiently genuinely held) but receives it anyway.
So the courts are unlikely to get the chance to nuance or refine the law if there is a default that Sikhs can carry knives, even if the law should only allow Sikhs whose belief is sufficiently genuine to carry them.
-
False comparison - the comparison should be between a Sikh carrying a knife and someone else carrying it legally.
Depends on what you need to know. There is no reason to think that a Sikh with a kirpan is any more likely to be involved in a stabbing than anyone else legally carrying a knife. Even if you are suggesting that they are, there is a dearth of relevant data to test this.
On the hand, if you are worried that you might be stabbed there are studies on the demographics of knife crime which highlight other factors - in particular illegal knife carrying.
That is without considering that less than 0.25% of the UK population are Amritdhari Sikhs (ie. might be carrying a kirpan because of belief), compared to the 5-6% of people carrying knives in knife-crime affected areas.
And negligible isn't zero - and the likelihood of someone being stabbed by someone carrying a knife is rather higher than if they aren't carrying a knife.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2016/07/01/sikh-who-stabbed-woman-with-ceremonial-dagger-in-neighbour-dispute-is-jailed-for-six-years/
https://www.ilfordrecorder.co.uk/news/crime/21208098.elderly-sikh-stabbed-drinker-ceremonial-kirpan-dagger-court-hears/
People occasionally lose it - and the consequences are potentially far worse if that person is carrying a knife.
Indeed.
-
But the point is that when individuals are provided with a special privilege, the only way that is likely to come to court is if that special privilege isn't granted and the individual considers that to be wrong. It won't come to court if the individual shouldn't have that special privilege (e.g. if their belief isn't sufficiently genuinely held) but receives it anyway.
So the courts are unlikely to get the chance to nuance or refine the law if there is a default that Sikhs can carry knives, even if the law should only allow Sikhs whose belief is sufficiently genuine to carry them.
That's convoluted thinking. Once you have put an exclusion from the knife rules in place, it matters not a hoot if those that may carry a knife choose not do so at any time. Of-course, if someone that claims to be allowed to carry a knife uses it illegally, then they are in the same or worse position than anyone else.
Over time, cultures and traditions change, as also do peoples convictions, feelings and behaviour; laws can be reviewed accordingly.
-
That's convoluted thinking. Once you have put an exclusion from the knife rules in place, it matters not a hoot if those that may carry a knife choose not do so at any time.
Of course it matters - the opt out is on the basis that carrying a knife is a religious requirement. And therefore it is only a justifiable exception if the carrier is able to demonstrate that they, as an individual, demonstrate that they genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement. Clearly if they don't carry a knife most of the time that would demonstrate that they do not genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement. In which case the exception would not be justifies and the carrying of the knife would be unlawful.
However, as I've pointed out, the courts are extremely unlikely to get to judge this matter as the 'default' is that Sikhs can carry knives, while the precision of the law is that Sikhs who genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement to carry a knife are exempt.
-
Of course it matters - the opt out is on the basis that carrying a knife is a religious requirement. And therefore it is only a justifiable exception if the carrier is able to demonstrate that they, as an individual, demonstrate that they genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement. Clearly if they don't carry a knife most of the time that would demonstrate that they do not genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement. In which case the exception would not be justifies and the carrying of the knife would be unlawful.
However, as I've pointed out, the courts are extremely unlikely to get to judge this matter as the 'default' is that Sikhs can carry knives, while the precision of the law is that Sikhs who genuinely hold the belief that it is a religious requirement to carry a knife are exempt.
"Default"? An over used word on this forum. Anyone stopped carrying knife could claim to be a Sikh or pick from a range of excuses. It is up to the police and courts to come to a practical decision as to whether they are being truthful.
-
I know some Sikhs who feel they need to carry the kirpan as they have made a personal vow, to. ie. it is a matter of personal integrity. I don't know what, if any, case was made when the Criminal Justice Act was put together in 1988.
I should think the risks of being stabbed by a kirpan carrying Sikh losing his/her temper are negligible, especially in comparison to those of being stabbed by someone carrying a knife illegally.
There's also negligible risk of being stabbed by me with a knife and yet I can't carry one in public with impunity. Nobody cares about my personal integrity though.
-
"Default"? An over used word on this forum. Anyone stopped carrying knife could claim to be a Sikh or pick from a range of excuses. It is up to the police and courts to come to a practical decision as to whether they are being truthful.
Sure the police might ask some superficial questions to establish whether, prime face, the person is Sikh. But they are never going to probe whether that individual's belief that carrying a knife is a religious requirement is genuine. Are they really going to probe whether that individual always carries the knife, which would be the acid test of the genuineness of that belief. I very much doubt it. If on the face of it the person seems 'credibly' Sikh that's likely to be the end of it.
And the police don't interpret the law, they just apply it. Interpretation would come from the courts and I cannot see how the case of a non-genuine Sikh who once in a while carries a knife more for cultural rather than religious belief reasons would ever come to court to be challenged and therefore the position of the law clarified.