Sikh kids should carry knives in school

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian judge has said.

The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Bullshit! He's playing the race card.
This is NOT discrimination, because ALL of the kids are banned from carrying knives.

In most religions/traditions, where personal safety may be at risk, exeptions to the "rules" can be applied.

[klr]

A knife is a knife is a knife. No argument can be made to allow some people to carry them whilst disbarring all others. End of story.

[FBM]

A knife is a knife is a knife. No argument can be made to allow some people to carry them whilst disbarring all others. End of story.

Indeed.



All school children must be required to carry knives at all times. Except in the US, where they must be required to carry at least a 9mm. Cultural relativism and all, y'know.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

The Scots are not allowed to wear a Skean Dhu, neither. Surely what's good for one is good for another.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

A knife is a knife is a knife. No argument can be made to allow some people to carry them whilst disbarring all others. End of story.

Indeed.



All school children must be required to carry knives at all times. Except in the US, where they must be required to carry at least a 9mm. Cultural relativism and all, y'know.

Fuck that! A 9mm knife is no use to anyone!

[FBM]

A knife is a knife is a knife. No argument can be made to allow some people to carry them whilst disbarring all others. End of story.

Indeed.



All school children must be required to carry knives at all times. Except in the US, where they must be required to carry at least a 9mm. Cultural relativism and all, y'know.

Fuck that! A 9mm knife is no use to anyone!

Anyway, somebody should be treating those kids with antibiotics or something instead of ordering them around.

[Feck]

If the kids around here start carrying these in their socks instead of screwdrivers


I might have to get worried .

[Hermit]

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian judge has said.

The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Bullshit! He's playing the race card.
This is NOT discrimination, because ALL of the kids are banned from carrying knives.

As befits my alias, I'll take the role of devil's advocate.

The issue is not as cut-and-dried as you imagine.

An early example of indirect discrimination was the enactment of a law that prohibited people from sleeping under the bridges spanning the Seine. The law applied to everybody, and as such was indiscriminatory in the formal sense, but we all know that in practice it was a law that only applied to the poor. Many clochards were arrested, but never anybody by the name of Rothschildt.

The modern concept of indirect discrimination developed from a court case in 1969 involving an Italian, Ugliolia, whose time served in the military was not acknowledged by his employer in Germany, which in turn affected his rate of pay adversely. The defense argued that no discrimination took place because the relevant employment law stipulated that while only service in the German military qualifies for being considered in the matter of pay rates, it is applied to everybody and anybody who has served there. The defense lost its case. The court finally decided that, while Ugliolia's pay rate was based on an apparently formally neutral measure, the fact that (1) he could not by law have served in the German military, even if he had wanted to and (2) a significant amount of his working life had been taken up by conscription just the same, he was being materially discriminated against simply for the fact that he was not German. It was indirect discrimination, but discrimination just the same.

The concept has been applied to other areas since. Sir Mota Singh is probably right at law. You just cannot tell when the quality of reporting is piss poor, and it seems the BBC News Service is no exception in this case. It took me quite some time to dig out the legal justification for an Australian court outcome where someone was convicted of possessing child pornography because he had a cartoon depiction of Bart Simpson fucking his sister. The sensationalistic reportage simply did not bother explaining how the magistrate was doing no more than applying the law as it stood. I suspect that this article is doing something similar.

[Deep Sea Isopod]

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers - known as Kirpans - to school and other public places, Britain's first Asian judge has said.

The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Bullshit! He's playing the race card.
This is NOT discrimination, because ALL of the kids are banned from carrying knives.

As befits my alias, I'll take the role of devil's advocate.

The issue is not as cut-and-dried as you imagine.

An early example of indirect discrimination was the enactment of a law that prohibited people from sleeping under the bridges spanning the Seine. The law applied to everybody, and as such was indiscriminatory in the formal sense, but we all know that in practice it was a law that only applied to the poor. Many clochards were arrested, but never anybody by the name of Rothschildt.

The modern concept of indirect discrimination developed from a court case in 1969 involving an Italian, Ugliolia, whose time served in the military was not acknowledged by his employer in Germany, which in turn affected his rate of pay adversely. The defense argued that no discrimination took place because the relevant employment law stipulated that while only service in the German military qualifies for being considered in the matter of pay rates, it is applied to everybody and anybody who has served there. The defense lost its case. The court finally decided that, while Ugliolia's pay rate was based on an apparently formally neutral measure, the fact that (1) he could not by law have served in the German military, even if he had wanted to and (2) a significant amount of his working life had been taken up by conscription just the same, he was being materially discriminated against simply for the fact that he was not German. It was indirect discrimination, but discrimination just the same.

The concept has been applied to other areas since. Sir Mota Singh is probably right at law. You just cannot tell when the quality of reporting is piss poor, and it seems the BBC News Service is no exception in this case. It took me quite some time to dig out the legal justification for an Australian court outcome where someone was convicted of possessing child pornography because he had a cartoon depiction of Bart Simpson fucking his sister. The sensationalistic reportage simply did not bother explaining how the magistrate was doing no more than applying the law as it stood. I suspect that this article is doing something similar.

But this is about carrying an offensive weapon in public places, esp. highlighting that children could carry knives in school.
Had it been about payrises or promotions, that would be a different matter.

[Hermit]

But this is about carrying an offensive weapon in public places, esp. highlighting that children could carry knives in school.

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that children should be allowed to carry offensive weapons at school (or anywhere else for that matter) on the grounds that they subscribe to a particular superstition. What I am trying to say is that Motha Singh may be correct from a legal point of view. He is looking at the issue from the aspect of discrimination in general and what the law says about indirect discrimination in particular. Indirect discrimination is defined when somebody applies a provision, criterion or practice which appeares to affect everyone equally but which in fact put people from a particular group at a disadvantage. Singh probably argues (it is not obvious from the report, but that is no surprise) that Sikh boys are disadvantaged as a group in one of two ways. Either they are prevented from following one of their religious duties, or they are prevented from going to school. Perhaps the law regarding indirect discrimination needs to be amended, but as it stands, Singh may have a case.

[AshtonBlack]

But this is about carrying an offensive weapon in public places, esp. highlighting that children could carry knives in school.

Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating that children should be allowed to carry offensive weapons at school (or anywhere else for that matter) on the grounds that they subscribe to a particular superstition. What I am trying to say is that Motha Singh may be correct from a legal point of view. He is looking at the issue from the aspect of discrimination in general and what the law says about indirect discrimination in particular. Indirect discrimination is defined when somebody applies a provision, criterion or practice which appeares to affect everyone equally but which in fact put people from a particular group at a disadvantage. Singh probably argues (it is not obvious from the report, but that is no surprise) that Sikh boys are disadvantaged as a group in one of two ways. Either they are prevented from following one of their religious duties, or they are prevented from going to school. Perhaps the law regarding indirect discrimination needs to be amended, but as it stands, Singh may have a case.

Would you agree that discrimination prevents someone's rights under the law? Carrying an offensive weapon, not only is not a right, it is also a criminal offence. This is most definitely a case of "special pleading."

[Xamonas Chegwé]

If the law only covered ceremonial Sikh daggers, then he would have a case, as it would be a law that would only apply (under normal circumstances) to Sikh children. But as it also covers such things as Stanley knives, machetes, guns and sword-sticks, he doesn't. It is special pleading, nothing more - fuck him.

[klr]

You can't carry knives or suchlike because they are dangerous. It's not as if someone is banned from wearing something due to a dress code that may have its roots in particular cultural norms.

"My religion requires me to carry a knife". When you step back and think about that, it sounds so ridiculous.

[Feck]

Sikhs can carry tiny trinket knives much like crucifixes or saint Christophers or blunted ones or ones welded into the sheath ....in prison they are given little plastic ones.

Sikh children should not be allowed to carry a Weapon to school OBVIOUSLY .

[charlou]

Sikhs can carry tiny trinket knives much like crucifixes or saint Christophers or blunted ones or ones welded into the sheath ....in prison they are given little plastic ones.

Sikh children should not be allowed to carry a Weapon to school OBVIOUSLY .

They're the children of Sick parents ... obviously. /dawkins allusion