Canadian Parliament allows Sikh kirpan (dagger) in House

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I'm all for being pc. I think it's very important to be sensitive to the needs of all facets of our multicultural society. But this? COME ON. It's a safety issue. No, I'm not saying this Sikh MP is a threat, but letting a weapon of any kind into the House is dangerous. Who's to blame if a lunatic disarms this MP and then uses the kirpan on HIM? This isn't "fear mongering", as this MP claims. It's basic human safety.

Why the hell are we allowing religious symbols in government anyway?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/proposed-ban-on-kirpan-slammed-114349429.html

Proposed ban on kirpan slammed
Liberals, NDP defend Sikh dagger; Tories mum
By: Jonathan Montpetit

MONTREAL -- A proposal to ban a Sikh ceremonial dagger from Parliament had two of Canada's three main national parties racing to the defence of the religious symbol -- while the Conservatives refused to take a public stand.

The leaders of both the Liberals and the NDP came out strongly against the Bloc Québécois proposal Thursday, expressing sadness and even anger anyone would seek to ban a religious accessory from Parliament.

The Conservative government, however, described the dispute as a private matter.

"Our government does not believe parliamentary security should be directed by partisan politics," said an emailed statement from Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney.

"Specific questions on the security of the House of Commons should be directed to the (chamber's) Sergeant-at-Arms."

That leaves the Conservatives as the only party refusing to take a public position on the matter. The Bloc Québécois, transferring a dispute to Ottawa that originated in Quebec, wants to ask the House of Commons' board of internal economy to ban the article as a security threat.

The measure appears to have no chance of passing, now that the other major parties have quashed it. The NDP called the move shameful in a statement earlier this week.

And on Thursday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff described the matter as one of religious freedom and tolerance, instead of a security issue.

He made his remarks in French in response to a reporter's question in Quebec, where such a ban has prompted no complaints from any prominent politician or pundit.

Ignatieff told reporters he has kirpan-wearing Sikh colleagues who represent their constituents well and who do not deserve to be excluded from Parliament because of their religious beliefs.

"All Canadians have the right to have access to democratic spaces and legislatures," Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal.

"I have colleagues in the Liberal party who wear a kirpan and who represent their riding proudly. They have the right to have access to the House of Commons."

He added: "The kirpan is not a weapon. It's a religious symbol and we have to respect it."

Liberal MP Navdeep Bains, who has spoken openly about wearing his kirpan in the House of Commons, accused the Bloc of "fear-mongering" earlier this week for portraying the kirpan as a security threat.

In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.

A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.

The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.

"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.

Such opposition to the Bloc proposal might kill the attempt to change the security rules at the Commons' board of economy, which require all-party consensus for any modification.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

satansbed

Paul David wrote:

I'm all for being pc. I think it's very important to be sensitive to the needs of all facets of our multicultural society. But this? COME ON. It's a safety issue. No, I'm not saying this Sikh MP is a threat, but letting a weapon of any kind into the House is dangerous. Who's to blame if a lunatic disarms this MP and then uses the kirpan on HIM? This isn't "fear mongering", as this MP claims. It's basic human safety.

Why the hell are we allowing religious symbols in government anyway?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/proposed-ban-on-kirpan-slammed-114349429.html

Proposed ban on kirpan slammed
Liberals, NDP defend Sikh dagger; Tories mum
By: Jonathan Montpetit

MONTREAL -- A proposal to ban a Sikh ceremonial dagger from Parliament had two of Canada's three main national parties racing to the defence of the religious symbol -- while the Conservatives refused to take a public stand.

The leaders of both the Liberals and the NDP came out strongly against the Bloc Québécois proposal Thursday, expressing sadness and even anger anyone would seek to ban a religious accessory from Parliament.

The Conservative government, however, described the dispute as a private matter.

"Our government does not believe parliamentary security should be directed by partisan politics," said an emailed statement from Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney.

"Specific questions on the security of the House of Commons should be directed to the (chamber's) Sergeant-at-Arms."

That leaves the Conservatives as the only party refusing to take a public position on the matter. The Bloc Québécois, transferring a dispute to Ottawa that originated in Quebec, wants to ask the House of Commons' board of internal economy to ban the article as a security threat.

The measure appears to have no chance of passing, now that the other major parties have quashed it. The NDP called the move shameful in a statement earlier this week.

And on Thursday, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff described the matter as one of religious freedom and tolerance, instead of a security issue.

He made his remarks in French in response to a reporter's question in Quebec, where such a ban has prompted no complaints from any prominent politician or pundit.

Ignatieff told reporters he has kirpan-wearing Sikh colleagues who represent their constituents well and who do not deserve to be excluded from Parliament because of their religious beliefs.

"All Canadians have the right to have access to democratic spaces and legislatures," Ignatieff told reporters in Montreal.

"I have colleagues in the Liberal party who wear a kirpan and who represent their riding proudly. They have the right to have access to the House of Commons."

He added: "The kirpan is not a weapon. It's a religious symbol and we have to respect it."

Liberal MP Navdeep Bains, who has spoken openly about wearing his kirpan in the House of Commons, accused the Bloc of "fear-mongering" earlier this week for portraying the kirpan as a security threat.

In issuing their own condemnation, the NDP sought to upstage the Liberals.

A statement issued by the party said New Democrats were the first to propose a parliamentary motion defending Sikhs' five articles of faith, which includes wearing the kirpan at all times.

The 2001 motion "failed to pass when the Liberals refused to support it," the statement said.

"We stand with the Sikh community in solidarity," it added.

Such opposition to the Bloc proposal might kill the attempt to change the security rules at the Commons' board of economy, which require all-party consensus for any modification.

to be honest if it's not traditionally used as a weapon i don't see the problem

keeponrockin

I'm of the belief that if they want to bring that in, then everyone else can bring in a knife. If Muslim women can cover their faces in a bank/in court, everyone else should be allowed to too.

I heard a solution of having the kirpan welded into the sheath. This I feel is also an effective solution.

lukin2006

It's all about politics, the issue was raised by the bloc, which only has members in representing Quebec. I would say that by them raising the issue they feel they will gain more support in Quebec, and with a likely spring election they probably see this as a chance to strengthen their support in Quebec. They'll need the support of the Conservatives to get anything done on the issue. I would suggest, depending on the poll number in a month or so would depend on Conservative support. If the Conservatives are in a strong position they'll side with the liberals and ndp and agree that no ban is necessary, if the numbers don't look good they'll side with the bloc in exchange for support for the budget which will give them another year in office. The life of a minority parliament.

fife

while this can be consider a weapon it is also a religious sign and most of the time its very dull and can't caused any real danger. I personally don't see the big problem here.

Kel Varnsen

Paul David wrote:

I'm all for being pc. I think it's very important to be sensitive to the needs of all facets of our multicultural society. But this? COME ON. It's a safety issue. No, I'm not saying this Sikh MP is a threat, but letting a weapon of any kind into the House is dangerous. Who's to blame if a lunatic disarms this MP and then uses the kirpan on HIM? This isn't "fear mongering", as this MP claims. It's basic human safety.

Is the blade sharpened or is it just a ceremonial fake weapon? The article didn't really state how dangerous this thing actually is. Plus as far as the concerns about any kind of weapon being let into the house of commons, what about the ceremonial mace. While it is more of a decorative thing it is most certainly a weapon, and could be used as one if someone grabbed it and swung it with those kind of intentions.

BinauralJam

Paul David wrote:

Thats Cool

Jason P

The Sikh faith requires them to keep the dagger with them at all times? I assume people this devoted never go to airports, cross international borders, or go to any school or sporting events then? Do they sleep with it?

I do agree it is a cool looking knife. But I don't think the Guru Gobind Singh is going to punish them if they leave it in the glove box of their car for a few hours.

Electric_Delta

Are they allowing crucifixes also?

BinauralJam

Electric_Delta wrote:

Are they allowing crucifixes also?

Sure why not?

Jason P

Electric_Delta wrote:

Are they allowing crucifixes also?

I'm sure they allow people to wear a necklace or have rosemary beads. The issue is that while it is a religious symbol, most sane people would see that it is a dagger, thus a weapon.

Do any other religions have ceremonial "weapons" that the faith requires to be carried at all times? I think I may start one that requires tridents to be carried at all times. I think that would be enough to entice people to my flock.

fife

Jason P wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Are they allowing crucifixes also?

I'm sure they allow people to wear a necklace or have rosemary beads. The issue is that while it is a religious symbol, most sane people would see that it is a dagger, thus a weapon.

Do any other religions have ceremonial "weapons" that the faith requires to be carried at all times? I think I may start one that requires tridents to be carried at all times. I think that would be enough to entice people to my flock.

I don't look at it as a weapon but i am still sane. I think people have to relax. as for the person who said that someone can grab this "weapon" and use it against people, you do know that they also have arm guards there. someone can try to grab their gun and use it too but does that mean no guns also?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I'm not the paranoid type, however, I do see the benefit in being PROactive as opposed to REactive, which is what our society is all about currently. Don't do anything until something bad happens. It's very frustrating when you can see what may/can/will happen, but it goes overlooked because we might hurt someone's feelings or the supposed odds of something happening are remote.

Whatever happened to prevention? Is it wrong to not want a possible weapon in a house of politicians?? Yes, we're Canadian, but we have crazies too!

Just as some see it as "no big deal", I see it as "people don't have the right to exercise religious freedom in government, especially if it puts the safety of others at risk".

I want someone to walk in there with a giant cross that's sharpened on one end into the shape of a sword hanging on their belt and we'll see if they're allowed their "religious freedom".

fife wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Are they allowing crucifixes also?

I'm sure they allow people to wear a necklace or have rosemary beads. The issue is that while it is a religious symbol, most sane people would see that it is a dagger, thus a weapon.

Do any other religions have ceremonial "weapons" that the faith requires to be carried at all times? I think I may start one that requires tridents to be carried at all times. I think that would be enough to entice people to my flock.

I don't look at it as a weapon but i am still sane. I think people have to relax. as for the person who said that someone can grab this "weapon" and use it against people, you do know that they also have arm guards there. someone can try to grab their gun and use it too but does that mean no guns also?