Was Quebec right to ban the kirpan from the National Assembly?



Was Quebec right to ban the kirpan from the National Assembly?

  1. If knives are not allowed in the National Assembly, then of course the kirpan should not be allowed.

    A few years ago there was a fight in a Sikh temple in or near Vancouver, kirpans were drawn and blood was spilled, the media barely covered the story, but it showed that the guys who carry this weapon are willing to use it – even inside their places of worship.

    • The incident you are refering too may have occured April, 2010 in Brampton, ON. A Sikh man stabbed another with a kirpan in an altercation outside a Sikh temple. Here's a clip from Global News: http://www.globalnews.ca/world/story.html?id=2777

      There was also a 2008 incident in Montreal where a 13-year-old Sikh boy threatened two of his classmates with his Kirpan.

    • I regret I agreed as I understood it was a blunt copy of a weapon. I had no idea it could be used to harm anyone. I was shown one by a Sikh woman who wore it with her dress.

    • I think fear is getting the best of people's judgement. I'm sure there are examples where the kirpan has been used as a weapon, however, across Canada, with all people carrying kirpans how many times is it used as a weapon annual? A very small number per year; I would guess that brief cases are used in assults in an equal if not larger number of incidents per year. Perhaps they should be banned as well.

  2. Who can say the person carring it is doing so for religious reasons . They could pose as having it for religious reasons and then use it as a weapon , which is exactly what it is .

  3. They are absolutely a weapon and even as a religous symbol they are ment to harm. A rule is a rule and a law is a law… Just becuase people of this religion do not like it does not mean we are prejudece it means we have respect for law and order. Dont like, move somewhere that it is a part of everyday life

  4. Can I carry a M-16 or Ak-47 around, even to the parliament, because it is my religion. Oh, no religion is using a gun as a symbol? Check those from islamic world. And, someone might create one. A knife is for hurting people, whatever you name it as a holiness…..

    • e.g. Hezbollah uses a gun in their symbol.

  5. Problems always seem to arise when Church and state are not kept separate . The countries that are most successful and modern have been able to separate each somewhat successfully .

    • That is besides the point. You can wear a chain with a cross representing Christianity without arguing that laws follow the bible. The Kirpan is a dull blade and the Sikh's have a long standing reputation as allies of Britain. I think it is important to remind ourselves of their efforts in both world wars.

  6. Pot is not legal for adherents of the Church of the Universe…

    • Thats because there are too many people on both sides of the law making a good living keeping pot illegal.

      • You be right there. The drug war will never end, as it is too profitable for both sides.

    • That is NOT what the ruling said. It said dealing pot is not legal for adherents of the Church of the Universe. The judge left it open for another case their right to legally have pot as part of their religion.

  7. If kirpans are truly religious symbols only, why not make them lapel pin size and worn thusly?. This would save a lot of argument.,

    • I agree with you, just like Catholics who wear crosses on a chain.

    • I agree, but sadly, that would require rational people. There are too many who WANT a real knife. It takes a very mature religion for it to be able to move on to symbolism. The other problem is, that forcing Christians to carry a full sized cross around (just in case they should need to join their lord and master), would be a bit impractical. They'd all have to drive Hummers, I guess…

  8. I have seen many times people hurt each other with hockey sticks while playing and sustain serious injury. Then do you want to ban hockey stick because it could be a danagerous weapon if we apply the same logic ?

    • A hockey stick is not used as a symbol of our religion. A hockey stick is a symbol of sports and people don't carry them everywhere with them. If they did, they would not be allowed in some venues! Get with the laws of Canada!

    • Sorry, i don't agree with your reasoning. People do not bring hockey sticks to the National Assembly.

    • How many days do you think it will take drug lords and other miscreants to learn that wearing a kirpan with its hidden contents will allow them admittance to supposedly secure areas?

    • That is about the dumbest comparison yet. The church of the NHL?
      I'll let you use your imagination as to where you can stick your kirpan.

    • What a goofy analogy. Hockey fans would wear a shirt with hockey sticks on it, not carry an actual hockey stick and expect to be admitted to the National Assembly. You've actually done in your own argument.

    • A holy stick or a holy knife… This is Canada dude, the holy stick wins hands down. Get on with the program man. No one brings a hockey stick everywhere. Don't you think you are stretching your reasoning too far? A weapon versus a bladeless sport equipment, if you do not see a difference, it's time for your annual check up.

    • It may not be the perfect comparison, but since you had so many "thumbs down" I wanted to take the time to say that your reasoning is not off, in my opinion.

    • Hockey sticks are not allowed in a church or mosque or a government building….are you for real?

    • Hockey is a sport, wearing a kirpan is not. Also there have been charges laid when a hockey stick is used a weapon, and even though a hockey stick may hurt people, people do not carry it around on a daily basis, unless they are going to play a game with it. Get with the program. Do not compare apples to oranges!!!!!

  9. Has anyone thought to look at the actual histroy of this "tradtion" It has always been a weapon and always intented as a weapon, not clearier sybolism than that!

  10. Kirpan is weapon used by Sikhs to defend their faith against Muslim invaders. It was always and still is primarily a weapon with a sharp steel blade of varying size. Please.keep it at home, trust us there is no need to keep remaining the rest of your defensive wars against Moslems. We do believe you!
    A wooden cross is not a weapon nor is a hockey stick, that is very obvious to a reasonable person.

    • as my experience in junior high gym would testify, a hockey stick can make a very good weapon.

    • Why r u bringing Muslims in to this? Muslim are not bad people, people just have this wrong concept in their minds and think they are right. If you don't know your research I wouldn't be talking.

  11. I think this is more than an anti Kirpan matter. Quebec politicans have to admit that they are worried about the number of immigrants into Quebec who love Canada. Like Ontario English is the third language, this will happen in Quebec also….French someday will not be the language of Quebecers. This is a bad way to tell the immigrants that they are not wanted!

    • Frank you don't know what you are talking about …. get with it, common sense has to prevail in this matter.

  12. I once had accidentally pocketed a small jackknife, forget about it and was "disarmed",rightfully so,
    at airport security.
    It would be interesting to know what happens when a Sikh wearing a kirpan goes through airport security. Let's face it, if the eight Supreme Court justices whose decision ruled that it was quite alright to wear a kirpan to school had thought intelligently
    (a rare trait !) much of this controversy would have been unnecessary.

    • To inform you, when a Sikh goes through Airport Security the Kirpan they are wearing is not sharp. It is merely harmless, it is also the same Kirpan they wear to bed. As you can see Sikh's live all over the globe and there haven't been many incidents of problems as you have mentioned arising.

      • Well, then they can darn well extrapolate wearing the harmless version to at all times in Canada and every other non-Sikh jurisdiction.

  13. Just curious,anybody know how airlines deal with this issue ?

    • I don't think they would be allowed on planes. I mean, you would be setting off the metal detectors, the new body scanners, etc.

  14. This whole issue that these so called anti-multicultural Quebec people portray is simply selfish. No, ones going around swinging their Kirpan as a weapon. Yes, it has been used in dispute but so has a bat, stick, fork, knife, ipods, wires ect. Any of the above are used as weapons but do we get rid of them NO. Therefore people simply need to let religious beliefs flow as they were intended to be. Because of all these altercation this so called free country is going down the drain. Yes, control is neccessary to a centain degree, but to control ones religion is absolutely absurd. Speaking for all religions, not just the Sikhs here, let religion be and stay the way it was created.

    • Mon, why don't Feyenoord, G Singn, Frank Blackwood and you carry on conversing with each others; You all about make as much sense as the other; Keep with the program…

    • If people want to carry these "traditions" around, carrying them around in your world. Canadians think they are being tolerant, however, we are actually being submissive by allowing other traditions to take over. This is exactly what some of these immigrants want us to do. Right now we are playing right into their hands with this issue. Keep your religion, traditions, etc, however, do not expect us to like them or accept them. Imagine us going into their country with our religion? Do they accept it readily…not likely.

    • http://fateh.sikhnet.com/sikhnet/discussion.nsf/7

      Those people used their Kirpans as weapons. Nobody's asking to 'control' someone's religion, but the assumption that their believes, which are NOT the beliefs of all peopls of this nation, somehow supercede the laws meant to govern us all. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere, better to draw it at 'no weapons in the national assembly' than 'Ok, some weapons….'cuz they're religious.' Where do you draw the line? Kirpans can be anywhere from 10" to the size of a small sword. So, again…where do you draw the line?

  15. Can it slit a throat? Can it be used to intimidate or threaten another? Can anyone Guarantee the "religeous artifact" is NOT in the hands of an extremist on a mission from good ol' Allah? It is a weapon in every sense . Was it originally worn for their protection against those who may attack them? What was the original reason for the Muslims to include the Kirpan in their traditional dress? What is their reason to wear it to bed?? Protection from being attacked in their sleep?…..Common sense over Hurting someones feelings please. Multiculturalism is a failure for just this reason. Welcome to Canada, BUT a Kirpan is still a weapon, small, but still a weapon. I.m sure you can find a perfect plastic replica if is so important!

    • A little confusion here. Islam, the religion of Muslims and Sikhism, the religion of Sikhs are not the same thing. Other than that, the general sentiments are valid.

    • I agree.

    • I find it sad that your opinion is based on ignorance. Sihks are Indians, not Arabs and definitely have nothing to do with Allah or the Muslim religion. They are not associated with Terrorism anymore than Catholics and have a longstanding reputation as Allies of the British Commonwealth. That said, we can still debate the wearing of a dull blade, a veil, a cross etc. and where to draw the line but its better to stay on topic.

    • your ignorance is showing

  16. Society is safer when good people are armed.
    Every Sikh I have known are good people.

    • Then let us all be armed, a la "Weapons Shops of Isher". Or a la Boot Hill. Might get dangerous though…

    • What ? No Sikh are capable of murder ,… where have you been in the last 25 years or so ? Now can you indulge me a little bit here ? "Society is safer when good peoples are armed, every Christians I have known are good peoples" ; How is that coming across to you ?

      • Guess Feyenoord didn't know any of the Canadian Sikhs who conspired to kill hundreds of people in the Air India bombing.

    • I agree most Sikhs are good people, but to say everyone – is stretching it too far. Remember Air India? In fighting (violence using kirpans) in many community/celebratory gatherings? Threatening of MP Dosanjh? A student in one of the schools using kirpan as weapon?
      You just have said; "Society is safer when good people are armed", does it mean kirpans are not only religious symbols but are real weapons? And who is to judge who is good enough to be armed?

    • I'm glad every Sikh you know is a good person. You're fortunate. Every Sikh, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, atheist and agnostic I know is a good person. I'm fortunate. People in the situations mentioned above by Ariadne were not so fortunate.

    • Are you for real? Just look to the United States where "good" people are armed. They have way more shootings than we have in Canada so your logic is just not reasonable.

  17. Kirpans are blunt, and pretty harmless compared to other objects that we would never think to ban. Canes, for instance, are pretty effective weapons – Andrew Jackson killed at least one person with his. Flagpoles, alternately would also make good weapons, as could the speaker's mace (which was angrily wielded by the member for Esquimalt Juan de Fuca a few year's back).

    Lets be honest about what this is. It is an attempt to make minorities feel uncomfortable, masquerading as a safety concern. It is the product of the deep* inferiority complex held by Quebec separatists, and the craven politicking of those that need their votes.

    Then again, what do I know? Maybe Muslim girls playing soccer (or attending French language classes) in hijabs and Sikhs wearing blunt metal objects under their clothes really are more dangerous than say… mass-producing asbestos, letting the mafia run your largest city, and driving as only Quebec drivers do.

    *And entirely unwarranted. Quebec's culture can survive on its own merits – the barriers erected by nationalists have only served to weaken Quebec economically and prevent la belle province from being all that it could be.

    • It's sad that your only argument against the ban is to insult an entire province. If you take a second to think, I'm sure you know that not all french-speaking Quebecois are separatists. It's actually a small minority that would actually vote yes which is probably why the Party Québecois hasn't been in power in almost 10 years.

      • I love Quebec – and I actually believe Quebecois culture would thrive if the policies of the Quebec provincial government (whether the separatists, or the politically gutless Liberals are in charge – and at least the separatists are less likely to be crooks) would stop erecting barriers and making minorities feel unwelcome.

        Ask yourself why Toronto is the first city in Canada and not Montreal today? Toronto is a dull city with little character, which is just bland enough that it can pass as a boring section of most major American cities in films. In 1967 if somebody told you that history was on Toronto's side, you'd probably think they were nuts.

        But Toronto embodies one thing that is very different from Montreal, and from Quebec. Where Quebec turned away long-standing citizens in droves, Toronto (and English Canada generally) welcomed them. Where the nationalists sought to preserve some arcane notion of pur laine-ness, English Canadians had faith that their culture could absorb and adapt to new arrivals.

        There is no more powerful symbol than Mirabel of the collective suicide that was Quebec's turn to cultural nationalism – and in many ways non-separatist nationalists drank the Kool-Aid just as much as the separatists. If even the strongest adherents of Quebec culture do not believe that it can survive in a free marketplace of ideas – why should newcomers?

    • Muslim girls wearing Hijabs and playing soccer are not harmful. We wear a Hijab because it is apart of our religion. We don't hiding mass destruction weapons under them. Don't bring Muslim girls into this. We are completely harmless. You have banned the niqab and I agree with that but the Hijab is NOT harmful! NOT HARMFUL! please engrave these words into your brain!

  18. It's time people who come to this country start respecting and accepting our laws and culture. Multiculturalism has failed and its time people start to assimilate or go back to their country.

  19. Americans think it's their right to carry a gun or any weapon, but is prohibited in any government controlled monitored area. And same goes for the Canadian government. Why then should Québec allow someone to carry a weapon in their government environment?
    Stupid question to ask.

  20. I'm trying to understand why, if the kirpan is a symbol, it is not acceptable to wear a small, harmless, symbolic kirpan. Before anyone calls me racist or culturally insensitive, let me explain that in my cultural heritage, a man in full Highland attire wears a knife down his sock. It's not quite the same because it's not a religious requirement, but in any case I would want Scots and Sikhs alike to check these weapons at the door, especially if I didn't know them very well!

  21. Any weapon is a sign of aggression. We are Canadians and we don't carry weapons. It is the law. Stick to it. No exceptions.

  22. "f kirpans are truly religious symbols only, why not make them lapel pin size and worn thusly?. This would save a lot of argument., "

    Exactly. The days of immigrants from over 200 cultures coming here and demanding Canada turn itself into a pretzel for them should be over. They must accommodate themselves to Canadian norms, not the other way around.

    The record of Sikh majority areas of the world is not good compared to Canada. The change from an actual instrument capable of killing to a symbol would be a good pacific Canadian influence on Sikhs' attitude. Just whom do they imagine they'll be fighting to defend their religion in this tolerant nation anyway? The people who don't want weapons around their children or politicians? Or fighting among themselves as they've demonstrated on a couple of occasions?

  23. We do not know Stephen Harper's position on this issue. Why?

    • His position is very clear. He wants the votes of Sikhs AND rednecks.

  24. We have to remember that a pen or bobby pin can kill someone or harm someone just as much as a kirpan.Quite frankly the kirpan is not even a dagger or a weapon.For those of you that have actually seen a kirpan take out of the case would know that it s duller then the ends of a bobbypin. It a matter of fact if a person has the intention of harming someone it can be done with anything including objects in the national assembly. People are forgetting that Sikh come to Canada because not even in India are Sikhs respected or allowed to practices Sikhism with full extent. There are more real Sikhs in Canada then there is in India, who are the people of Quebec to take away Canadian right. no one . Who made them a separate country, no one they never won the refredum. Please people do not sat that the kirpan is a weapon unless you are a Sikhs that wears one and understand the signifance of it.Sikh are constantly being targeted. Plus the National assembly only wants to ban the kirpan to disguise the fafct that women who cover their face are not allowed in. We all know that the muslim community would be more outraged then the sikhs.

    • A kirpan is a knife, a knife is a weapon, weapons are not allowed in the National Assembly, therefore kirpans should not be allowed in the National Assembly.

      • A kirpan is a dagger meaning a Double edged blade. A knife is a single edged blade. The difference between the two is that the knife has more uses then being a weapon, as it is a tool for shipping, law enforcement, Camping, Survival, cooking etc. whereas the Kirpan has only one purpose, too kill and maim other humans.

  25. I am a member of the Church of the Double Bitted Axe. I want the right to wear it everywhere I go. Makes as much sense as the Sikhs wearing their kirpans.

    • Really? Come on man.

  26. Its not meant to make anyone uncomfortable. If its dull and you can't cut anything with it, then go ahead. Bring it wherever the hell you want. The problem isn't the symbol itself. They should be forced with two options; wear a dull, harmless Kirpan, or don't wear one at all. If you can't deal with, get out of our country.

  27. A judge to decide–are you completely crackers. Why bother with government if political appointees with virtually no accountability can tell us how to live.

  28. Until Quebec's National Assembly made an issue out of it, most people didn't even know what a kirpan was. There has never been any incident of a Sikh MP stabbing another MP with his kirpan in the past, so why should anybody even mention it now? When Canadians have a problem with Sikhs wearing kirpans in their turbans, or Muslim women covering themselves with the hijab or the niqab, they are the one with the problem, not the people who use the the kirpan or the hijab to express who they are.

  29. There was once an aborigine in New Guinea and other parts of the world where human eating human is a cultural and religious practice. Would we then allow them to practice that here in Canada, as banning that practice in some book is against religious freedom? There are abhorent and violent religious practices that needs to be left behind the borders. There should be a line that needs to be drawn to serve as guidelines to those who are here and who are still to come to ensure future harmony and cohesiveness among different religions and cultures. It would have been better if each culture and religion check themselves voluntarily as they come to Canada in honor of their adoptive country's values, but with its absence, there is no other way than to legislate ( then so be it).

  30. A cross can harm someone too, its a religious symbol as well. Are you guys trying to imply that it is accepatable for other religions to express their own beliefs and that sikhs do not?

    • I am just curious…? How can a cross harm anyone.

  31. The kirpan is strictly a religious symbol. Sikhs are the same people who feed thousands of poor people that live in Vancouver every day for free, they are the same people who build public hospital wards/ schools in co-operations with the government. They are the same people who treat you when you are sick and teach you in schools. If an individual does not want to harm anyone with something like a kirpan, instead wishing to live peacefully, why do we make such a spectacle out of it? This a matter of simply a lack of understanding, a shame since immigrants like the Sikhs have been honestly working here in Canada for a century now.

Sign in to comment.