Q&A: Nav Bains on the kirpan controversy

Sikh MP has shown dagger to Bloc, worn it to U.S. Congress

by John Geddes

Liberal MP Navdeep Bains is one of the most promient Sikh politicians in Canada, instantly recognizable for his red turban. But it’s a less visible symbol of his faith—the dagger-like kirpan he wears under his shirt on his left side—that is once again the subject of controversy this week.

Four kirpan-carrying Sikh men were denied entry to the Quebec National Assembly two days ago, and in Ottawa the Bloc Québécois quickly pounced on the resulting publicity to call for the federal House of Commons to consider adopting the same prohibition, ostensibly out of concern for security.

Bains is angry at what he calls fear-mongering by the Bloc. He has always worn his kirpan in the House. Any notion of banning them, he argues, should have been put to rest by a 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision. That ruling, in the case of 12-year-old Montreal Sikh boy who wanted to wear his kirpan in school, found that the kirpan is a religious symbol, not a weapon, and must be permitted, although schools can impose reasonable limits on their size and how they are worn.

In an interview with me this morning, Bains said that during the debate over that Supreme Court case, he was asked about his kirpan by Bloc MPs. In frank conversations in the lobby of the House and over dinner at a Gatineau, Que. hotel where some MPs from all parties stay where they are in the capital, Bains says he found his Bloc colleagues open-minded.

As well, Bains said that on a visit to the the U.S. House of Representatives for a meeting with members of Congress in 2008, he had no trouble putting Capitol Hill security at ease about his kirpan. “I recall the security being very tight,” he recalled. “But they were very good to me. The minute I explained who I was and what it was about they were very open-minded.”

More from of our conversation:

Q. Obviously you don’t think it’s reasonable to ban the kirpan in institutional settings like schools and legislatures. But is a discussion around details like the allowable size of the kirpan acceptable to you?

A. Well, I think these concerns have been raised and the issues have been clearly dealt with by the Supreme Court. It deemed the kirpan not to be a weapon. If there’s any particular concern that a legislature has, of course, one is willing to sit down in a fair manner and figure it out.

Q. Have you ever set off a metal detector with your kirpan?

A. Oh yes.

Q. What do you do when that happens?

A. I explain. For example, when I went to the U.S. Congress, I explained, this is an article of faith, this is why I wear it, and here it is. I showed it to them. They saw it, so there’s no mystery about it. Then there was no issue.

Q. Where do you wear yours?

A. On my left side. There’s a strap that goes around my upper body and the kirpan goes in at my waist area. It’s very personal how one wears it. It’s different for every person.

Q. Is it reasonable to limit the size of the kirpan?

A. We need to have that discussion without the fear-mongering. The idea of an outright ban politicized it, polarized it, and those comments are deemed to be very offensive. The onus is really on the institutions that have concern to articulate it. If their concern is that it’s a weapon, clearly the Supreme Court determined that it was not. Why would you want to ban something that’s not a weapon? That’s where the Quebec legislature and the Bloc are misleading Canadians.

Q. You must know some Bloc MPs pretty well from your years sharing the opposition benches with them. Have they ever asked you about your kirpan?

A. Many of the Bloc members have asked me about this and I’ve shown them the kirpan. They understand.

Q. That’s fascinating. When did those conversations happen?

A. Over the past few years. Different occasions. We have candid discussions on many issues. They ask why I wear the turban, and I explain that it’s an outward expression of my faith. When the [Supreme Court] case happened in 2006, some of them asked my about it. When you actually have that conversation, it’s surprising how quickly it dispels any stereotypes. That’s why I’m surprised elected officials at the federal level, particularly the Bloc, would go to such lengths. They were open-minded, receptive, curious.

Q. What does your kirpan look like?

A. They’re pretty much all the same design, like the images that are shown in the media.

Q. How long is yours?

A. It’s a good question. Size matters. I don’t know, maybe six inches.

Q. That’s the handle and the blade?

A. I suppose so.

Q. There was a stabbing in Brampton, Ont., last spring, apparently with a kirpan. Did that incident change this debate?

A. That’s an isolated case. If you look at the 100 years of Sikhs in Canada, a very isolated case.

Q. What should the Quebec National Assembly do now?

A. Sit down and have a reasonable conversation. Stop the fear-mongering. Use respectful language. I really think the term accommodation is a guise for some level of ignorance. I wouldn’t want anyone to accommodate or tolerate me. I want us to respect one another and even celebrate our differences.




Browse

Q&A: Nav Bains on the kirpan controversy

  1. It just goes to show how rascist some people in Quebec can be – so narrow minded are these people..so very uneducated.

  2. It just goes to show how rascist some people in Quebec can be – so narrow minded are these people..so very uneducated.

    • only in Quebec, eh? good work casting the first stone, shows initiative.

    • Racist is a pretty loaded word. I think you should only use it in cases of clearly mailicious intent. That's not what's happening in Quebec. Some people in the provine feel threatened by immigrants and cultural practices they are not familiar with. It,s important to understand that their reactions tem from fear more than hate. That's hardly unique to Quebec. Some Quebec political parties are trying to take advantage of these fears to win votes. Many political parties traffic in those kinds of tactics.

      • I think the part that's unique to Quebec is the bashing of multiculturalism (understood as a value-neutral stance that all cultures deserve to be accomodated and celebrated as long as they do not infringe on the legal rights of individuals). Some Quebec nationalists define themselves by how they are different than Canadians, just like Canadian nationalists will play up differences between ourselves and Americans. Multiculturalism is very associated with the federal govt and with Pierre Trudeau in particular. Some Quebecers argue that we should instead aim for more of an American-style `melting pot`culture where everyone is eventually assimilated into one Disney culture (only in Quebec it would be one Poutine culture). The reason the PQ and Bloc are playing this up is because they sense it is a way to heighten the sense of difference between Quebecers and other Canadians. I guess they don't realize however that many Canadians don't like multiculturalism much either and share their fears about immigration. So I really we're not all that different, even when it comes to our ignorance and xenophobia.

    • I do not see racism in this situation, and I am talking about this situation only. Here is a little scenario, let me know what you think.

      I own several knives, utility folding types. Let us say that I take one, 4 inches blade folding, and place it in my pocket. I then try to enter a building that has a security checkpoint with a metal detector. The security agent find the knife and then either take it away from me for the time I am in the building or refuse to give me access to the building.

      Now, being annoyed, I try to change his/her mind: 'But this knife used to belong to Elvis'' I Say. His/her reply: '' Sorry Sir, no blade allowed in this building''

      ''The Pope gave me this knife for being a good Catholic'' I say. His/her reply: ''Sorry sir, no blade allowed in the building''

      You see where I am going with this….A blade is a blade is a blade. It is not racism, it is called security and it is either applied evenly across the board or people lose their life.

    • What do you base this on Tanya? Frankly I'm offended.
      The security at a provincial legilature is extra tight for a reason.
      No matter what the Supreme Court might say about it, a knife is a knife.

      Maybe I should come up with my own religious belief which compels me to carry a Glock 18.
      Since such things are subjective according to the SCC, I'm confident I could have it recognized
      as a 'religious symbol' s. But don't worry, and I'll leave the safety on, I promise…

      • …or probably reason that such religious symbol (which is a gun) are filled with blank bullets or just an ordinary fake gun just for symbolism, and see how it goes. Why is accommodation only goes one way? Why is it that with so many potential religous symbols available, why do some religions have to choose weapons to represent their faith?

  3. only in Quebec, eh? good work casting the first stone, shows initiative.

  4. amazing navdeep …… The kirpan is symbol of faith and should be far away from banning on any place !!!

  5. amazing navdeep …… The kirpan is symbol of faith and should be far away from banning on any place !!!

    • My Glock 18 is a symbol of faith too! If I have it recognized as a 'religious
      symbol' by the SCC, will you allow me access to all public spaces with it?

      A gun is still a gun, no matter what it represents
      for the one who's carrying it. Same goes with a knife.

      Gosh, I feel like I'm talking to four year olds.

      • I think you mean you are talking like a four year old.

        Your scenario is just silly since, as you well know, a gun is not a symbol of faith for anyone. Furthermore, a gun is designed as a weapon for killing. A ceremonial dagger is not.

  6. Metal knitting needles, nail files, hooks, fishing rods, ice skates, scissors, are not known as weapons, yet they are deemed to be potentially dangerous enough to be banned for passengers into airplanes.

    How does the religious value of a blunt metal object void its danger potential?

  7. Metal knitting needles, nail files, hooks, fishing rods, ice skates, scissors, are not known as weapons, yet they are deemed to be potentially dangerous enough to be banned for passengers into airplanes.

    How does the religious value of a blunt metal object void its danger potential?

    • Once something is a religious trinket its part of the constitutional entitlement to freedom of religion. Once that's established, there isn't a carte blanche for the government to ban it on a whim, they must demonstrate the reasonableness of the restriction.

      Although examining every hypothetical above would be time consuming and ultimately pointless, I daresay most of those items, if required to be stored on the person for religious reasons, might very well be allowed on airplane.

      • A walking came could be used as a weapon but banning the use of it would be considered discriminatory.

      • Well, I don't get it:

        "In the case of air travel, a ban has been strictly enforced. International standards imposed a strict prohibition against all sharp objects, including the kirpan, regardless of a person's religion or culture. In 1999, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided that a demand to wear the kirpan on airplanes did not constitute a reasonable accommodation" (Globe and Mail, Tues. Jan 18/11).

        S

        • "in the case of air travel"

          • I was answering to Mike T: "I daresay most of those items, if required to be stored on the person for religious reasons, might very well be allowed on airplane". Obviously not so.

            Same article: While the vast majority of provincial legislatures as well as Parliament allow wearing of the kirpan in their buildings, courts have been reluctant to follow suit.

            Are courts bigotted? Are they bigotted because they are Canadian? Or could they act because of a security concern? I don't know. But I would not dismiss the security concern for the sake of calling people bigotted.

          • Well, how do you think this MP got down to Washington to visit the U.S. Congress and show off his kirpan to the security folks down there? MPs don't drive when they can fly. So did he wear it on the plane, or pack it in his luggage and strap it back on once he was down there? And if he didn't wear it on the plane, why does he have to wear it Parliament?
            As for the Supreme Court having "deemed the kirpan is not a weapon" – someone should ask the kid in Brampton who got stabbed by one if he agrees with that legal interpretation.

          • Sorry, man, not kid, who got stabbed.

  8. Navdeep is perhaps the coolest guy in politics. I think if any one in minority deserves to be the PM it is he.
    Kirpan comments by Block are racist and demeaning. It is OK to have special laws and rights if you are French and want to protect your own culture,l but it is unreasonable if any reasonable accommodation is accorded to minorities!

  9. Navdeep is perhaps the coolest guy in politics. I think if any one in minority deserves to be the PM it is he.
    Kirpan comments by Block are racist and demeaning. It is OK to have special laws and rights if you are French and want to protect your own culture,l but it is unreasonable if any reasonable accommodation is accorded to minorities!

    • I am troubled by your wording "if any one in minority deserves to be the PM it is he" (although I do appreciate your correct use of the subject form of the pronoun after "is"). Are you implying that someone in the majority (whatever that might mean in Canadian society) gets dibs on the PM's job until a minority person "deserves" it? Keep in mind that all religions are minority religions in Canada, and that females outnumber males.

      • I took him to mean "in opposition" when he wrote "in minority" but perhaps I'm giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt?

        • Kudos to you for your benefitofthedoubtedness, tonight, LKO, on this and on Ignatieff's absurd expectations of competitive bidding, as quoted and parsed elsewhere.

          But note Gary's use of "minorities" in the last sentence. You may wish to reconsider that generosity of spirit.

    • I was similarly troubled by your words, and I was pleased to see the logician's reply when I opened it. ANY Canadian citizen can run as an MP. ANY Canadian can seek leadership of his or her party and thus seek to be PM.

      Nobody "deserves" to be PM. Only one can be PM at a time. However, your language suggests that being part of a visible minority is somehow disqualifying, and that suggestion is repulsive. Your willingness to grant an exception to Mr. Bains further solidifies the repulsiveness of your larger point.

      • See my reply to A_logician above.

  10. Once something is a religious trinket its part of the constitutional entitlement to freedom of religion. Once that's established, there isn't a carte blanche for the government to ban it on a whim, they must demonstrate the reasonableness of the restriction.

    Although examining every hypothetical above would be time consuming and ultimately pointless, I daresay most of those items, if required to be stored on the person for religious reasons, might very well be allowed on airplane.

  11. Racist is a pretty loaded word. I think you should only use it in cases of clearly mailicious intent. That's not what's happening in Quebec. Some people in the provine feel threatened by immigrants and cultural practices they are not familiar with. It,s important to understand that their reactions tem from fear more than hate. That's hardly unique to Quebec. Some Quebec political parties are trying to take advantage of these fears to win votes. Many political parties traffic in those kinds of tactics.

  12. I think the part that's unique to Quebec is the bashing of multiculturalism (understood as a value-neutral stance that all cultures deserve to be accomodated and celebrated as long as they do not infringe on the legal rights of individuals). Some Quebec nationalists define themselves by how they are different than Canadians, just like Canadian nationalists will play up differences between ourselves and Americans. Multiculturalism is very associated with the federal govt and with Pierre Trudeau in particular. Some Quebecers argue that we should instead aim for more of an American-style `melting pot`culture where everyone is eventually assimilated into one Disney culture (only in Quebec it would be one Poutine culture). The reason the PQ and Bloc are playing this up is because they sense it is a way to heighten the sense of difference between Quebecers and other Canadians. I guess they don't realize however that many Canadians don't like multiculturalism much either and share their fears about immigration. So I really we're not all that different, even when it comes to our ignorance and xenophobia.

  13. A walking came could be used as a weapon but banning the use of it would be considered discriminatory.

  14. the kirpan is knife .the supreme court is wrong . multiculture is the problim here the charter of rights on relgion give it too much freedom quebec has the balls to do something about this false law

  15. the kirpan is knife .the supreme court is wrong . multiculture is the problim here the charter of rights on relgion give it too much freedom quebec has the balls to do something about this false law

    • "The supreme court is wrong".

      If Parliament agrees with that then they're free to legislate and use the notwithstanding clause to, essentially, overrule the Supreme Court. Until that's been done though, it doesn't matter what one thinks of a Supreme Court decision, it's the law of the land unless Parliament intervenes. Now, I haven't actually read the decision, so I suppose there could be wiggle room in that the decision dealt with a child wearing a kirpan to school, versus an invited witness wearing a kirpan to the Legislative Assembly. That said, It might be a bit weird if the Court's decision were interpreted essentially to mean "there's no security risk here for our children, but there is for our legislators".

  16. Wow – so you don't believe in freedom of religion? Have you really thought this through?

  17. Wow – so you don't believe in freedom of religion? Have you really thought this through?

    • I wonder if you realize or will admit that your comment was exceptionally stupid?Obviously you had not "thought your comment through",when yu posted it.

  18. Well, I don't get it:

    "In the case of air travel, a ban has been strictly enforced. International standards imposed a strict prohibition against all sharp objects, including the kirpan, regardless of a person's religion or culture. In 1999, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided that a demand to wear the kirpan on airplanes did not constitute a reasonable accommodation" (Globe and Mail, Tues. Jan 18/11).

    S

  19. I do believe in freedom of religion. I think veiled women should be allowed to vote without showing their face. I think Sihks should be allowed to wear their kirpan in their daily activities, including children in the classroom and Navdeep Bains in the House of Commons.

    But I know that (from the G&M) "in the case of air travel, a ban has been strictly enforced. International standards imposed a strict prohibition against all sharp objects, including the kirpan, regardless of a person's religion or culture. In 1999, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided that a demand to wear the kirpan on airplanes did not constitute a reasonable accommodation."

  20. I do believe in freedom of religion. I think veiled women should be allowed to vote without showing their face. I think Sihks should be allowed to wear their kirpan in their daily activities, including children in the classroom and Navdeep Bains in the House of Commons.

    But I know that (from the G&M) "in the case of air travel, a ban has been strictly enforced. International standards imposed a strict prohibition against all sharp objects, including the kirpan, regardless of a person's religion or culture. In 1999, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided that a demand to wear the kirpan on airplanes did not constitute a reasonable accommodation."

    • Lorraine, they took away my mascara the last time I flew. Let us not suggest that everything that is taken away on a flight is a weapon. Most of the kirpans are dull and blunt according to those who carry them.

      • Most is the word. Has somebody inspected all kirpans to form this conclusion? I remembered in one of the news when in one of Seikh festivals, there was violence during the gatherings where Kirpans were used as weapons. In another incident, a student used it at school?

  21. Navdeep seems to be such a kind likable man. You would never suspect that he is carrying, what some people perceive as a weapon, into the House of Commons.
    You can tell he has the respect of his peers, even while he is sporting his sly Clint Eastwood smile. Everybody seems to be giving him his space………………..hey, wait a minute.

  22. I understand the freedom of religion argument. However, it does seem to be applied selectively. For example, people are now forced to perform gay marriage weddings even if it is against their religion, right?

    Furthermore, this is a KNIFE that we're talking about. It is a weapon, and a very deadly one at that.

  23. Navdeep seems to be such a kind likable man. You would never suspect that he is carrying, what some people perceive as a weapon, into the House of Commons.
    You can tell he has the respect of his peers, even while he is sporting his sly Clint Eastwood smile. Everybody seems to be giving him his space………………..hey, wait a minute.

    • Navdeep is a neat guy, and takes all the rules of his religion seriously, and cheerfully even when it means he has nothing but a roll to eat at lunch. (Well, he may have found something else acceptable after I passed by.) And no, I didn't think to myself "hey, watch it waitress, the guy has a knife" when he was questioning some of the dishes. Very respectful and friendly, he was.

      I do see both sides of this argument, but when you consider the number of items people have been harmed or killed with and we don't ban, the guy with the turban on his head isn't really 'concealing' anything, is he?

      • @ Jenn, Isn't really concealing anything is he ? Very good point, I'm more concerned with the Meth addict or the creepy looking guy with his hand in his back pocket, than I am with the well dressed Sikh dude '''openly'' carrying a cool looking miniature sword……..

  24. I understand the freedom of religion argument. However, it does seem to be applied selectively. For example, people are now forced to perform gay marriage weddings even if it is against their religion, right?

    Furthermore, this is a KNIFE that we're talking about. It is a weapon, and a very deadly one at that.

    • The people you mention are "forced to perform gay marriage weddings" because they are performing civil ceremonies on behalf of the government. If they want to perform religious cermeonies they should get ordained and pursue their religious freedom in a church of their choosing.

      Postal employees, police, fire fighters, municipal tax assessors and many other officials, are also similarly "forced" to extend services to gay people regardless of their personal religious beliefs. Aren't you usually against the big bad bureaucrats deciding to make up their own rules about who to serve and how? Isn't this where we tell them how good they have it in the public sector and why don't they suck it up?

      • By that argument, no one is forcing a Sikh with a kirpan to enter a legislature, or become an MP, right?

        • No Dennis, by that argument, Sikhs are also being denied the equivalent of a government service if we don't extend the opportunity for them to attend and participate in a manner that respects their religious freedom.

          Don't you get it? There is an onus on the government and its employees, including the Sergeant at Arms of the Quebec National Assembly, to provide equitable service in a manner that respects religious and other human rights.

          • What about the right of people who perform marriages not being able to do so because of their Christian beliefs?

        • Right. 'Cause putting a barrier in place to one particular religious minority entering the legislature of their jurisdiction, or taking their place as an elected member of said legislature isn't a problem at all.

          • We're talking about people who, on religious grounds, are carrying concealed weapons into a legislature. They want an exception to what is an otherwise sensible law that protects people, right?

          • A ceremonial dagger is not a weapon.

          • Really? Then how did this happen? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07

            Mr. Bains is being somewhat disingenous. MOST kirpans are purely ceremonial. But clearly it's not true of all; clearly in the instance cited above, it WAS a weapon.

            I think most Canadians would be satisfied if there were a clear legal interpretation of a purely ceremonial kirpan. The SCC decision does not give us that – and thus creates confusion and dissention, rather than true resolution.

          • You can kill people with baseball bats. You can kill people with letter openers. You can kill people with broken glass.

            Many things are not designed to be weapons still can be used as weapons. When someone kills someone by bashing him over the head with a wine bottle, should we ban glass?

            The point is that a ceremonial dagger is not designed to be used as a weapon.

          • …and they take all those things from people too, when boarding planes or entering courts or legislatures. I still think a clear definition would be helpful.

          • First of all this is not an airplane.

            Second, they do not take letter openers or glass away from people who go into court houses or legislatures. They don't take away pens or fists either.

          • Are you sure they take baseball bats away from people? Well the aluminum ones obviously, but I mean the wooden ones?

          • Can a kirpan be a weapon? Sure. But… the third most common method of Homicide in Canada as of 2009 was "beating", and I haven't seen your outrage over the Bloc being allowed to bring fists into the house.

            See, using your logic, hands shouldn't be allowed into the house. Make sense?

          • Not really; by your absurd logic, everything is a weapon and we may as well do away with security and let uzis in. It's the old, NRA "[Weapons] don't kill people; people do" argument.

          • Anything CAN be used as a weapon. An UZI can ONLY be used as a weapon. Which is why a kirpan should be allowed in, along with my emergency meds injector (a syringe), while an Uzi should not.

            A kirpan is not an Uzi. A group of visiting sikh's could do a lot more damage hitting legislatorrs with boxes of petitions than whith a three inch bladed kirpan.

          • Exactly, which is why a firearm is included in the definition of a weapon in the criminal code, and ceremonial dagger is not.

          • Unless, of course, it is used as a weapon. In which case, it's, err, a weapon.

          • Well duh. Kind of like when a glass of milk is used as a weapon. When was the last time they banned glasses of milk?

          • You could use an Uzi as a paperweight. Or a hole punch. Not that I would recommend either. Maybe guns should be used as office supplies, it might give a little bit of excitement to otherwise boring days.

          • Sure you could. The problem you have though is that a firearm is included in the definition of a weapon in the criminal code. A ceremonial dagger is not.

          • I'm gladdened that people have taken my comment seriously. This is serious business!

          • Yeah. No one takes your comment literally. You were clearly trying to make a point. I was just demonstrating your point was silly and therefore ineffective.

            Sorry.

          • No you are incorrect. I was making a joke. For most people its obvious an Uzi is a weapon, which is where the joke stems from. Doubtless it's good that you felt the need to explain it just in case others weren't aware of that.

      • By that logic, Sikhs should not have been allowed to wear turbans as part of their police uniforms; the uniform is a symbol of civil government and law enforcement, and is to be a neutral force – so religious accomodation has no place.

        Why is it that religious accomodation is OK where uniforms are concerned, but not where gay marriage is concerned? (BTW, I support gay marriage – but I don't think forcing those who hold religious convictions that oppose such unions to perform the ceremony is right. Those who held such positions prior to the introduction of gay marriages should be grandfathered, but it should be a job requirement for new hires that they agree to perform all such marriages as are deemed legal.) A little consistency would be nice…

    • Dennis, nobody's religious freedom can be denied by something done by someone else. Having freedom of religion means that we're each allowed to believe what we believe, not that we're entitled to live in a world in which no one offends our religious sensibilities through the way they lead their own lives.

      • If concealing a deadly weapon has no effect on other people, then why is there a law against it? Of course it affects other people.

        And, if we have freedom of religion in this country, why are people being forced to marry gay people, which is against their religion?

        Again, it just seems that standards are applied selectively in this country.

        • You need to get out more.

          • You need to learn how to debate instead of merely insulting people who dare disagree with you. lol. Next.

        • "Why are people being forced to marry gay people, which is against their religion?"

          No one's being forced to do that. If civil marriage commissioners are uncomfortable performing civil marriages because of their religious beliefs then they should quit. It makes no more sense to say that a marriage commissioner is being "forced" to perform a gay marriage than it does to say that an Orthodox Jew is being "forced" to sell cheeseburgers at their job even though cheeseburgers aren't kosher. If you work at a burger joint, you can't just refuse to sell cheeseburgers when they're added to the menu (well, you can, but I'd guess you'd probably get fired). If your religion requires you to avoid cheeseburgers then you need to quit at that point. No one's going to set up a special station for you where you'll only serve the orders that come in that are kosher. If your job is performing non-religious civil marriages, and the law says that gay people can get married in non-religious civil ceremonies then you either do your job as prescribed by the law, or you quit because your job now conflicts with your religious beliefs.

          It's not rocket science.

          • I would like to think we have more tolerance and understanding in Canada then to give the type of choice you propose to a civil marriage commissioner. If the commissioner was performing her job competently for 20 years, I would think it rather cruel to suddenly force her to choose between her beliefs and her job.

            I know you will quote me the law, and some SC decision, and you will say she should definitely be fired for not following the letter of the law, but sometimes the law is an a$$.

          • I really think a lot of these arguments about the civil marriage commissioners are because an awful lot of people are just fine with continuing to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to marriage. If the situation was that someone was competently doing their job for 20 years marrying only couples of the same race, and then the laws changed to allow interracial marriage but they wanted to continue to refuse to marry interracial couples because their religion disapproves of interracial marriage, do you suppose as many people would be arguing that we need to find a way to let them keep their jobs but not have to marry interracial couples? Maybe, but I personally doubt it very much.

          • I agree with you, and would also point out that in most Christian religions marriage is a religious ceremony and must be performed in a Church to be valid in the eyes of God. I am not sure how a marriage commissioner says it is wrong to violate one tenet of her faith and then willingly participate in violating another.

          • If civil marriage commissioners are uncomfortable performing civil marriages because of their religious beliefs then they should quit.

            If Sikh MPs are uncomfortable entering a legislature without a concealed weapon, then they should quit, too, right?

            It just seems that standards are applied selectively in this country. Only certain people have religious rights, everyone else doesn't.

          • Well, I do think it's obvious why the job of MP is different from the job of burger flipper in this context.

          • Sigh…

            NOT a weapon!

          • Criminal Code definition of a weapon:

            “weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
            (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
            (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
            and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

          • I agree that anyone hired after gay marriage became legal should not be allowed to refuse to perform the ceremony, but those who were already employed should be able to refuse on religious grounds. It's no different than allowing Sikh police to wear turbans. If we allow exceptions for some religious beliefs, we have to allow exceptions for all.

            Personally, I oppose ANY exemptions on religious grounds within the civil service – precisely because once any exemption is allowed, in the interests of fairness ALL must be.

          • Maybe they should be hired and then refuse to perform ANY ceremony on the basis that their religion prohibits marriage outside the church.

          • Their beliefs don't have to make sense to you or me in order to be honestly held. If we allow religious accomodation in some areas then we must allow it in all, or we are guilty of discrimination. Do I agree with their beliefs? No. Is it absurd? Maybe. But because we have made other accomodations based on faith, then for the sake of consistency we cannot discriminate here by refusing accomodation.

          • That does not at all deal with my point. What if someone did get a job as a marriage commissioner and then refuse to marry people because their faith requires marriage to be in a church to be valid?

          • Before gay marriage was legal, wedding commissioners never even had to deal with a "should I or shouldn't I marry these two" kind of question. It never presented itself as an oprion. Thus, their religious beliefs were never a payt of the decision making process of their job.

            Now, the rules have changed. But what remains constant here is that at no time, before or after the Supreme Court ruling, did any part of their job take into account their religious proclivities.

            Thus, muslim garbagement cannot refuse to pick up trash from "Pork Palace", and wedding commisioners must be prepared to marry any two law-abiding citizens who arrive with appropriate payment and paperwork.

          • We don't "grandfather in" the right to discriminate against people as to which government services they can receive. Marriage commissioners are providing a non-religious government service for those who choose to marry OUTSIDE of a religious ceremony.

            Allowing a marriage commissioner to refuse to marry gay people because their religion doesn't allow gay people to marry is like allowing a butcher in a meat packing plant to refuse to deal with pork because he or she keeps kosher. If you keep kosher you can't work at a meat packing plant which processes pork. If your company didn't used to process pork, and now they do, you don't get to negotiate with your employer to find you a job where you don't have to touch pork. Your job no longer conforms to your religious beliefs, and that sucks for you, but now you've got to find a new job that does.

    • It's not selective so much as being flexible and reacting to different situations differently. The wrinkle in Saskatchewan was that if the worker was allowed to exercise his right to freedom of religion, it would be condoning discrimination against another group. So in the context of civil marriage and not religious, it was what had to give.

      it would have been the same if the guy honestly felt that as a good Christian he could not perform civil marriages for blacks or jews. If a church wants to go that route we can let them, but we have to hold public employees to certain standards.

      • I disagree. Unless ALL refused to marry gays, then gays can still get married – so they haven't been systemically discriminated against. They have a right to be married – but they don't have a right to choose WHO will marry them if that forces said person to go against his/her religious beliefs. That's like forcing an Imam to marry a Jewish couple.

        • It's NOTHING like forcing an Imam to marry a Jewish couple!!!

          An Imam is a RELIGIOUS official. A marriage commissioner is a GOVERNMENT official. Religions are allowed to discriminate against people (to a point). Governments are NOT allowed to discriminate against people. Therefore someone who works for a mosque can refuse to marry a Jewish couple. Someone who works for the government cannot.

          It's not all that complicated I don't think.

  25. I see the National Assembly of Quebec as a place where extreme security measures are likely to be required – they've had three of their employees killed by a gunman, they've had a minister kidnapped and killed by a terrorist organization. Quebec is a province where donors to a political party have received letters advising them that they and their family are targets, on paper with the watermark of the FLQ. The personal address of these people were posted online. Everyday I read about the mafia controlling the construction industry…

    I have no problems calling Louise Beaudoin a bigot and the Bloc's idea a racist one.

    But the Sargeant at arms (or whatever the position if called) at the NA has the responsiblity – no, the obligation – to ensure the security of those who work in the NA and he has the knowledge of the level of threats that are received. I won't call his decision 'bigotted' before I get clear reports on the situation. I'll leave it to my English-speaking 'concitoyens' to paint everything that comes out of Quebec as racist – your reputation precedes you in this matter anyway.

  26. I see the National Assembly of Quebec as a place where extreme security measures are likely to be required – they've had three of their employees killed by a gunman, they've had a minister kidnapped and killed by a terrorist organization. Quebec is a province where donors to a political party have received letters advising them that they and their family are targets, on paper with the watermark of the FLQ. The personal address of these people were posted online. Everyday I read about the mafia controlling the construction industry…

    I have no problems calling Louise Beaudoin a bigot and the Bloc's idea a racist one.

    But the Sargeant at arms (or whatever the position if called) at the NA has the responsiblity – no, the obligation – to ensure the security of those who work in the NA and he has the knowledge of the level of threats that are received. I won't call his decision 'bigotted' before I get clear reports on the situation. I'll leave it to my English-speaking 'concitoyens' to paint everything that comes out of Quebec as racist – your reputation precedes you in this matter anyway.

    • The sargeant at arms is the guy parading around with the big ceremonial MACE, right?

  27. I find it hilarious that the Supreme Court can decide that a metal object, potentially sharpened, is not a weapon. Can they also declare the sky to not be blue and that 2+3=6?

    I personally don't think that carrying a knife in a public place is cause for concern; I've carried a knife to school starting in elementary school, and I think anybody should be allowed to. But if they ban knives in a place, then they should also ban the kirpan if it is in fact a knife (and not blunt or soft).

  28. I find it hilarious that the Supreme Court can decide that a metal object, potentially sharpened, is not a weapon. Can they also declare the sky to not be blue and that 2+3=6?

    I personally don't think that carrying a knife in a public place is cause for concern; I've carried a knife to school starting in elementary school, and I think anybody should be allowed to. But if they ban knives in a place, then they should also ban the kirpan if it is in fact a knife (and not blunt or soft).

    • "potential sharpened" – what if it is not sharpened? Most, according to the bloggers on another Macleans site said the kirpans are usually dull and blunt.

      • Not sharpened – not a problem as long as similarly dull metal objects (butter knives; letter openers) are likewise deemed safe.

        Clear, unequivocal guidelines as to what constitutes a ceremonial kirpan and what constitutes a crossing over to concealed weapon status would benefit everyone – Sikhs and security/law enforcement types alike. The SCC sadly did not give us that.

    • At the moment, I'm holding a 5" long heavy metal cylindre with a retractable metal point.
      I've taken it on numerous airplanes and into government buildings and schools.
      Using it to stab or gouge to the eyes, temple or the throat of an individual would gravely wound, maim or kill them.
      It's a pen — every bit as deadly as a small kirpan.
      Any number of objects allowable in public places can and have been used as offensive weapons.
      Security theatre in airports and public buildings — often inconsistently and illogically applied — is turing us into a nation of ninnies.
      Get a grip.

      • *turning

      • There are not enough thumbs up in the world…

      • How'd you get through airport security with it??? That sucker is even mightier than a sword, for crying out loud!

        • Dude, you should have seen the size of the syringes I carried on the plane when I was on dialysis. Frikkin harpoons. And not a word was said.

          • My friend went through airport security with his pocket knife and they didn't find it. It really gives you confidence in the system, doesn't it? Watch out for that prosthetic breast, though.

      • Are you telling me to get a grip? I was the one advocating for people to be allowed to carry knives everywhere. But if a kirpan is a knife (which not all of them are: that point has been repeatedly made), then it should be treated like any other knife in any other situation.

        I think I had clearly said that people should be allowed to carry knives.

    • The SCC did not define weapon. Parliament did:

      “weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
      (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
      (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
      and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

      • Okay, replace "Supreme Court" with "Parliament". My point remains the same. If something can be used as a weapon, it is a weapon, and forget about semantics.

        Whether it is reasonable to ban said weapon is a different debate entirely.

        • No, if something is INTENDED to be used as a weapon it is a weapon,

          ANYTHING can be used as a weapon.

          • Except firearms, apparently. They are weapons even though they are not intended to be weapons.

            Obviously anything can be used as a weapon, but it's a lot easier to kill someone with a knife rather than a pen or a needle. It's illogical to say something is not a weapon simply because it's not intended to be used as weapon.

            That being said, just because knives are weapons doesn't mean they need to be banned.

          • I am not really interested in what you think is logical. The fact is our criminal code defines weapons as firearms or any other thing that is intended to be used as a weapon, not any other thing that CAN be used as a weapon. If you don't like that take it up with Parliament.

            Knives are used as tools far more often than they are used as weapons.

    • so i guess an ice skate "a metal object, potentially sharpened" can also be a weapon? move out of your cave dude.

  29. "in the case of air travel"

  30. "The supreme court is wrong".

    If Parliament agrees with that then they're free to legislate and use the notwithstanding clause to, essentially, overrule the Supreme Court. Until that's been done though, it doesn't matter what one thinks of a Supreme Court decision, it's the law of the land unless Parliament intervenes. Now, I haven't actually read the decision, so I suppose there could be wiggle room in that the decision dealt with a child wearing a kirpan to school, versus an invited witness wearing a kirpan to the Legislative Assembly. That said, It might be a bit weird if the Court's decision were interpreted essentially to mean "there's no security risk here for our children, but there is for our legislators".

  31. The people you mention are "forced to perform gay marriage weddings" because they are performing civil ceremonies on behalf of the government. If they want to perform religious cermeonies they should get ordained and pursue their religious freedom in a church of their choosing.

    Postal employees, police, fire fighters, municipal tax assessors and many other officials, are also similarly "forced" to extend services to gay people regardless of their personal religious beliefs. Aren't you usually against the big bad bureaucrats deciding to make up their own rules about who to serve and how? Isn't this where we tell them how good they have it in the public sector and why don't they suck it up?

  32. By that argument, no one is forcing a Sikh with a kirpan to enter a legislature, or become an MP, right?

  33. I was answering to Mike T: "I daresay most of those items, if required to be stored on the person for religious reasons, might very well be allowed on airplane". Obviously not so.

    Same article: While the vast majority of provincial legislatures as well as Parliament allow wearing of the kirpan in their buildings, courts have been reluctant to follow suit.

    Are courts bigotted? Are they bigotted because they are Canadian? Or could they act because of a security concern? I don't know. But I would not dismiss the security concern for the sake of calling people bigotted.

  34. No Dennis, by that argument, Sikhs are also being denied the equivalent of a government service if we don't extend the opportunity for them to attend and participate in a manner that respects their religious freedom.

    Don't you get it? There is an onus on the government and its employees, including the Sergeant at Arms of the Quebec National Assembly, to provide equitable service in a manner that respects religious and other human rights.

  35. Lorraine, they took away my mascara the last time I flew. Let us not suggest that everything that is taken away on a flight is a weapon. Most of the kirpans are dull and blunt according to those who carry them.

  36. "potential sharpened" – what if it is not sharpened? Most, according to the bloggers on another Macleans site said the kirpans are usually dull and blunt.

  37. At the moment, I'm holding a 5" long heavy metal cylindre with a retractable metal point.
    I've taken it on numerous airplanes and into government buildings and schools.
    Using it to stab or gouge to the eyes, temple or the throat of an individual would gravely wound, maim or kill them.
    It's a pen — every bit as deadly as a small kirpan.
    Any number of objects allowable in public places can and have been used as offensive weapons.
    Security theatre in airports and public buildings — often inconsistently and illogically applied — is turing us into a nation of ninnies.
    Get a grip.

  38. *turning

  39. I am troubled by your wording "if any one in minority deserves to be the PM it is he" (although I do appreciate your correct use of the subject form of the pronoun after "is"). Are you implying that someone in the majority (whatever that might mean in Canadian society) gets dibs on the PM's job until a minority person "deserves" it? Keep in mind that all religions are minority religions in Canada, and that females outnumber males.

  40. I was similarly troubled by your words, and I was pleased to see the logician's reply when I opened it. ANY Canadian citizen can run as an MP. ANY Canadian can seek leadership of his or her party and thus seek to be PM.

    Nobody "deserves" to be PM. Only one can be PM at a time. However, your language suggests that being part of a visible minority is somehow disqualifying, and that suggestion is repulsive. Your willingness to grant an exception to Mr. Bains further solidifies the repulsiveness of your larger point.

  41. Dennis, nobody's religious freedom can be denied by something done by someone else. Having freedom of religion means that we're each allowed to believe what we believe, not that we're entitled to live in a world in which no one offends our religious sensibilities through the way they lead their own lives.

  42. If concealing a deadly weapon has no effect on other people, then why is there a law against it? Of course it affects other people.

    And, if we have freedom of religion in this country, why are people being forced to marry gay people, which is against their religion?

    Again, it just seems that standards are applied selectively in this country.

  43. You need to get out more.

  44. You need to learn how to debate instead of merely insulting people who dare disagree with you. lol. Next.

  45. I took him to mean "in opposition" when he wrote "in minority" but perhaps I'm giving him too much of the benefit of the doubt?

  46. See my reply to A_logician above.

  47. Kudos to you for your benefitofthedoubtedness, tonight, LKO, on this and on Ignatieff's absurd expectations of competitive bidding, as quoted and parsed elsewhere.

    But note Gary's use of "minorities" in the last sentence. You may wish to reconsider that generosity of spirit.

  48. "Why are people being forced to marry gay people, which is against their religion?"

    No one's being forced to do that. If civil marriage commissioners are uncomfortable performing civil marriages because of their religious beliefs then they should quit. It makes no more sense to say that a marriage commissioner is being "forced" to perform a gay marriage than it does to say that an Orthodox Jew is being "forced" to sell cheeseburgers at their job even though cheeseburgers aren't kosher. If you work at a burger joint, you can't just refuse to sell cheeseburgers when they're added to the menu (well, you can, but I'd guess you'd probably get fired). If your religion requires you to avoid cheeseburgers then you need to quit at that point. No one's going to set up a special station for you where you'll only serve the orders that come in that are kosher. If your job is performing non-religious civil marriages, and the law says that gay people can get married in non-religious civil ceremonies then you either do your job as prescribed by the law, or you quit because your job now conflicts with your religious beliefs.

    It's not rocket science.

  49. Wah, wah, wah, I can't have my double standard. Has there never, not once, been an instance where one was used as a weapon. If not, then OK, let them have their way, On the other hand, if there is even one recorded instance of being used violently then they should be treated like any aerosol can or knitting needle or breast prothesis that isn't deemed acceptable for an aircraft. I won't even get into the triple standard against guns. My but we seem to hate the people who settled this country.

  50. Wah, wah, wah, I can't have my double standard. Has there never, not once, been an instance where one was used as a weapon. If not, then OK, let them have their way, On the other hand, if there is even one recorded instance of being used violently then they should be treated like any aerosol can or knitting needle or breast prothesis that isn't deemed acceptable for an aircraft. I won't even get into the triple standard against guns. My but we seem to hate the people who settled this country.

      • It was only a matter of time before this tragedy occurred. Now, it's obviously time to move on banning hockey sticks and golf clubs.

    • What a racist statement. The Sikh people did settle this country. This year the oldest Sikh temple in BC is celebrating its 125th anniversary. That's older than most Provinces. Perhaps we should apply this stupid idea to you: if there is even one recorded instance of violence traceable to trash talk like you put forth on a regular basis, you should be held responsible for the results.

  51. Right. 'Cause putting a barrier in place to one particular religious minority entering the legislature of their jurisdiction, or taking their place as an elected member of said legislature isn't a problem at all.

  52. I would like to think we have more tolerance and understanding in Canada then to give the type of choice you propose to a civil marriage commissioner. If the commissioner was performing her job competently for 20 years, I would think it rather cruel to suddenly force her to choose between her beliefs and her job.

    I know you will quote me the law, and some SC decision, and you will say she should definitely be fired for not following the letter of the law, but sometimes the law is an a$$.

  53. What about the right of people who perform marriages not being able to do so because of their Christian beliefs?

  54. We're talking about people who, on religious grounds, are carrying concealed weapons into a legislature. They want an exception to what is an otherwise sensible law that protects people, right?

  55. If civil marriage commissioners are uncomfortable performing civil marriages because of their religious beliefs then they should quit.

    If Sikh MPs are uncomfortable entering a legislature without a concealed weapon, then they should quit, too, right?

    It just seems that standards are applied selectively in this country. Only certain people have religious rights, everyone else doesn't.

  56. Well, I do think it's obvious why the job of MP is different from the job of burger flipper in this context.

  57. I really think a lot of these arguments about the civil marriage commissioners are because an awful lot of people are just fine with continuing to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to marriage. If the situation was that someone was competently doing their job for 20 years marrying only couples of the same race, and then the laws changed to allow interracial marriage but they wanted to continue to refuse to marry interracial couples because their religion disapproves of interracial marriage, do you suppose as many people would be arguing that we need to find a way to let them keep their jobs but not have to marry interracial couples? Maybe, but I personally doubt it very much.

  58. There are not enough thumbs up in the world…

  59. A ceremonial dagger is not a weapon.

  60. Looks like Quebec has guts to stand against multi-culti indoctrination…..

  61. Looks like Quebec has guts to stand against multi-culti indoctrination…..

    • I'd love to hear you expand upon this concept…please, do elaborate.

  62. I agree with you, and would also point out that in most Christian religions marriage is a religious ceremony and must be performed in a Church to be valid in the eyes of God. I am not sure how a marriage commissioner says it is wrong to violate one tenet of her faith and then willingly participate in violating another.

  63. Sigh…

    NOT a weapon!

  64. Criminal Code definition of a weapon:

    “weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
    (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
    (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
    and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

  65. The SCC did not define weapon. Parliament did:

    “weapon” means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use
    (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or
    (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person
    and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm;

  66. It's not selective so much as being flexible and reacting to different situations differently. The wrinkle in Saskatchewan was that if the worker was allowed to exercise his right to freedom of religion, it would be condoning discrimination against another group. So in the context of civil marriage and not religious, it was what had to give.

    it would have been the same if the guy honestly felt that as a good Christian he could not perform civil marriages for blacks or jews. If a church wants to go that route we can let them, but we have to hold public employees to certain standards.

  67. How'd you get through airport security with it??? That sucker is even mightier than a sword, for crying out loud!

  68. The sargeant at arms is the guy parading around with the big ceremonial MACE, right?

  69. Well, how do you think this MP got down to Washington to visit the U.S. Congress and show off his kirpan to the security folks down there? MPs don't drive when they can fly. So did he wear it on the plane, or pack it in his luggage and strap it back on once he was down there? And if he didn't wear it on the plane, why does he have to wear it Parliament?
    As for the Supreme Court having "deemed the kirpan is not a weapon" – someone should ask the kid in Brampton who got stabbed by one if he agrees with that legal interpretation.

  70. Sorry, man, not kid, who got stabbed.

  71. I'd love to hear you expand upon this concept…please, do elaborate.

  72. Well, Saskatchewan is telling its bureaucrats they can't be Christian at work and that they have to marry gays when asked, even if it happens to conflict with their religious beliefs.
    So perhaps in this brave new secular world the Sikhs also should suck it up and have to check their religion at the door of public institutions as well, just as courts are telling Christians to do.
    I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the Sikhs' concern if Christians were allowed to practice their religion just as outwardly and freely, as well. But, as always in this country, there is a double standard that penalizes majority Christians while catering to minority religious views.
    Sad, really.

  73. Well, Saskatchewan is telling its bureaucrats they can't be Christian at work and that they have to marry gays when asked, even if it happens to conflict with their religious beliefs.
    So perhaps in this brave new secular world the Sikhs also should suck it up and have to check their religion at the door of public institutions as well, just as courts are telling Christians to do.
    I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the Sikhs' concern if Christians were allowed to practice their religion just as outwardly and freely, as well. But, as always in this country, there is a double standard that penalizes majority Christians while catering to minority religious views.
    Sad, really.

    • Yeah who will stand up to the ceaseless persecution of Christians in North America?

      • Not the left and Liberals, apparently. They are complicit in the cultural suicide that is ongoing because they refuse to stand up for the same Judeo-Christian faith that is the foundation of the modern-day political institutions and rights and freedoms that they claim to cherish.

    • So you believe Christian faith is only internal and doesn't extend beyond the church door? That's pretty typical of the left and shows you understand very little about what it is to be a Christian.

      Let me dumb it down for you: It's not just something you do on Sundays.

      Why, I suppose, in secular terms, you might even say Christianity is a "lifestyle', like the one you would be quick to condone and defend for gays to live out in public. But apparently not Christians. The double standard is staggering.

      You accuse me of making false equivalences, and yet I wonder if you would insist on a Muslim 'employee of the government' being forced to officiate at a same-sex marriage in defiance of his faith? I somehow think not. but it is fine for you that Christians to be forced to abandon their spiritual convictions in order to keep their employment?

      You know what? Forget it. You don't want to know the difference and are just willing to parrot political correctness and follow blind ideology, 'cause that's what you guys do.

      • A person should be totally aware of what is required of them ''Before '' signing their job description. If something in the job description can not performed by the employee because of Religious or personal reasons then the Employer should make every effort to accomadate the Employee..If no soloution can be found, then the Employee should be Terminated for not performing the duties required of himher as specified in the Job description…It's really just that easy…..

      • I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.

        Nice try though.

        • Not a serious Catholic, and certainly not devout, obviously, if you believe Christians should be forced into defying their faith in the public sphere.
          You'd better be 'practicing' harder at being a Roman Catholic, by the sounds of it.

          • You don't know much about Catholicism do you?

            Marriage is a Sacrament between two Catholics. Any marriage outside of the Catholic Church is not a Sacrament. A gay marriage is the same as a Jewish one, a Muslim one, a Rastafarian one, or a civil one – a representation of a loving bond, but not a Sacrament.

            Therefore it doesn't matter. There is nothing preventing a Catholic from performing a gay civil marriage ceremony…because it's not a Sacramental Marriage.

            (See, I actually *am* both a serious, and devout…and left-wing I might add…Roman Catholic. Nice try though)

          • Richard_S_Argent…. 3
            Ceeger……………………0
            Stay tuned folks, this could get really interesting…….

  74. Sure they are, they can be as Christian as they want. But as employees of the government they cannot discriminate.

    Now were they Christian Ministers, asked to marry a same sex couple in a Christian Church…then you'd be right…

    you know what? Forget it. You know the difference and are just making false equivalences 'cause that's what you guys do.

  75. It was only a matter of time before this tragedy occurred. Now, it's obviously time to move on banning hockey sticks and golf clubs.

  76. What will we do if a certain type of gun becomes a religious symbol?

  77. By that logic, Sikhs should not have been allowed to wear turbans as part of their police uniforms; the uniform is a symbol of civil government and law enforcement, and is to be a neutral force – so religious accomodation has no place.

    Why is it that religious accomodation is OK where uniforms are concerned, but not where gay marriage is concerned? (BTW, I support gay marriage – but I don't think forcing those who hold religious convictions that oppose such unions to perform the ceremony is right. Those who held such positions prior to the introduction of gay marriages should be grandfathered, but it should be a job requirement for new hires that they agree to perform all such marriages as are deemed legal.) A little consistency would be nice…

  78. Really? Then how did this happen? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/04/07

    Mr. Bains is being somewhat disingenous. MOST kirpans are purely ceremonial. But clearly it's not true of all; clearly in the instance cited above, it WAS a weapon.

    I think most Canadians would be satisfied if there were a clear legal interpretation of a purely ceremonial kirpan. The SCC decision does not give us that – and thus creates confusion and dissention, rather than true resolution.

  79. I agree that anyone hired after gay marriage became legal should not be allowed to refuse to perform the ceremony, but those who were already employed should be able to refuse on religious grounds. It's no different than allowing Sikh police to wear turbans. If we allow exceptions for some religious beliefs, we have to allow exceptions for all.

    Personally, I oppose ANY exemptions on religious grounds within the civil service – precisely because once any exemption is allowed, in the interests of fairness ALL must be.

  80. All ready been done..Winchester Model 94..pre 1964 30-30 Saddle Rifle……It's the code of the West.

  81. I disagree. Unless ALL refused to marry gays, then gays can still get married – so they haven't been systemically discriminated against. They have a right to be married – but they don't have a right to choose WHO will marry them if that forces said person to go against his/her religious beliefs. That's like forcing an Imam to marry a Jewish couple.

  82. Maybe they should be hired and then refuse to perform ANY ceremony on the basis that their religion prohibits marriage outside the church.

  83. You can kill people with baseball bats. You can kill people with letter openers. You can kill people with broken glass.

    Many things are not designed to be weapons still can be used as weapons. When someone kills someone by bashing him over the head with a wine bottle, should we ban glass?

    The point is that a ceremonial dagger is not designed to be used as a weapon.

  84. Can a kirpan be a weapon? Sure. But… the third most common method of Homicide in Canada as of 2009 was "beating", and I haven't seen your outrage over the Bloc being allowed to bring fists into the house.

    See, using your logic, hands shouldn't be allowed into the house. Make sense?

  85. Not sharpened – not a problem as long as similarly dull metal objects (butter knives; letter openers) are likewise deemed safe.

    Clear, unequivocal guidelines as to what constitutes a ceremonial kirpan and what constitutes a crossing over to concealed weapon status would benefit everyone – Sikhs and security/law enforcement types alike. The SCC sadly did not give us that.

  86. Before gay marriage was legal, wedding commissioners never even had to deal with a "should I or shouldn't I marry these two" kind of question. It never presented itself as an oprion. Thus, their religious beliefs were never a payt of the decision making process of their job.

    Now, the rules have changed. But what remains constant here is that at no time, before or after the Supreme Court ruling, did any part of their job take into account their religious proclivities.

    Thus, muslim garbagement cannot refuse to pick up trash from "Pork Palace", and wedding commisioners must be prepared to marry any two law-abiding citizens who arrive with appropriate payment and paperwork.

  87. Dude, you should have seen the size of the syringes I carried on the plane when I was on dialysis. Frikkin harpoons. And not a word was said.

  88. …and they take all those things from people too, when boarding planes or entering courts or legislatures. I still think a clear definition would be helpful.

  89. Not really; by your absurd logic, everything is a weapon and we may as well do away with security and let uzis in. It's the old, NRA "[Weapons] don't kill people; people do" argument.

  90. Anything CAN be used as a weapon. An UZI can ONLY be used as a weapon. Which is why a kirpan should be allowed in, along with my emergency meds injector (a syringe), while an Uzi should not.

    A kirpan is not an Uzi. A group of visiting sikh's could do a lot more damage hitting legislatorrs with boxes of petitions than whith a three inch bladed kirpan.

  91. Their beliefs don't have to make sense to you or me in order to be honestly held. If we allow religious accomodation in some areas then we must allow it in all, or we are guilty of discrimination. Do I agree with their beliefs? No. Is it absurd? Maybe. But because we have made other accomodations based on faith, then for the sake of consistency we cannot discriminate here by refusing accomodation.

  92. Let's see you get THAT past security!

  93. First of all this is not an airplane.

    Second, they do not take letter openers or glass away from people who go into court houses or legislatures. They don't take away pens or fists either.

  94. Exactly, which is why a firearm is included in the definition of a weapon in the criminal code, and ceremonial dagger is not.

  95. That does not at all deal with my point. What if someone did get a job as a marriage commissioner and then refuse to marry people because their faith requires marriage to be in a church to be valid?

  96. Yeah who will stand up to the ceaseless persecution of Christians in North America?

  97. What will we do if a certain type of gun becomes a religious symbol?

    • All ready been done..Winchester Model 94..pre 1964 30-30 Saddle Rifle……It's the code of the West.

      • Let's see you get THAT past security!

        • No worries, my Horse doesn't like to climb stairs……

    • Well as long as they load it with blanks it's ok.

  98. Are you sure they take baseball bats away from people? Well the aluminum ones obviously, but I mean the wooden ones?

  99. You could use an Uzi as a paperweight. Or a hole punch. Not that I would recommend either. Maybe guns should be used as office supplies, it might give a little bit of excitement to otherwise boring days.

  100. I do not see racism in this situation, and I am talking about this situation only. Here is a little scenario, let me know what you think.

    I own several knives, utility folding types. Let us say that I take one, 4 inches blade folding, and place it in my pocket. I then try to enter a building that has a security checkpoint with a metal detector. The security agent find the knife and then either take it away from me for the time I am in the building or refuse to give me access to the building.

    Now, being annoyed, I try to change his/her mind: 'But this knife used to belong to Elvis'' I Say. His/her reply: '' Sorry Sir, no blade allowed in this building''

    ''The Pope gave me this knife for being a good Catholic'' I say. His/her reply: ''Sorry sir, no blade allowed in the building''

    You see where I am going with this….A blade is a blade is a blade. It is not racism, it is called security and it is either applied evenly across the board or people lose their life.

  101. Well as long as they load it with blanks it's ok.

  102. Q. How long is yours?

    A. It's a good question. Size matters. I don't know, maybe six inches.

    –Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP

    out of context quote of the year

  103. Q. How long is yours?

    A. It's a good question. Size matters. I don't know, maybe six inches.

    –Navdeep Bains, Liberal MP

    out of context quote of the year

    • Should I ?…Shouldn't I ?…Should I ?…..Nah !

    • I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a whole lot of wink-wink nudge-nudge going on at at that point in the interview. :-)

      • It probably took a lot not to at least,, crack a smirk…..any comment Mr. Geddes ?

    • That's what happens when your give a vague answer to a pointed question.
      It was a perfict opportunity to present the known information.
      Mr. Bains, a seasoned politician, knows better!

  104. What do you base this on Tanya? Frankly I'm offended.
    The security at a provincial legilature is extra tight for a reason.
    No matter what the Supreme Court might say about it, a knife is a knife.

    Maybe I should come up with my own religious belief which compels me to carry a Glock 18.
    Since such things are subjective according to the SCC, I'm confident I could have it recognized
    as a 'religious symbol' s. But don't worry, and I'll leave the safety on, I promise…

  105. My Glock 18 is a symbol of faith too! If I have it recognized as a 'religious
    symbol' by the SCC, will you allow me access to all public spaces with it?

    A gun is still a gun, no matter what it represents
    for the one who's carrying it. Same goes with a knife.

    Gosh, I feel like I'm talking to four year olds.

  106. We don't "grandfather in" the right to discriminate against people as to which government services they can receive. Marriage commissioners are providing a non-religious government service for those who choose to marry OUTSIDE of a religious ceremony.

    Allowing a marriage commissioner to refuse to marry gay people because their religion doesn't allow gay people to marry is like allowing a butcher in a meat packing plant to refuse to deal with pork because he or she keeps kosher. If you keep kosher you can't work at a meat packing plant which processes pork. If your company didn't used to process pork, and now they do, you don't get to negotiate with your employer to find you a job where you don't have to touch pork. Your job no longer conforms to your religious beliefs, and that sucks for you, but now you've got to find a new job that does.

  107. I think you mean you are talking like a four year old.

    Your scenario is just silly since, as you well know, a gun is not a symbol of faith for anyone. Furthermore, a gun is designed as a weapon for killing. A ceremonial dagger is not.

  108. It's NOTHING like forcing an Imam to marry a Jewish couple!!!

    An Imam is a RELIGIOUS official. A marriage commissioner is a GOVERNMENT official. Religions are allowed to discriminate against people (to a point). Governments are NOT allowed to discriminate against people. Therefore someone who works for a mosque can refuse to marry a Jewish couple. Someone who works for the government cannot.

    It's not all that complicated I don't think.

  109. Sure you could. The problem you have though is that a firearm is included in the definition of a weapon in the criminal code. A ceremonial dagger is not.

  110. No worries, my Horse doesn't like to climb stairs……

  111. Should I ?…Shouldn't I ?…Should I ?…..Nah !

  112. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a whole lot of wink-wink nudge-nudge going on at at that point in the interview. :-)

  113. It probably took a lot not to at least,, crack a smirk…..any comment Mr. Geddes ?

  114. I wonder if you realize or will admit that your comment was exceptionally stupid?Obviously you had not "thought your comment through",when yu posted it.

  115. Are you telling me to get a grip? I was the one advocating for people to be allowed to carry knives everywhere. But if a kirpan is a knife (which not all of them are: that point has been repeatedly made), then it should be treated like any other knife in any other situation.

    I think I had clearly said that people should be allowed to carry knives.

  116. Okay, replace "Supreme Court" with "Parliament". My point remains the same. If something can be used as a weapon, it is a weapon, and forget about semantics.

    Whether it is reasonable to ban said weapon is a different debate entirely.

  117. My friend went through airport security with his pocket knife and they didn't find it. It really gives you confidence in the system, doesn't it? Watch out for that prosthetic breast, though.

  118. What a racist statement. The Sikh people did settle this country. This year the oldest Sikh temple in BC is celebrating its 125th anniversary. That's older than most Provinces. Perhaps we should apply this stupid idea to you: if there is even one recorded instance of violence traceable to trash talk like you put forth on a regular basis, you should be held responsible for the results.

  119. No, if something is INTENDED to be used as a weapon it is a weapon,

    ANYTHING can be used as a weapon.

  120. …or probably reason that such religious symbol (which is a gun) are filled with blank bullets or just an ordinary fake gun just for symbolism, and see how it goes. Why is accommodation only goes one way? Why is it that with so many potential religous symbols available, why do some religions have to choose weapons to represent their faith?

  121. Unless, of course, it is used as a weapon. In which case, it's, err, a weapon.

  122. Of course, the solution is simple:

    Alternative #1:
    No concealed carry. Knife must be razor sharp, and in a scabbard on outside of clothing at waist, and visible. Knife must be between 8 inches and 2 ft long (inclusive), including handle and scabbard. Device must be serial numbered, and sold by one registered manufacturer/vendor. Wearer must be registered as with guns. Wearer must carry a special permit/ID card. Wearer must carry $100,000,000.00 in liability insurance. Wearer must show possession and control of the specific serial numbered device to local RCMP once a year. Since expenses are religious in nature, they are tax deductible, much as a donation would be.

    Alternative #2:
    Entire device: knife, handle, and scabbard must be Maximum of 2 inches long, by 1 inch wide, by 1/2 inch thick. Knife must be in a scabbard. Knife must be affixed in a scabbard, so that it cannot be removed from the scabbard (using Crazy Glue, for instance). Knife must be razor sharp. Knife must serial numbered and be sold via a certified manufacturer/vendor. Wearer must register (like guns), and carry permit/ID. Wearer must carry $10,000.00 of liability insurance. Wearer must show possession and control of the specific serial numbered device to local RCMP once a year. Since expenses are religious in nature, they are tax deductible, much as a donation would be.

    ONE alternative is legislated nationally, and ALL wearers must submit to it. All of the nations that such a Canadian Resident or Citizen would visit, are informed of our law, and told that they must agree to it by treaty, or face our dire wrath.

    Problem solved. Please submit next problem.

  123. Of course, the solution is simple:

    Alternative #1:
    No concealed carry. Knife must be razor sharp, and in a scabbard on outside of clothing at waist, and visible. Knife must be between 8 inches and 2 ft long (inclusive), including handle and scabbard. Device must be serial numbered, and sold by one registered manufacturer/vendor. Wearer must be registered as with guns. Wearer must carry a special permit/ID card. Wearer must carry $100,000,000.00 in liability insurance. Wearer must show possession and control of the specific serial numbered device to local RCMP once a year. Since expenses are religious in nature, they are tax deductible, much as a donation would be.

    Alternative #2:
    Entire device: knife, handle, and scabbard must be Maximum of 2 inches long, by 1 inch wide, by 1/2 inch thick. Knife must be in a scabbard. Knife must be affixed in a scabbard, so that it cannot be removed from the scabbard (using Crazy Glue, for instance). Knife must be razor sharp. Knife must serial numbered and be sold via a certified manufacturer/vendor. Wearer must register (like guns), and carry permit/ID. Wearer must carry $10,000.00 of liability insurance. Wearer must show possession and control of the specific serial numbered device to local RCMP once a year. Since expenses are religious in nature, they are tax deductible, much as a donation would be.

    ONE alternative is legislated nationally, and ALL wearers must submit to it. All of the nations that such a Canadian Resident or Citizen would visit, are informed of our law, and told that they must agree to it by treaty, or face our dire wrath.

    Problem solved. Please submit next problem.

  124. Well duh. Kind of like when a glass of milk is used as a weapon. When was the last time they banned glasses of milk?

  125. I'm gladdened that people have taken my comment seriously. This is serious business!

  126. Yeah. No one takes your comment literally. You were clearly trying to make a point. I was just demonstrating your point was silly and therefore ineffective.

    Sorry.

  127. That's what happens when your give a vague answer to a pointed question.
    It was a perfict opportunity to present the known information.
    Mr. Bains, a seasoned politician, knows better!

  128. Except firearms, apparently. They are weapons even though they are not intended to be weapons.

    Obviously anything can be used as a weapon, but it's a lot easier to kill someone with a knife rather than a pen or a needle. It's illogical to say something is not a weapon simply because it's not intended to be used as weapon.

    That being said, just because knives are weapons doesn't mean they need to be banned.

  129. so i guess an ice skate "a metal object, potentially sharpened" can also be a weapon? move out of your cave dude.

  130. Most is the word. Has somebody inspected all kirpans to form this conclusion? I remembered in one of the news when in one of Seikh festivals, there was violence during the gatherings where Kirpans were used as weapons. In another incident, a student used it at school?

  131. I am not really interested in what you think is logical. The fact is our criminal code defines weapons as firearms or any other thing that is intended to be used as a weapon, not any other thing that CAN be used as a weapon. If you don't like that take it up with Parliament.

    Knives are used as tools far more often than they are used as weapons.

  132. Navdeep is a neat guy, and takes all the rules of his religion seriously, and cheerfully even when it means he has nothing but a roll to eat at lunch. (Well, he may have found something else acceptable after I passed by.) And no, I didn't think to myself "hey, watch it waitress, the guy has a knife" when he was questioning some of the dishes. Very respectful and friendly, he was.

    I do see both sides of this argument, but when you consider the number of items people have been harmed or killed with and we don't ban, the guy with the turban on his head isn't really 'concealing' anything, is he?

  133. @ Jenn, Isn't really concealing anything is he ? Very good point, I'm more concerned with the Meth addict or the creepy looking guy with his hand in his back pocket, than I am with the well dressed Sikh dude '''openly'' carrying a cool looking miniature sword……..

  134. So you believe Christian faith is only internal and doesn't extend beyond the church door? That's pretty typical of the left and shows you understand very little about what it is to be a Christian.

    Let me dumb it down for you: It's not just something you do on Sundays.

    Why, I suppose, in secular terms, you might even say Christianity is a "lifestyle', like the one you would be quick to condone and defend for gays to live out in public. But apparently not Christians. The double standard is staggering.

    You accuse me of making false equivalences, and yet I wonder if you would insist on a Muslim 'employee of the government' being forced to officiate at a same-sex marriage in defiance of his faith? I somehow think not. but it is fine for you that Christians to be forced to abandon their spiritual convictions in order to keep their employment?

    You know what? Forget it. You don't want to know the difference and are just willing to parrot political correctness and follow blind ideology, 'cause that's what you guys do.

  135. Not the left and Liberals, apparently. They are complicit in the cultural suicide that is ongoing because they refuse to stand up for the same Judeo-Christian faith that is the foundation of the modern-day political institutions and rights and freedoms that they claim to cherish.

  136. A person should be totally aware of what is required of them ''Before '' signing their job description. If something in the job description can not performed by the employee because of Religious or personal reasons then the Employer should make every effort to accomadate the Employee..If no soloution can be found, then the Employee should be Terminated for not performing the duties required of himher as specified in the Job description…It's really just that easy…..

  137. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.

    Nice try though.

  138. Not a serious Catholic, and certainly not devout, obviously, if you believe Christians should be forced into defying their faith in the public sphere.
    You'd better be 'practicing' harder at being a Roman Catholic, by the sounds of it.

  139. You don't know much about Catholicism do you?

    Marriage is a Sacrament between two Catholics. Any marriage outside of the Catholic Church is not a Sacrament. A gay marriage is the same as a Jewish one, a Muslim one, a Rastafarian one, or a civil one – a representation of a loving bond, but not a Sacrament.

    Therefore it doesn't matter. There is nothing preventing a Catholic from performing a gay civil marriage ceremony…because it's not a Sacramental Marriage.

    (See, I actually *am* both a serious, and devout…and left-wing I might add…Roman Catholic. Nice try though)

  140. Richard_S_Argent…. 3
    Ceeger……………………0
    Stay tuned folks, this could get really interesting…….

  141. Either all all members of Parliament to carry 6 inch knives or don't let anyone.

  142. Meant "Either allow all…"

  143. No you are incorrect. I was making a joke. For most people its obvious an Uzi is a weapon, which is where the joke stems from. Doubtless it's good that you felt the need to explain it just in case others weren't aware of that.

  144. Either all all members of Parliament to carry 6 inch knives or don't let anyone.

    • Meant "Either allow all…"

  145. I am one of these weird people who likes equal rights for all. Since no one else is allowed to run around carrying what COULD BE a dangerous weapon, for the declared purpose of defending their religion (against, what, precisely, in Canada?) … I have to admit I am not in favour of their doing this.

    Yes, I am one of those people who feels that if I cannot carry my Swiss Army Knife (and if you knew me, you would know I am no threat) because I use the various attachments often (and harmlessly) … then I feel they should not carry a small sword or dagger — depending on the size — which is specifically designed to injure and kill.

    But it goes beyond that. They claim they will not use it. Then why would you carry something you would not use? Ignore the non-sense about symbolism or "religion" for a minute. Just get down to basics.

    But, consider this: They claim they will not use it. Fine. Suppose we accept this… What is to keep someone else from taking it away from them and using it? Last I heard, whether you get stabbed with an ordinary dagger, or a ceremonial one, it all hurts just the same!

    But I have another problem: Everyone has enemies. Even these people. What is to prevent someone from dressing up similarly, carrying a similar weapon, and entering a building, plane, train, or going wherever… and wreaking havoc? How would a security guard know that he is dealing with a real Kirpan Holder, or a fake one?

    Where do we draw the line, is the question?
    Shall we stop the "Society for Creative Anachronism" from carrying replicas of Excalibur around?
    What about the "Old Time Cowboys Imitators Association"?
    What about a dozen Star Wars Freaks with their imitation Light Sabers? (How do you know that one of them has not turned his into a taser, or something?) I might note that as of the last US census, there were over 250,000 people who noted "Jedi" as their religion. Similar numbers could be extrapolated for Canada.

    Jews manage to carry around a small tube (silver or gold) about an inch long and 1/2 inch in diameter, with a fragment of scripture. It does the job or reminding them of their religion. Jesus Freaks, a 1 inch long cross on a chain. And so on! What is wrong with these people ALL agreeing to carry something that is purely symbolic and harmless? And for those who will not, well, Canada does have 4 convenient borders. Kindly cross one, or carry a concealed weapons permit, and a hefty amount of liability insurance!

    I am not being mean, but your right to swing your fist, does stop at the end of my nose. Likewise, my rights have limits too. Now let us define those limits Fairly and Logically for Everyone. Countries do that. And have done so for thousands of years. So Canada has that right – indeed, that obligation.

    Mind you, legally requiring ALL Canadians to carry, and be well trained in the use, of a Roman short sword, would certainly put some backbone behind the words "We Stand on Guard for Thee"!!! Few terrorists would want to tangle with us!

  146. I have a few things that I would like to comment. I am currently researching this because I will be taking part of a moot cart and here is what I believe.

    I see people here saying that we protect all of our rights but not rights of other coutries but first if we went to other countries we would have to follow their customs. North America is the most multi-cultural so far.
    I would also like to inform you that we where forced to remove the cross from the school and where forced to remove the chappels in all public schools. The chappel wasn't forced to make you go in you would go in if you wanted to reflect. No matter what the religion would have been. Now you guys are saying it's not fair to have a kirpan. A knife. I think that a dagger can cause to much dammage but if you would make a plastic dagger and wear it, hey it would end the discussion there.In schools students are not allowed to ware any knife on them. So why should you?

  147. I have a few things that I would like to comment. I am currently researching this because I will be taking part of a moot cart and here is what I believe.

    I see people here saying that we protect all of our rights but not rights of other coutries but first if we went to other countries we would have to follow their customs. North America is the most multi-cultural so far.
    I would also like to inform you that we where forced to remove the cross from the school and where forced to remove the chappels in all public schools. The chappel wasn't forced to make you go in you would go in if you wanted to reflect. No matter what the religion would have been. Now you guys are saying it's not fair to have a kirpan. A knife. I think that a dagger can cause to much dammage but if you would make a plastic dagger and wear it, hey it would end the discussion there.In schools students are not allowed to ware any knife on them. So why should you?

  148. Look let me make myself clear. I have nothing against your religion. I believe in the multi-culti laws but at one point we have to draw the line. For everyone. Even if you do not percieve this as a knife there are crazy people in this world. What happens if someone gains acess to it. What happens if it falls out of it's case. You will need to understand that although it is not intended as a weapon it can be used as a weapon and it is too dangerous for some places. If you are on the street, by all means where it. But in some places you must remove it. If you don't like it why don't you go to a place that accepts you to where a kirpan on you. Why do people that come here always want to change the law. If I went to india, would I be right to say remove the kirpan off you. No. Well understand that when you come here you have to read the rules and be prepared to live in the situations we live in.

    Hope you guys undersand

  149. Look let me make myself clear. I have nothing against your religion. I believe in the multi-culti laws but at one point we have to draw the line. For everyone. Even if you do not percieve this as a knife there are crazy people in this world. What happens if someone gains acess to it. What happens if it falls out of it's case. You will need to understand that although it is not intended as a weapon it can be used as a weapon and it is too dangerous for some places. If you are on the street, by all means where it. But in some places you must remove it. If you don't like it why don't you go to a place that accepts you to where a kirpan on you. Why do people that come here always want to change the law. If I went to india, would I be right to say remove the kirpan off you. No. Well understand that when you come here you have to read the rules and be prepared to live in the situations we live in.

    Hope you guys undersand

  150. Everyone should follow the same rules and laws… no exceptions……You want wear a turban, then you must wear a helmet while on a motorcycle or construction site; you are not allowed to cover your face in any public place,or institution ( in your home yes);you cannot carry any concealed or exposed weapons ( kirpan is a weapon); you cannot practise your religious activity in a public venue( it must be designated for religious activity) (people get arrested for having sex on the street , even in their cars)because the law prohibits these activities in public places…..Why should I step around some bastard who wants to drop his prayer rug on the street in front of me …. this is a public space for walking etc, not your right to a right to set up your prayer house in the middle of the street. The law must be the same for everyone… if you don't agree then go back whence you came.

  151. Everyone should follow the same rules and laws… no exceptions……You want wear a turban, then you must wear a helmet while on a motorcycle or construction site; you are not allowed to cover your face in any public place,or institution ( in your home yes);you cannot carry any concealed or exposed weapons ( kirpan is a weapon); you cannot practise your religious activity in a public venue( it must be designated for religious activity) (people get arrested for having sex on the street , even in their cars)because the law prohibits these activities in public places…..Why should I step around some bastard who wants to drop his prayer rug on the street in front of me …. this is a public space for walking etc, not your right to a right to set up your prayer house in the middle of the street. The law must be the same for everyone… if you don't agree then go back whence you came.

  152. Islam's stated goal is fundamentally political: world domination through any means. Christianity's stated goal is fundamentally religious: Preach the gospel and make disciples. Islam makes subjects, Christianity makes disciples. Is it really unexpected that Muslims carry knives, while (some) Christians carry crosses?

  153. Islam's stated goal is fundamentally political: world domination through any means. Christianity's stated goal is fundamentally religious: Preach the gospel and make disciples. Islam makes subjects, Christianity makes disciples. Is it really unexpected that Muslims carry knives, while (some) Christians carry crosses?

    • SIkhhs wear a Kirpan not, Muslims. Please get your facts straight!

  154. SIkhhs wear a Kirpan not, Muslims. Please get your facts straight!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *