Point about Kirpans
Ian Robinson*
| |
 One
of the most protected people in India, the Prime Minister, at
the Golden Temple, is surrounded by people, each of whom wears a
kirpan. When Her Majesty the Queen visited Golden Temple, every
Sikh in sight was wearing a kirpan. No one raised even an iota
of doubt on the plea that Queen can’t remain protected with
everyone around her armed with sharp-edged weapons. Every single
world leader who has ever visited the Golden Temple, every
single foreigner (and there are millions and millions of them)
who has ever visited the Golden Temple or any other gurdwara has
always felt not only not threatened by the presence of thousands
of Sikhs
carrying kirpans within the Golden Temple or any gurdwara but
even claimed they felt at peace at the place.
That is
because the idea of some harm coming to anyone because of a
Sikh’s kirpan is repugnant to the spirit of being a Sikh. In
this tonguestrongly- in-the-cheek piece by
Ian Robinson
published in
The
Calgary Sun
as a
response to a court sheriffs not allowing a Sikh to take his
kirpan inside, the foolhardyness of the ban on kirpan comes out
pretty well. The piece is not only amusing but a great service
to the Sikh community that the Calgary newspaper has done. We
publish this here with due credit to the Calgary Sun. — Ed |
|
Why us?
Is
there a black cloud hanging over
Alberta
(insert your own oilsands joke here) symbolizing how when it comes
to race relations, we keep collectively stepping in the nearest pile
of dog excrement?
Does the dog stalk us, leaving its little presents in our path? If
there's a Legion branch that's going to refuse entry to a guy
wearing a turban, it's in Alberta.
If
some basement-dwelling momma's boy with a brown shirt and a taste
for pre-1945 German politics is going to set up a blog and get
himself on the news, it's an Albertan.
 If
there's a pastor with an axe to grind about gays who is going to get
called up before the Human Rights Commission, it's in
Alberta.
(Not that there's anything to recommend that kangaroo court; it's
just that most sensible folks manage to get through the day without
being called up before it.) But it's as though Alberta's
public relations are being masterminded by Larry, Curly and Moe. A
dumb version of Larry, Curly and Moe.
And so here we go again. A guy goes to court to testify in a trial.
He
gets stopped at security because he's a Sikh carrying a kirpan.
The religious dagger carried by Sikhs is one of the tenets of their
faith.
Generally, kirpans are little and dull.
If
you wanted to take a life with it, you'd probably be better off with
a spoon.
In
our security-mad world -- thanks, Osama -- we've become excessively
paranoid, which is one of the things 9/11 was supposed to
accomplish.
The Sikh in question, Tejinder Singh Sidhu, asked if a sheriff could
escort him to and from court and was refused, so he walked without
testifying.
Sidhu's got a valid point -- which is something a kirpan doesn't.
You can spend a lot of time in newspaper archives and on the
Internet and not find a single incident of a Sikh using a kirpan to
stab somebody.
It
would be akin to a religious Roman Catholic deciding to try to kill
somebody with a crucifix by jabbing them in the eye.
Not that the occasional Roman Catholic or Sikh doesn't give in to
the urge to stab somebody; it's just that if you're going to stab
somebody, doing it with a blunt religious object isn't the way to
go.
Entire books have been written about how to kill other human beings
with common household objects. In the right hands (or is that the
wrong hands?) a ball point pen is a lethal weapon; so too a tightly
rolled newspaper, both of which are allowed in court.
I've always thought that since we got rid of folding money in the $1
and $2 denominations, Canadians were walking lethal weapons.
By
the end of the week, I find myself tilting to one side from the
weight of loonies and toonies in my pockets.
Can you imagine how dangerous we'd all be if we knotted a pound of
loonies into a sock and started swinging?
However, it's safe to presume Sidhu is not the first Sikh to try to
walk through the doors of the Calgary courthouse.
 He
is the first we've heard of who refused to remove the religious
object to comply with security regulations that, like those on
aircraft, err on the side of goofiness. We can only presume the rest
comply with the regulation.
One Sikh spokesman quoted in the aftermath of the fuss suggested the
law of the land took precedence over the requirement to carry the
kirpan, particularly when Sidhu had been summoned to bear witness in
a court case.
OK, so maybe Sidhu's just more devout than the ones who compromise
on this matter.
And in theory, he's right.
It's a dumb rule, whether it applies to penknives or manicure
scissors or kirpans.
But it's easy to understand why the authorities don't want anything
resembling a weapon in a courthouse full of accused and convicted
criminals, some of whom have nothing to lose, many of whom are
sociopaths and lots of whom are just plain nuts.
If
I can request just one thing from participants in debates such as
these: Next time anybody wants to complain about racial profiling or
anti-religious prejudice or whatever ... could you go do it in
Toronto?
It's their turn.
*Courtesy: The Calgary
sun
23 January 2008
|
Read Also