The Kirpan Ruling from a Christian Man’s Perspective

March 17th, 2006 by admin

_/\_

Vaheguru ji ka khalsa,
Vaheguru ji ki fatheh!

Source: http://www.canadianchristianity.com
By Robert Kuhn

IN THE FALL of 2001, Gurbaj Singh Multani — then twelve years old — was playing in the yard of his Montreal-area public school when a small metal dagger fell to the ground from the inside of his clothes.

The dagger, or kirpan as it is known in the Sikh religious tradition, is worn by an orthodox Sikh as a religious requirement along with four other items of a more benign nature. An orthodox Sikh is baptized at puberty, and thereafter must wear the sacred items at all times. Whether the dagger is seen as a functional weapon to do the work of justice or as a purely symbolic reminder of resistance to persecution seems open to debate, but its religious significance is clear to Sikhs.

In response to young Gurbaj carrying his kirpan to school, the local school board suggested that he be permitted to wear it if sheathed and sealed inside his clothing. His parents agreed to this arrangement as a reasonable compromise. But the governing board refused to approve the compromise as such an arrangement would violate the school’s Code of Conduct, which prohibited the carrying of weapons and dangerous objects.

Gurbaj was not permitted to attend public school if he wore his kirpan and eventually his parents enrolled the boy in private school. The board’s decision was challenged in court and eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. A decision was recently handed down. The verdict: Sikh kids must be allowed to carry kirpans at school.

Most Christians are very quick to assert the importance of religious freedom, especially in the school setting. But what about when religious freedom involves carrying a concealed dagger into the schoolyard? Is this an issue of public safety or religious freedom?

The Court recognized that, while a kirpan could be used as a weapon, it is better characterized as a religious symbol, in the same way that a baseball bat ought to be viewed as a piece of sports equipment, or a compass a tool of geometry.

Both a compass and baseball bat could be used as weapons — but are accepted in the school setting because we want our children to play baseball and learn geometry. Similarly, we as Canadians value religious freedom — which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a balancing of public interests, and not like the right to carry box-cutters onto airplanes.

Of course, religious freedom, like other fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter, is not absolute, and is constrained by reasonable limits under the Charter. If one accepts that prohibiting a Sikh from carrying a kirpan is a denial of religious freedom, the question then becomes: “Is such a prohibition justified as a reasonable limit on the freedom?” In this case, the Supreme Court held that absolute prohibition was not reasonable.

The Court reasoned that while the safety of children is a factor to be weighed, there simply was no evidence that with proper precautions wearing of the kirpan posed a credible safety threat. The Court said that need is “reasonable” safety rather than “absolute” safety.

Absolute safety would mean children would not play baseball, or use scissors or compasses. Perhaps only the dullest, non-toxic crayons would be suitable as writing implements.

The court found it notable that over the 100 years that Sikhs have been attending schools in Canada, not a single violent incident involving a kirpan had been recorded. Although the carrying of the kirpan in a school setting may seem a dangerous precedent, the evidence before the court was that the danger is minimal.

Christians would be well advised to think carefully about the likely harms of a particular religious tradition before condemning its practice. “Judge not, lest ye be judged.”

Placing limitations on unfamiliar religious traditions without sufficient justification will inevitably lead to further infringements on the rights of Christians to practice their faith in the public arena — a freedom that is fast becoming unfamiliar to the majority.

Robert Kuhn is a lawyer with Kuhn & Company in Abbotsford, B.C. This article was prepared with the assistance of his colleague, Raj Patro.

Posted by admin in archive |
Print This Article or leave a response or trackback