Richards 0
Recommended Posts
DZJ 0
True (though I'd be more concerned if he was trying to bring an actual weapon in) but part of me doubts that a man who is obviously concerned about doing his civic duty is going to go on a tiny-knife-wielding rampage.
This strikes me as something of an unnecessary lose-lose situation for the individual and the state. Perhaps in future if the kirpan ban is not altered, facilities could be put in place to allow a witness to testify remotely.
This strikes me as something of an unnecessary lose-lose situation for the individual and the state. Perhaps in future if the kirpan ban is not altered, facilities could be put in place to allow a witness to testify remotely.
Richards 0
QuoteThat would strike me as an important consideration.
Given that (on the basis of this article) I would consider the security risk posed by this object negligible, it would seem to me that the state has done itself a disservice, and harmed its greater interests (justice) which would have been better served by allowing the man to testify.
On one hand I see what you are saying yet if he felt that strongly about his civil right/duty to testify he could have removed it. Perhaps they can compromise and make one where the dagger is welded into the scabbard and thus cannot be removed.
It is not unheard of for appearingly harmless items to be banned from courtrooms. In the past they have banned belt buckles over a certain size. It may sound like a stretch but in a courtroom you need to feel safe to testify. Outburts, even violent ones have happened in courtrooms. I can see why in an environment that can be emotionally charged I might wish to keep out items that could be used to harm or even intimidate.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
DZJ 0
Two fair points.
QuoteFrom the article:
Quote"I don't feel that I should be asked to remove it — especially being a witness to a case — I'm being basically denied my civil duty or my civil right … to testify in court," Sidhu told CBC News.
"So after basically debating for about five, 10 minutes, basically, I just left the courthouse and was unable to fulfil my civic right or my civic duty."
That would strike me as an important consideration.
Given that (on the basis of this article) I would consider the security risk posed by this object negligible, it would seem to me that the state has done itself a disservice, and harmed its greater interests (justice) which would have been better served by allowing the man to testify.
Nothing like alowing a person to bring a weapon in where ther is a congergation of criminals like a court house. He may not be a risk but there are a large number of people in that building that are.
SO this one time at band camp.....
"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."
"Of all the things I've lost I miss my mind the most."
Richards 0
QuoteNothing like alowing a person to bring a weapon in where ther is a congergation of criminals like a court house. He may not be a risk but there are a large number of people in that building that are.
I would really like to get the input of some law enforcement types and lawyers to resolve this. I am about 80% leaning towards supporting the ban but not yet confident enough in my opinion to say without a doubt that it should be enforced.
Any lawyers? Cops? Court officers?
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
headoverheels 291
Maybe he should have been arrested, rather than just denied entry. Everyone knows that it is illegal to bring a knife into a court house.
Richards 0
QuoteQuote
Maybe he should have been arrested, rather than just denied entry. Everyone knows that it is illegal to bring a knife into a court house.
That would have created a huge backlash. Screams of intolerance, racism....etc.
People make concessions on their religious beleifs every day in accordance with the reality of the society we live in. This guy is an adult, he should have had the maturity and character to see the intent behind it and hand over the kirpan to testify and then he could have got it back right after. Instead he decided to make a statement. Tp make matters worse the civil liberties guy blew it up into an "intolerance" case.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
I don't think arresting him would have been the right course of action, but a rule is a rule, this man may very well have had no ill intentions but htat doesn't mean in the future someone else dressed as a sikh will bring in a kirpan because it is allowed with the intent of shanking someone he is testifying against. People need to understand that rules for peoples safety are their for just that, peoples safety, and their are times when they have to put their religious beliefs aside in order to follow rules established to protect the public.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
Andy9o8 0
Suppose someone wore a crucifix that had edges as sharp as a knife? Just tossing that out there for consideration.
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteSuppose someone wore a crucifix that had edges as sharp as a knife? Just tossing that out there for consideration.
Well in that case we can ban shoelaces (can be used as a garrote), paperwork (paper cut a guy) and other items. I think the deciding factor should come down to a few key questions;
1: Is it designed as a weapon?
2: If not designed as a weapon is it's presence here grossly innapropriate and likely for the purpose of using as a weapon (baseball bat is after all merely sports equipment, not a weapon).
3: Is there any reason a rational person might think it is probable that this person could conceivably either plan to or in the heat of the moment spontaneously use this as an effective weapon.
Unless you are examining real close you will not likely see how sharp the edges of a crucifix are. If however he uses it as a weapon, the sharpenning in advance might indicate that it was a planned assault rather than a completely spontaneous loss of control.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Shell666 0
From the article:
Sikh staff and lawyers, who are not subject to security screening, are allowed to carry kirpans.
If they're allowed, why isn't he.
While I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone into a courthouse with a weapon (or what they're CONSIDERING to be a weapon), it should be a blanket policy. Period.
Sikh staff and lawyers, who are not subject to security screening, are allowed to carry kirpans.
If they're allowed, why isn't he.
While I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone into a courthouse with a weapon (or what they're CONSIDERING to be a weapon), it should be a blanket policy. Period.
'Shell
Richards 0
QuoteQuoteFrom the article:
Sikh staff and lawyers, who are not subject to security screening, are allowed to carry kirpans.
If they're allowed, why isn't he.
While I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone into a courthouse with a weapon (or what they're CONSIDERING to be a weapon), it should be a blanket policy. Period.
I suspect that participants in court rooms present more of a threat than staff or lawyers. But that said, nobody should carry them into the court room.
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.
Shell666 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteFrom the article:
Sikh staff and lawyers, who are not subject to security screening, are allowed to carry kirpans.
If they're allowed, why isn't he.
While I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone into a courthouse with a weapon (or what they're CONSIDERING to be a weapon), it should be a blanket policy. Period.
I suspect that participants in court rooms present more of a threat than staff or lawyers. But that said, nobody should carry them into the court room.
Possibly for the exact reasons that Armour666 stated above.
'Shell
QuoteFrom the article:
Sikh staff and lawyers, who are not subject to security screening, are allowed to carry kirpans.
If they're allowed, why isn't he.
While I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone into a courthouse with a weapon (or what they're CONSIDERING to be a weapon), it should be a blanket policy. Period.
For the same reason that Fiends and family have been allowed to sleep in a spare bedroom at my house, but strangers cannot.
Staff and lawyers are known entitites and can be trusted. In Fresno, I can bypass security.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Shell666 0
QuoteQuoteFrom the article:
Sikh staff and lawyers, who are not subject to security screening, are allowed to carry kirpans.
If they're allowed, why isn't he.
While I don't think it's a good idea to let anyone into a courthouse with a weapon (or what they're CONSIDERING to be a weapon), it should be a blanket policy. Period.
For the same reason that Fiends and family have been allowed to sleep in a spare bedroom at my house, but strangers cannot.
Staff and lawyers are known entitites and can be trusted.
But we're not talking about someone sleeping in your spare room.
Why not "practice what you preach" and have everyone abide by the same rules. Since they ARE the ones "enforcing" those rules.
I can see why we're constantly hearing about the race-card or the religion-card and things getting blown out of proportion (like what happened here).
I don't agree with him not taking off his kirpan but then again, a kirpan isn't a part of my religion. To me it appears to be a weapon.
But if others are allowed to wear it when he can't, I can see why he's questioning it.
'Shell
QuoteIn Fresno, I can bypass security.
That is not the same thing as being exempt from the prohibition against weapons.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpans in other places where knives are generally forbidden (i.e. schools, workplaces). It will be interesting to see how this one plays out; I have no doubt that it will go to the SCOC.
Shell666 0
QuoteQuoteIn Fresno, I can bypass security.
That is not the same thing as being exempt from the prohibition against weapons.
The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled that Sikhs are allowed to carry kirpans in other places where knives are generally forbidden (i.e. schools, workplaces). It will be interesting to see how this one plays out; I have no doubt that it will go to the SCOC.
What he said.
Should be interesting indeed.
'Shell
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites