Sikh Queenslanders allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools after court ruling

[Glaurung]

If there were a medical reason to outlaw circumcision, it seems to me that the reason would exist whether or not any religion mandated the practice. In my own country, one of the main reasons there was initially strong pushback on outlawing FGM was that some imams insisted on calling it a "sunnah," a recommended action per Muhammad's teachings. It took many years for the practice to significantly fall out of favor compared to before, after religious authorities publicly denounced it and deemed it a crime against girls and women.

This is one reason I'm quite cautious about religious exemptions from secular law: if not handled carefully and ensured to be reasonable and harmless, they could result in immense unfairness and enabling of damaging practices under the banner of "religious freedom." I'm against denying followers of any given religion reasonable accommodations—the keyword being "reasonable," which, in my opinion, the accommodation outlined in the OP is—but I'm also against denying everyone else fair treatment by exempting something harmful from state law just because it is part of a religious practice for a given group or a subset of that religion's followers.

I've already mentioned FGM as something I would not tolerate being imported to Australia. (I'm Australian). I don't want to give the impression that my willingness to accommodate religion is infinite.

I think this potentially minimizes the significance of Neopaganism to many of its practitioners. No, not anyone can or will claim to be a Neopagan to contrive "obligations," at least not in a way that would convince a reasonable court. For many Neopagans, their practice takes a significant amount of dedication, genuine belief, and engagement. This is another reason I believe such accommodations should be considered on a case-by-case basis: such a basis would give judges more room to filter out insincere claims and posturing, and generalizations and blanket assumptions about entire religions or religious movements (e.g., Neopaganism) can be both unfair and inaccurate.

I've bolded the main point I wish to address. This is what I've been saying to @danieldemol. Whether or not we should entertain a request for a religious exemption is something to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Just because Sikhs can carry their kirpans around in Queensland does not necessarily oblige us to entertain absurd claims like gun carrying as a religious obligation.

so if you had of been alive when the Guru gave the initial decree and it wasn't time honoured you would have denied Sikhs the right to carry a kirpan but today you would allow them because time and you think that's logical

But the kirpan is an established part of their religious practice in the here and now.

So if I carry the 5 Ks and declare myself a Sikh how would you know im not one? (And thanks for raising an objection i hadn't thought of).

I would ask for evidence of a formal conversion. It would be borderline loony to pretend to be a Sikh just to carry a dagger in public.

 

[SomeRandom]

Only due to unfair privilege given to established religions in my view

And I agree with you, actually.

That just speaks to human history in general, I suppose. How powerful religious institutions became over time. They greatly shaped cultures around the world, for better or worse. That’s just reality.

But we should be careful not to hold that against currently practicing folks all the same. Indeed we also need to be careful to not go too far against such communities. I can understand the desire, but it can get out of hand, if we let it.
Especially if they are a minority, like the Sikhs are here.

Obviously this should be a case by case basis, weighing the pros and cons. And compromises should be sought after, in good faith with the participating communities.
It is more nuanced than a simple legal ruling

But as a general rule, I’m not comfortable with simply outlawing religious practices. Unless they cause great harm that cannot be compromised with.
Because our society has deemed that personal freedoms is something that we support.
And like it or not, that personal freedom includes the freedom to practice one’s religion and celebrate one’s cultural heritage.

 

[danieldemol]

. This is what I've been saying to @danieldemol. Whether or not we should entertain a request for a religious exemption is something to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Just because Sikhs can carry their kirpans around in Queensland does not necessarily oblige us to entertain absurd claims like gun carrying as a religious obligation.

Why is the one absurd but not the other? Because it is time honoured?

But the kirpan is an established part of their religious practice in the here and now.

Missing the point i see in my view.

I would ask for evidence of a formal conversion. It would be borderline loony to pretend to be a Sikh just to carry a dagger in public.

So what evidence of conversion do you propose people carrying the 5ks be required to provide before they enter a school, and do you honestly think a loony with an agenda to cause harm would not necessarily pretend to be a Sikh to smuggle a kirpan into school with the intention of using it?

 

[danieldemol]

I pasted resources about the kirpan earlier in the thread.

Are you referring to this link?

What is a Kirpan? - Blog Post

This article discusses some of the commonly asked questions about Kirpan, its history and some other important questions about it.

www.basicsofsikhi.com

According to it the reason seems to be, "Sikhs have been fighting religious fundamentalism, terrorism and state-led oppression since Sikhi was first practiced."

Should we allow Sikhs in Queensland to fight religious fundamentalism with a Kirpan in QLD schools? What about state led oppression (does this even exist in QLD?) And shouldn't we be leaving the application of violence to fight terrorism to appropriately trained modern officers of the law in QLD?

And of course, all deserve equal opportunity to prove themselves worthy over time. I didn't say they don't.

Glad we are making progress here, as I see it, this would mean that any religious leader who makes a decree that their followers are to be armed for religious purposes deserves the same period we have given the Sikhs to demonstrate worthiness in my view.

There were lots of people killing each other when the Sikhs took up arms. It was also a different time period and different place entirely. I'm sure many people did try to stop them. By sawing them in half and such.

I don't think I have anything else to make this any clearer, sorry.

Agree that it was a different time period with different exigencies and requirements- hence the reason it is unnecessary to allow Sikhs to carry a kirpan in schools as it was a requirement of a different time, place and circumstances in my view.

 

[Glaurung]

Why is the one absurd but not the other? Because it is time honoured?

If you're going to be obtuse then our conversation stops here. You know darn well that not all claims are equal.

Missing the point i see in my view.

I'm not. Your point is irrelevant. It's 2023, not 1699.

If it were 1699 and if I were the Mughal emperor, then inshallah I would crush the Sikhs militarily and force the survivors to convert to Islam under pain of death. I can't have a militaristic cult threating the stability of my realm.

So what evidence of conversion do you propose people carrying the 5ks be required to provide before they enter a school, and do you honestly think a loony with an agenda to cause harm would not necessarily pretend to be a Sikh to smuggle a kirpan into school with the intention of using it?

This is silly.

Look, I get it, you hate religion. But religion exists and in a pluralistic society it is sometimes necessary to compromise. In this case, by granting a concession to a particular group allowing them to carry a ceremonial dagger.

 

[danieldemol]

If you're going to be obtuse then our conversation stops here. You know darn well that not all claims are equal.

Sure, the claim of established religion to be worth more than non-established religions is not equal to the inverse claim for example in my view.

I'm not. Your point is irrelevant. It's 2023, not 1699.

If it were 1699 and if I were the Mughal emperor, then inshallah I would crush the Sikhs militarily and force the survivors to convert to Islam under pain of death. I can't have a militaristic cult threating the stability of my realm.

So you see Sikhs as a "militaristic cult", why should they be allowed to "threaten the stability" of the realm of queensland but not the realm of the Mughal empire? Because time?

This is silly.

Look, I get it, you hate religion.

Ad hominem in my view.

But religion exists and in a pluralistic society it is sometimes necessary to compromise. In this case, by granting a concession to a particular group allowing them to carry a ceremonial dagger.

Sure, and those daggers can be kept the same size as the requriements for any other parent carrying a knife onto school grounds without any loss to religion as I see it.
ETA I just checked QLD law, it states, "Section 51 of the Weapons Act 1990 stipulates that: “A person must not physically possess a knife in a public place or a school, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.” Self-defence is not a reasonable excuse to physically possess a knife in a public place or a school.10 Jan 2019"
Source: https://www.police.qld.gov.au/weapo...on 51 of the Weapons,public place or a school.

So it would be a loss to the Sikh community if restricted to an even playing field in the case of QLD, but I have to wonder if self defence is not a reasonable excuse whether the reasons given by the Sikhs such as fighting religious fundamentalism, terrorism and state oppression would be considered valid reasons. Personally I think blunt ceremonial rubber knives should be more than enough of a compromise for a pluralistic society, after all the overriding principle applied to all religions equally should be that your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins in my view.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I've already mentioned FGM as something I would not tolerate being imported to Australia. (I'm Australian). I don't want to give the impression that my willingness to accommodate religion is infinite.

I agree. I just brought up FGM as an example because I don't think banning male circumcision on medical grounds would be tantamount to anti-religious oppression if (and only if) there were strong medical reasons for a ban, just as banning FGM isn't. In my opinion, the core grounds for some of the laws protecting citizens' safety and health in a secular country don't change depending on any given group's religious practices; either a medical or safety concern exists or it doesn't.

Male circumcision isn't something I would support banning, though, so this is merely a hypothetical to illustrate my point about secular laws.

I've bolded the main point I wish to address. This is what I've been saying to @danieldemol. Whether or not we should entertain a request for a religious exemption is something to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Just because Sikhs can carry their kirpans around in Queensland does not necessarily oblige us to entertain absurd claims like gun carrying as a religious obligation.

Agreed.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Then you are potentially discriminating against religions based on which ones are time honoured, which i see as a form of special pleading.

It's fine to have exemptions where there is explanation, rather than simple group bias. It does not constitute special pleading then. In theory, this exemption is due to the identification of the Sikh religious requirement as 'real'. So, the first question is 'do you see the Sikh religion as real, and assuming yes, do you see the requirements around the Kirpan as an established part of that real religion. I do. The law then allows an exception.
Similarly, a chef on his way to work is a special exception, as he can carry a bag full of sharp knives.
We can argue whether we like the exemption, and whether it should be allowed to take precedence over either the specific school rules, or general knife bans, of course.

In my view the whole point of this case is to be opposed to religious discrimination so I see how your special pleading because it is time honoured could create problems.

The court wasn't ruling that it was okay because the religion was time-honoured, though. Only that it was a real requirement (allowing them wiggle room to disallow made-up or fringe religious 'demands' which similarly clashed with other laws). Time-honoured might be a measure of a religion being 'real', and I actually think there is validity to that. Similarly, number of adherants could be. I disagree with the findings because I believe it favours one group needlessly, but I don't disagree with the court judging the kirpan requirement real, the Sikh religion as legitimate, or even using the basis of it's time in existence as part of the reason for that.

I think this needs to be read in the context of this particular case, and this particular law (knife laws generally, and school bans specifically), rather than extrapolating this out to any broad position on 'religion'.

And again it is not the role of the court in an Australian context to favour established religions in my view.

That's not at all how I would read it. Rather, religious exemptions from knife laws...already established in the general community...are being upheld in the context of schools.
Not my preferred response, to be clear. But I think what you're saying is that you disagree with the verdict, rather than it actually not being within the jurisdiction of the courts (the role of the courts), right?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The reason is the same as it is for initiated Sikhs everywhere to carry it.

I think you understand the concept of something earning credibility and people being able to demonstrate the worthiness of a thing. Enduring over time and proving worthy over time is one factor.

Hey @Treks!

I agree with your point on credibility, but couldn't understand the point on 'worthiness'. I don't think the court is at all judging the worth of a kirpan, and doubt either of us would want them to. Right?

 

[danieldemol]

It's fine to have exemptions where there is explanation, rather than simple group bias. It does not constitute special pleading then. In theory, this exemption is due to the identification of the Sikh religious requirement as 'real'. So, the first question is 'do you see the Sikh religion as real, and assuming yes, do you see the requirements around the Kirpan as an established part of that real religion. I do. The law then allows an exception.
Similarly, a chef on his way to work is a special exception, as he can carry a bag full of sharp knives.

Yes I see the religion as 'real' and yes I see it as an established part of that 'really religion, but not because time, rather because it was a religious decree issued by the religious leader of the Sikhs. If we are going to say because time then if we hypothetically transport ourselves back 300 years the exact same decree by the exact same leader becomes invalid and I just can't see how that makes sense. It is discrimination in favour of time honoured religions and is *not* a level playing field.

We can argue whether we like the exemption, and whether it should be allowed to take precedence over either the specific school rules, or general knife bans, of course.

I think you are overly focused on what - whether I like the exemption - and not on why - because it is overt discrimination in favour of time honoured religions *and* because if the ban on knives in school is in place due to perceived harm then we are essentially giving time honoured religion a free pass to harm because it is time honoured in my view.

The court wasn't ruling that it was okay because the religion was time-honoured, though.

I think implicitly they were.

Time-honoured might be a measure of a religion being 'real', and I actually think there is validity to that.

I don't, all religions that are time honoured where just as real when they were made up as they are with the passage of time.

That's not at all how I would read it. Rather, religious exemptions from knife laws...already established in the general community...are being upheld in the context of schools.
Not my preferred response, to be clear. But I think what you're saying is that you disagree with the verdict, rather than it actually not being within the jurisdiction of the courts (the role of the courts), right?

If the courts ruled on it they have decided its within their role. I was questioning whether it should be their role to decide if a religion is real although I guess they are forced to if they are going to decide which religions deserve tax breaks or exemptions to the principle of not being allowed to engage in actions the court deems harmful in my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes I see the religion as 'real' and yes I see it as an established part of that 'really religion, but not because time, rather because it was a religious decree issued by the religious leader of the Sikhs. If we are going to say because time then if we hypothetically transport ourselves back 300 years the exact same decree by the exact same leader becomes invalid and I just can't see how that makes sense. It is discrimination in favour of time honoured religions and is *not* a level playing field.

Why does the religious leader of the Sikhs matter though? If I started a religion right now and issued a decree demanding I carry a knife, is it regarded as 'real' in this context? Why/why not?

Because I just made it up, which would make anyone sensible suspicious as to why. It could have been in relation to this specific loophole. Even allowing for an all-knowing God, it seems unlikely the Sikh leaders proclaimed a need to carry a kirpan in order to circumvent Australian knife laws in 2023.

Time also means time to prove that the requirement is generally adhered to (not just proclaimed) and the resolve of the adherants has been tested against a variety of challenges in a variety of settings. This further adds credibility to it being a 'real' requirement.

If you're suggesting this isn't a level play field when judging the world's fifth largest religion, and one of its consistently held tenets against the possibility I start a religion tomorrow and make a declaration about knives then...I mean...sure. it's not trying to be. That is SPECIFICALLY why the test is against 'real religious requirements' and not just 'religious requirements'. People can talk about anything. Have they actually been about it.

Imagine a packet a day smoker telling a girl he's a non-smoker on the same day she announces she'll only date non-smokers. Meanwhile his mate quit ten years ago. Who has more credibility? Is there a valid argument about 'level playing field'?

I think you are overly focused on what - whether I like the exemption - and not on why - because it is overt discrimination in favour of time honoured religions *and* because if the ban on knives in school is in place due to perceived harm then we are essentially giving time honoured religion a free pass to harm because it is time honoured in my view.

I doubt it. I don't like the exemption.

I think implicitly they were.

It's part of a judgement on them being 'real', it's not the only measure, implicit or otherwise.

I don't, all religions that are time honoured where just as real when they were made up as they are with the passage of time.

I would suggest that you're measuring them in terms of the truth of their claims. A religion makes a claim and that claim is true or not, time doesn't really change that.

But if you think about them in terms of religious practice, it's different. A person who has been a vegan for a week lacks the credibility of practice that a ten year vegan has. It's not about the 'truth' of veganism. The courts shouldn't be judging religious 'truth' and if it came to truth, neither of us are religious anyway.

If the courts ruled on it they have decided its within their role. I was questioning whether it should be their role to decide if a religion is real although I guess they are forced to if they are going to decide which religions deserve tax breaks or exemptions to the principle of not being allowed to engage in actions the court deems harmful in my opinion.

'Should' is the tricky part, but the laws explicitly demand it of them. Ultimately if we don't want them to, we need our politicians to structure the laws accordingly.

If I ignore the laws, and just talk more generally about my thoughts, this feels like a missed opportunity. I believe Sikh beliefs could have been accommodated without punching a hole through secular laws to do it.

 

[danieldemol]

Why does the religious leader of the Sikhs matter though? If I started a religion right now and issued a decree demanding I carry a knife, is it regarded as 'real' in this context? Why/why not?

I don't know how the government defines a real religion, but I believe I can explain why the religious leader of the Sikhs matters by tweaking your analogy below to make it relevant.

Imagine a packet a day smoker telling a girl he's a non-smoker on the same day she announces she'll only date non-smokers. Meanwhile his mate quit ten years ago. Who has more credibility? Is there a valid argument about 'level playing field'?

Ok, so lets tweak this analogy to make it relevant to our religious case. I assume you agree that this interpretation of the QLD law will be around indefinitely, so lets make the girl one who is willing to date non-smokers indefinitely. And lets assume that for the purpose of dating only authentic non-smokers she is only willing to date somone who has been a non-smoker for 10 years.

Does Mr pack-a-day-smoker not deserve his turn at dating the girl in another 10 years if he is willing to give up the smokes for 10 years to prove he is an authentic non-smoker? Should he be required to smoke for the next 10 years because he happened to have historically been a smoker at an arbitrary point in time?

Personally I'm of the opinion that Mr pack-a-day-smoker deserves the same chance to prove he is a non-smoker that Mr non-smoker-from-the-beginning deserves if the girl is going to be dating indefinetly for it to be said to be a level playing field.

I doubt it. I don't like the exemption.

Fair enough

I would suggest that you're measuring them in terms of the truth of their claims. A religion makes a claim and that claim is true or not, time doesn't really change that.

I disagree, I'm measuring them in terms of the authenticity of their practice. The decree of the guru was an authentic part of Sikh practice when it was practiced initially and I agree that time doesn't really change that.

But if you think about them in terms of religious practice, it's different. A person who has been a vegan for a week lacks the credibility of practice that a ten year vegan has. It's not about the 'truth' of veganism.

Agreed it's not about the 'truth' of veganism, but we all deserve the chance to prove we are all authentically practicing vegans so to speak.

'Should' is the tricky part, but the laws explicitly demand it of them. Ultimately if we don't want them to, we need our politicians to structure the laws accordingly.

Agreed, this loophole allowing religions to engage in harmful practices needs to be changed at the political level, the courts are only following the law as it stands.

If I ignore the laws, and just talk more generally about my thoughts, this feels like a missed opportunity. I believe Sikh beliefs could have been accommodated without punching a hole through secular laws to do it.

How would you have gone about it if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Altfish]

I think you're missing the point. There are rules against carrying knives in Australia. A religious exception has been made.

Whether you agree or not, that's noteworthy.

I'm assuming it's not only one religious group who carry swords in medical school.

This is the concern in any such law, "My god says I must carry a knife" should not be a legal gambit. It sets a worrying precedent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

How would you have gone about it if you don't mind me asking?

I skipped quoting the rest, not because I didn't read it but because I had no real issues with it. Our positions aren't the same, but they're not opposed either, really, so I'm thinking we can basically agree to disagree, but let me know if there are aspects you want to kick around a bit more, no probs.

As for this, I think there are a few broad approaches. I wouldn't deign to suggest these meet Sikh requirements, but some have been suggested or used before, and so I suspect they would, at least for some. I don't know how varied the kirpan requirements are, or if it's a basic and homogenous requirement.

1. Reduce the size of the kirpan to purely a symbolic item. I've seen Sikhs compare the kirpan to the cross, and say it's not a weapon like the cross is not a torture device. That makes sense to me...it's a symbol to both others and themselves. I can't see that size matters.

2. Ensure it's blunted, at least when being carried at school.

3. Ensure it can't be drawn from its sheathe, via use of wiring or other fastenings.

-------------

Ultimately whilst the kirpan is commonly seen as symbolic, it can also be a functional weapon. What Is propose is allowing the symbolism, but not the weapon.

Canada allows kirpan of 6cm or less on flights, so I believe these type of compromise accommodations have proven to be acceptable elsewhere.

 

[Altfish]

What would happen if my religion says, "You can drive whilst intoxicated with drink and drugs"?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I wonder if they could now it is a religious freedom issue?

There is nothing against polygamy in Hinduism or Sikhism. Sage Kashyapa had 13 wives, all sisters. Guru Gobind Singh had three wives. The five Pandavas had Dropadi as their wife. The current civil law does not allow polygamy or polyandry in four Indian religions (Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and Jainism).

Circumcision of girls among Daudi Bohras Muslims is yet not prohibited in India, though a uniform civil code is in the offing.

So what evidence of conversion do you propose people carrying the 5ks be required to provide before they enter a school, and do you honestly think a loony with an agenda to cause harm would not necessarily pretend to be a Sikh to smuggle a kirpan into school with the intention of using it?

Do you think there are no loonies among Sikhs? But then, the Sikh votes.

Agree that it was a different time period with different exigencies and requirements- hence the reason it is unnecessary to allow Sikhs to carry a kirpan in schools as it was a requirement of a different time, place and circumstances in my view.

^^^

 

[Treks]

Just FYI.

Generally, no Sikh should marry a second wife if the first wife is alive.

Does anyone take the Rehat Maryada seriously? [Edit: this is a serious question because maybe my perception as someone who isn't from that country is incorrect, and that in reality it's just not as important as it appears to be to me.]

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What would happen if my religion says, "You can drive whilst intoxicated with drink and drugs"?

You'd break the law?

Our driving laws don't allow religious exemptions for driving intoxicated.
Or knife laws allow religious exceptions.
They are different laws.

If you're looking for a road related example, it's possible to get an exemption from our mandatory helmet laws for religious reasons (and has been for a long time).

 

[Debater Slayer]

If you're looking for a road related example, it's possible to get an exemption from our mandatory helmet laws for religious reasons (and has been for a long time).

This brings to mind a question: Is it fair to all of the other drivers who have to abide by helmet laws? If the law states that certain groups can forgo wearing helmets, it seems to me that this is an implication that another consideration has been prioritized over the importance of helmets, which calls into question how other drivers should be treated by that law.

I think mandating helmets is equivalent to stating that they're necessary, which is either true or not. I'm not sure how an exemption could fit fairly into that situation when it would, in my opinion, be saying, "Helmets are necessary, but not always or not for these specific groups."

There's also the question of what happens if an exempted driver is severely injured in a way that wearing a helmet would have prevented or minimized. Do all other taxpayers pay the extra cost resulting from forgoing the helmet?

This is not to say I'm necessarily against those exemptions, but I definitely see some gray areas and understandable but difficult questions associated with them.

 

[Jimmy]

Unfortunately, all countries have problems imo. Knives in schools? Bad idea.