Kirpan worn by Sikhs

By Gurdeep Hundal

Yet again, a teenager has been taken out of school by his parents as he was banned from wearing a traditional ornament.

The 14-year-old could be facing prejudice  as school governors decided it was a health risk.

The teenager was told not to carry the five-inch kirpan blade at Compton School, after the local council ruled it was a threat to other students.

I’m quite shocked by this – as under Sikhism, the dagger is one of five articles of faith that must be worn at all times, despite local education authorities disagreeing with this.

Prejudice

Instead, the teenager was told to wear a two-inch version of the dagger and his parents rejected the proposal, as the miniature dagger was a replica and not a genuine kirpan.

Religious freedom

The Department for Children, Schools and Families has said: “it is up to schools to make their own policy on the religious ornament” and that, it “should be challenged.”

In my eyes, the school’s decision is a blow to religious freedom.

Nobody has the right to influence anyone to remove their religious symbol. It’s a form of indirect prejudice, under race relations and equality laws.

If you ask someone to remove their symbol, it’s like asking them to betray their religion.

So far, there are a number of religious dress cases that have hit the headlines and shocked members of the public.

Take for instance, the 14-year-old, from South Wales, who was excluded from school, after breaking its “no jewellery rule.”

The young girl refused to take off her religious bangle, as she argued the steel bracelet is a symbol of her Sikh faith.

As a result, the courts ruled out that schools throughout the UK must embrace Sikh students who wear a kirpan, as religious ornaments do not facade any threat to anyone.

It seems, the boy from North London is just the latest victim of the religious dress cases.

As for Compton School, I feel they have made a mistake for not notifying a ban on sharp religious ornaments – as the young boy has suffered racial discrimination, for wearing something that signifies his belief. Compton you should be ashamed.

Il m’arrive souvent de chambrer le Canada sur Twitter, en raison de ses nombreuses atteintes aux droits des personnes en matière notamment de terrorisme (songez à Maher Arar) et de son alignement aveugle sur l’interventionnisme étatsunien. C’est surtout parce que le Canada, tout comme les Pays-Bas (Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders, Ayaan Hirsi Ali) et le Danemark (Dansk Folkeparti), voire même le Royaume-Uni, symbolise parfaitement cette étonnante dérive d’un certain libéralisme vers un autoritarisme fondé sur l’atlantisme, la lutte anti-terroriste et la xénophobie (et plus particulièrement l’islamophobie). Ce qui caractérise ce libéralisme autoritaire c’est qu’il est éclectique: il pourra ainsi être en pointe en matière de parité hommes/femmes ou des droits des homosexuels, tout en votant avec enthousiasme des lois liberticides, des invasions ou bombardements de pays étrangers (de préférence musulmans) et comporter un discours et une pratique de plus en plus xénophobe ou islamophobe.

Mais dans certains cas, le libéralisme initial a encore de beaux restes: c’est malgré tout le cas du Canada, célèbre pour sa tolérance qui va jusqu’à défendre le droit pour un élève sikh de porter son poignard rituel, le kirpan, en classe (décision du 2 mars 2006 de la Cour suprême du Canada dans l’affaire Multani c. Commission scolaire), mais dont la principale contribution au multi-culturalisme est sans conteste la notion d’accomodement raisonnable.

Voici une définition officielle de ce concept:

Accommodement raisonnable
Arrangement qui relève de la sphère juridique, plus précisément de la jurisprudence; il vise à assouplir l’application d’une norme en faveur d’une personne menacée de discrimination en raison de particularités individuelles protégées par la loi.

Une commission canadienne, présidée par le célébrissime philosophe québecois Charles Taylor ainsi que par son collègue francophone Gérard Bouchard à l’instigation du premier ministre du Québec Jean Charest, s’est ainsi penchée sur la question après des réunions publiques généralement assez déprimantes pour les tenants du multi-culturalisme. Appelée officiellement la Commission de consultation sur les pratiques d’accommodement reliées aux différences culturelles (CCPARDC) et officieusement la commission Taylor-Bouchard, cette commission était chargée d’apporter une réponse à la conciliation des identités religieuses, ethniques et linguistiques différentes au Québec. Un volumineux rapport final ainsi qu’une série d’études spécifiques ont couronné ses travaux, y compris 37 recommandations concrètes. Pour leur mise en oeuvre, par contre, on repassera.

Cette notion est bien sûr d’actualité non seulement au Québec ou au Canada, mais aussi en Belgique – le militant des droits de l’homme Henri Goldman appelle sur son blog  la Belgique - où une vague de mesures inspirées par la laïcité à la française, très différente du principe de neutralité reconnu par la Constitution belge – à s’inspirer des accommodements (ou aménagements) raisonnables à la québecoise plutôt que de la loi scélérate d’interdiction du voile adoptée en France:

de toute façon, nous n’échapperons pas à un débat serein sur ce qu’on préfère appeler, dans la tradition juridique européenne, des « aménagements raisonnables » |2|. Ce concept appartient désormais pleinement au droit communautaire de la non-discrimination, tel qu’il a été transposé en droit belge par la loi « anti-discrimination » du 10 mai 2007. Ces nouvelles dispositions étendent dans une large mesure les dispositifs de lutte contre les discriminations raciales à d’autres motifs : l’âge, l’orientation sexuelle, l’état civil, la naissance, la fortune, les convictions religieuses, philosophiques ou politiques, la langue, l’état de santé actuel ou futur, un handicap, une caractéristique physique ou génétique, le sexe, la grossesse, l’accouchement, la maternité, le changement de sexe, en plus des critères « classiques » de la nationalité, de la prétendue race, de la couleur de peau, de l’ascendance et de l’origine nationale, ethnique ou sociale |3|.

Ce droit distingue classiquement deux formes de discriminations, selon qu’elles sont directes (c’est-à-dire qu’elles visent directement une ou plusieurs catégories de personnes) ou indirectes. Dans ce cas, la discrimination n’apparaît pas parmi les buts visés d’une disposition apparemment neutre poursuivant un but légitime, mais il en résulte pourtant un désavantage particulier pour certaines personnes relevant d’une catégorie reprise par la loi. Dans certains cas, il est possible de changer la disposition pour supprimer la discrimination sans nuire au but poursuivi. Dans d’autres, c’est impossible.

C’est ici qu’intervient la notion d’aménagement raisonnable : on examine s’il est possible de supprimer cette discrimination par des dispositions particulières s’appliquant aux personnes victimes des discriminations indirectes. Et c’est ici que les discussions commencent, car certains aménagements proposés peuvent relever de ce qu’on appelle une « contrainte excessive ». Par exemple, des personnes handicapées en chaise roulante ne peuvent accéder par leurs propres moyens au sommet du beffroi de Bruges, ce qui constitue incontestablement une discrimination indirecte à leur égard. Mais l’aménagement qui pourrait faire disparaître cette discrimination – la construction d’un ascenseur parallèle à la tour – est à l’évidence une contrainte excessive à cause de son coût exorbitant et parce qu’elle défigurerait un monument historique. Mais tous les aménagements n’ont pas cette évidence, d’où un large champ de débats.

Et les accomodements raisonnables au Maroc, ça donnerait quoi? Sans doute une abrogation de l’article 222 du Code pénal réprimant la rupture publique du jeûne par une personne notoirement connue pour son appartenance à la religion musulmane, une dépénalisation des relations sexuelles entre personnes du même sexe ou personnes non mariées (article 490 du Code pénal) et la suppression de l’interdiction pour les Marocaines musulmanes d’épouser un non-musulman (article 39 du Code de la famille), sans parler de la question des prénoms berbères. Mais de l’autre côté, l’interdiction de mesures discriminatoires contre les femmes voilées, les hommes barbus ou les chiites.

Je vous l’avais bien dit, cette notion d’accommodement raisonnable est intéressante…

Normally swords are a bit out of place at the Winter Olympics — although I would pay good money to see the curling teams duke it out on the ice — but at the Vancouver games the Integrated Security Unit announced that Sikhs who are participating in the games will be allowed to wear kirpans — a ceremonial sword considered a sacred religious symbol — around the venues.

Anyone wearing a kirpan will be required to inform security before entering any of the venues, providing they follow these stipulations.

• All articles — including unshorn hair, turban, comb, steel bracelet, kirpan and soldier’s shorts — of faith must be worn.
• The maximum total length of the kirpan, including the sheath, may not exceed 19 centimetres with a blade of not more than 10 centimetres and a handle of five centimetres or less.
• The kirpan must be worn in keeping with Sikh traditions, including being secured into its sheath, attached to a fabric belt and worn across the torso.
• The kirpan must be worn under clothing and not easily accessible.

If any of the conditions aren’t met security can refuse admission. The change was brought about because a study conducted by the security officials found that there are very few incidents where a kirpan was used as a weapon.

[Calgary Herald]

The Kirpan is a ceremonial dagger carried by Sikhs. It is worn as an article of faith and must be used only in self-defence or in protection of others.

The religious significance of the kirpan is not widely understood by police officers and increasing numbers of Sikhs in the USA are apparently being arrested and charged with possession of a concealed weapon – the kirpan is generally not visibly displayed but worn under outer garments.

A Bill intended to decrease the number of those arrests in California which had the support of the Sikh community, the L.A. Police Department, and various civil rights groups passed both houses of legislature -

In favour 77 – 0 Against (Assembly)
In favour 36 – 0 Against (Senate)

but has been turned down by the Governor

In favour 0 – 1 Against (Arnie Swarzensnicker)

An example of Democracy in action – California style !!!

Source . . .

In an attempt to

Sacramento, CA. October 11, 2009 – In a surprise blow to the Sikh community, Governor Schwarzenegger last night vetoed a bill that would educate law enforcement officers about Sikh articles of faith. The Governor’s decision came as a shock to dozens of organizations, communities and lawmakers who supported the bill. The veto was particularly surprising given the unanimous, bipartisan votes in favor of the bill through both houses of the legislature (77-0 and 36-0 in the Assembly and Senate, respectively).

Take Action: email (http://gov.ca.gov/interact) Governor Schwarzenegger. Let him know how you feel about him dismissing legislation to ensure law enforcement education on the Sikh articles of faith. Make sure you tell him, “Your lack of support for California’s religious minorities is deeply disappointing. As an immigrant yourself, I would have hoped that you would see fit to support other minorities in our diverse community.”

“This loss for the Sikh community is a reminder of our serious lack of political clout. After months of hard work and 100% support from our lawmakers, the Sikh voice was still not strong enough to overcome the whim of one man. We have been here for over 100 years, but as a community, we need to learn to exercise our political muscle and our voting power,” said Prabhjot Singh, the Sikh Coalition Board Chairman.

The Bill

AB 504 was introduced in February 2009 by Assembly member Warren Furutani (D-Long Beach) to use education to help stem the arrests of Sikhs for carrying their kirpans in California. Over the last few years, we have seen an increase in the arrests of Sikhs nationwide for carrying kirpans. Police mistakenly believe them to be in violation of the concealed weapons laws. Such arrests violate Sikhs’ rights, waste taxpayer money, and have a traumatic effect on the person arrested.

AB 504 was our first attempt to change this dynamic. Though the bill did not touch on the legality of the kirpan, it asked that police officers be trained about who Sikhs are and learn about the significance of the kirpan, in the hopes that religious understanding would decrease arrests. While some police and sheriff’s departments have recognized the need for this type of training and have been conducting it on an ad hoc basis, this law would have standardized and mandated the process state-wide. The bill would have been the first law of its kind in the United States.

What Happened?

The Governor vetoed the bill as “unnecessary.” His message read, “It is the policy and practice of the Commission to periodically review and update existing course curricula.  If the Commission determines that training on the kirpan is warranted, it can create a program without this measure.”

The veto came despite the bill’s broad endorsement by groups ranging from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and party consultants from both sides of the aisle, as well as several religious and civil rights groups. Every single California legislator was in favor of the proposed law. However, numerous efforts by Sikh community members to outreach to the Governor’s office prior to the bill’s consideration were greeted with no response from the Governor. We suspect that the final veto was the result of law enforcement’s strong desire to avoid promoting the acceptance of Sikhs with kirpans.

The veto message was an outrageous response because the language of AB 504 was modeled on a similar bill about people on the autistic spectrum that was signed by the Governor last year. AB 504 was also drafted with input and approval from the Police Officers’ Standard and Training Commission (POST). Given his historic support of similar bills and the Governor’s unwillingness to speak with Sikhs about the bill, his veto is considered to be a direct rejection of California’s Sikhs. Governor Schwarzenegger is no friend of ours.

“The Governor’s response is very disappointing. It shows his lack of support for promoting religious understanding,” said Neha Singh, Western Region Director of the Sikh Coalition. “It is an utter shame that he does not understand the value of educating our law enforcement agencies on the diverse communities they are policing.”

Next Steps

The Sikh Coalition will continue to engage with POST in the coming months to encourage the training that was recommended in the bill. In addition, we hope to work with Assembly Member Furutani to reintroduce the bill in next year’s session. “I am committed to carrying this legislation again until this or any other governor signs it. I urge the Sikh community to stand with me as we continue this fight,” said Assembly Member Furutani.

The Sikh Coalition would like to thank Assembly Member Furutani and all of the AB 504 co-sponsors as well as attorney Nitasha Sawhney, Mr. Nirinjan Khalsa, and the American Civil Liberties Union for their tireless efforts to shepherd this legislation through the bill process.

(This text is from an email sent by the Sikh Coalition to the Sikh News Discussion Yahoo Group)

How Not to Agonise in a Diverse Community

The kirpan (pronounced ‘kir-paan’ as in ‘sir’ joined with ‘barn’) is a knife, a Sikh symbol, one of the Five K’s of the Sikh religion, carried by Sikhs who wish to display the symbols of their baptism  connected to their religion.

A Sikh boy has been barred from a school in North London where the authorities are concerned with breach of security and ‘health and safety’ provisions. While the boy is only eleven years old, recent examples of young children highlighted for their criminality do not help to put forward a case that the Sikh boy is wearing a religious symbol, the essence of which is to use the ‘knife’ for self-defence rather than aggression. The critics of the symbolic carrying of the knife or ‘dagger’ as some people like to call it with some imaginative stretching of vocabulary say, “How can a knife become an instrument for defence?” Their concern is that when driven to defend themselves the wearer of kirpans will also resort to attacking people, the best form of defence….

Three critical dilemmas have been identified:

a)      Ban the kirpan from the school and let the Sikh boy learn to conform to the laws of the school

b)      Ban the boy if he must wear the kirpan when attending school

c)       Ban the boy and the kirpan as a mandatory display of fair rules for all

The real impact of these dilemmas are not so much of concern here as much as a search for the best way to seek an urgent compromise. For many Sikhs, the removal of the boy and kirpan from the school is a violation of their religious and human rights. Quite true except that many other Sikhs do not really wear the kirpan and are quite prepared to forego symbolism in exchange of compromise to defend the values of the majority. Tricky, because it opens up a huge debate about perceived or real oppression by the majority.

How can a compromise be reached? It is there for the taking; the school has asked the boy and his parents and community representatives to offer a compromise. What type and size of knife or kirpan can the boy present as a good demonstration for the search of an amicable solution? What is more significant? Carrying an actual kirpan or wearing a symbolic one on a hidden necklace which does not pose a security risk? What type of kirpan can be worn as a symbol? A small, one inch long but blunt ‘knife’ with no jagged edges and no sharp point should take care of the problem. It would not breach safety regulations while still offering the Sikhs an opportunity to display their baptismal identity.

It should work as long as a symbolic manifestation of the kirpan is accepted as a good compromise.

My Calgary Sun column today was about a recent incident where concert-goers trying to attend a show by a Punjabi artist were told they could not attend because they were wearing kirpans.
I’ve been receiving lots of negative e-mail reaction to my commentary, in which I argue kirpans are religious symbols and are inherently harmless. My reply has been almost identical in every case, and I feel compelled to share the gist of my replies here with everyone.

What do you think?

Wednesday, 8 April 2009

Dil Neiyyar
BBC Asian Network

Sikhs say they are not being allowed to wear a kirpan – or ceremonial knife – in public places even though the law says they can.

Some have been refused entry to amusement parks and even government buildings because of fears the blade poses a security or safety threat. The confusion has prompted the Department of Communities and Local Government to draw up guidelines for officials and employers on the rights of Sikhs to wear the kirpan. They are expected to be published later this year.

Sukhbir Kaur, 23, a Phd student, was one of a group of six Sikhs who were refused entry to a theme park in Staffordshire because they were wearing kirpans. “We were waiting to pay and buy our tickets and then a security guard just came over and said we weren’t allowed to go in,” she said. “When we said ‘why?’ He goes: ‘because you’re carrying knives.’ I just felt like that’s kind of wrong.”

In 1983 Gurinder Singh Mandla made history after the Law Lords backed his right to wear a turban at school. That ruling gave Sikhs considerable protection under British law. Twenty five years on though he says he is still facing problems practising his religion. This time it is over the kirpan. “When you go into court you are asked what it is and you tell them it’s a kirpan. On occasions I can remember at Wolverhampton Crown Court, I was then flanked by two police officers until they were able to sort out from the Lord Chancellor’s Office what they should be doing about this issue,” he said.

The Courts Service said Sikhs are allowed to wear the kirpan in court even though knives are banned. A spokesman said Sikhs were given special dispensation because of their religion. The kirpan is a small ceremonial knife which usually has a 3in (7.6cm) blade. It symbolises the spiritual struggle over evil and is one of five articles of faith which baptised Sikhs are expected to wear at all times.

They are sometimes called the five ks. The others ks are: kesh (unshorn hair), kara (steel bracelet), kanga (comb) and kacha (special underwear). The kirpan is carried in a sheath attached to a cloth belt. It is normally worn discreetly under clothes and most people would be unaware that a person was carrying one.

Sikh campaigners like Mejindarpal Kaur of United Sikhs think the concerns over safety and security are overplayed. “The law is on our side, as far as the kirpan’s right to be worn is concerned,” she said. “We just have to convince the various authorities who have their various concerns – sometimes out of a lack of knowledge, sometimes because of disproportionate fear of fear – that the kirpan is something that a Sikh will not use offensively.”

——————————————————————————–
Do you think Sikhs should be allowed to carry a kirpan or ceremonial knife in public places? Do you think it poses too much of a security risk? Are you affected by any of the other issues raised in this story? In most cases a selection of your comments will be published, displaying your name and location unless you state otherwise in the box below.

For full article and box to leave your comments in go to :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7989108.stm

Today, Ravneet Kaur and I visited Sacramento to meet with committee staff members working on the Kirpan Education Bill. Our video below explains more about the proposed legislation and takes you along for a trip through the Capitol.

If you’re a Sikh who lives in California, help make a difference by clicking here to send an email to the members of the California Assembly’s Committee on Public Safety.

Want to learn more about the CA Kirpan Education Bill? Click here to read our advisory or contact me (neha@sikhcoalition.org) or Ravneet (ravneet@sikhcoalition.org).

On the occasion of Visakhi, S Gurcharanjit Singh Lamba, editor Sant Sipahi Magazine, talks to Total TV Channel on the significance of Shaster, Khanda, Nishan Sahib, Nagara and other symbolisms in Sikhism.

Part-1

Part-2

Yesterday evening, we asked California’s Sikhs to help us ensure safe passage of the kirpan education bill by emailing the Committee on Public Safety. Within 24 hours, more than 150 of you have already participated in the campaign. Congratulations on taking a stand and doing your part to create change for our community.

GO CALIFORNIA!

If you’re a Sikh who lives in California, help make a difference by clicking here to send an email to the members of the California Assembly’s Committee on Public Safety.

Want to learn more about the CA Kirpan Education Bill? Click here to read our advisory.

La notizia: il Tribunale di Cremona ha assolto un indiano di religione sikh che era stato fermato al supermercato perché portava un kirpan, un piccolo coltello che è fra i tradizionali segni distintivi di appartenenza religiosa al Khalsa, la comunità “ortodossa” del mondo sikh. Il sikh non aveva il porto d’armi. Il magistrato ha giudicato che consentire al sikh di portare il kirpan permettesse all’indiano «di professare liberamente la propria fede».

Le reazioni politiche: La Lega Nord ha duramente contestato il magistrato del Tribunale di Cremona parlando di «sentenza choc». Il quotidiano della Lega, la Padania, ha intitolato un articolo in prima pagina «Che giustizia disarmante»; la vicepresidente leghista del Senato Rosy Mauro ha parlato di «due pesi e due misure» rispetto alla possibilità concessa ai cittadini di portare coltelli; il parlamentare leghista Alberto Torazzi ha annunciato un’interrogazione alla Camera su questo caso, definendo “politica” la sentenza del giudice.

Il mio commento:  il kirpan è un simbolo religioso, non un’arma. Portare il kirpan è un dovere sancito dal decimo Guru dei sikh, Govind Singh, nel 1699, e  ciò rientra nelle “regole delle 5 K”, cinque prescrizioni date dal decimo Guru ai seguaci della comunità Sikh Khalsa (l’ortodossia sikh, che raccoglie i “puri”, i ”battezzati“) per definirne l’aspetto marziale e il codice etico.
La più nota delle “5 K” è quella dei kesh, il divieto di tagliare barba e capelli, che i sikh del Khalsa tengono quindi raccolti sotto il turbante, il che conferisce loro il peculiare aspetto per cui sono noti. Molti di loro portano fra l’altro proprio sotto il turbante un piccolo kirpan. Che non viene certo usato come arma.
A mio avviso, la decisione del magistrato di Cremona è dunque ineccepibile.

I sikh in Italia: la provincia di Cremona è, da una decina d’anni, uno degli epicentri dell’immigrazione sikh in Italia. I sikh vengono impiegati in lavori agricoli e zootecnici, con buona soddisfazione della popolazione italiana e un tasso soddisfacente di integrazione sociale ed economica. Un’analisi sull’immigrazione sikh nel cremonese e in altre zone d’Italia si può trovare nel volume di autori vari a cura di D. Denti, M. Ferrari e F. Perocco I SIKH. STORIA E IMMIGRAZIONE, pubblicato dall’editore Franco Angeli nel 2005 e in seguito divenuto testo d’esame per l’esame di Sociologia delle Migrazioni all’Università di Venezia. Il volume contiene, fra gli altri, un mio saggio  sulla definizione dell’identità sikh e le diverse “anime” del sikhismo in India.

Proposta per il futuro: per evitare il ripetersi di incomprensioni culturali come quella avvenuta in seguito alla sentenza di Cremona, basterebbe guardare all’estero, cioè a quei Paesi europei che nel recente passato hanno già affrontato  simili questioni. In particolare in Gran Bretagna, dove la comunità sikh è numerosa (e presente anche nei corpi di Polizia),  questioni come la libera circolazione con il kirpan, o quella dell’uso del turbante al posto del casco per motociclisti, sono state da tempo risolte. Un’occhiata a chi ha già risolto questi problemi non sarebbe inutile.

Another chapter has been added to the saga of religious clothing after Sakira Watkins-Singh was supported by a High Court Judge and allowed to wear the Kara at school after previously being excluded. I’m not sure exactly where I stand on this one. My bigoted dad said “if they can’t dress like the people in this country, they can go back to where they came from”. He got a bit stuck when I told him she was Welsh…

Anyway, although I support religious freedom and freedom of expression, I must admit I was a little frustrated when the judge claimed that the Kara (a bangle worn by all baptised Sikhs) was not a piece of jewellery, but a sign of faith. To me this was just ignoring what’s right in front of them and over-symbolising the item. It may be a sign of faith metaphorically but physically it is a piece of jewellery. Pieces of jewellery are not allowed, so that’s that. If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided that a symbol of their faith was to have bolognese sauce spread across their faces at all times, it wouldn’t be tolerated. If another faith decided that they had to wear giant sombreros, it wouldn’t be tolerated.

Then I was reminded that the Kara is one of the Five K’s. From my limited knowledge of Sikhism I remembered that the 5 K’s are obligatory for Sikhs, which makes it considerably different to the wearing of a crucifix for Christians, for example, which isn’t at all necessary. So in that sense, I see where the judge is coming from. It’s not just taking off a piece of jewellery; in a way, taking it off would be denying their faith, which I wouldn’t endorse.

However, after the Crackergate story, it would be hypocritical of me to respect one crackpot story about Sikhs not being Sikhs if they don’t wear a metal bangle, but not another crackpot story about a cracker turning into a piece of flesh. Surely there are times when a Sikh would take it off, such as when they’re having an MRI? One woman likened taking off the Kara to taking off her arm, which I thought was a bit extreme.

Then another hazy memory from my knowledge of Sikhism came to the fore. Sikhs are also required to wear a Kirpan, a short curved blade, so that they can defend themselves and the weak. We wouldn’t tolerate someone taking a blade into school, no matter how important it was to someone’s faith. The Kara is no different. It’s a piece of jewellery which cannot be worn. End of.

In 1699 Guru Gobind Rai the tenth Sikh Guru, called his Sikhs together in Anandpur Sahib in the north of Panjab. He stood before the meeting, holding a sword, and asked for people to come forward who were willing to give their head.

The first five who did so are called the Panj Piaré, the five beloved ones. They were the first members of the Khalsa, the order of initiated Sikhs, those who are totally committed to the Sikh way of life, to doing God’s work. They then in their turn initiated Guru Gobind Rai into the Khalsa, and many others followed. From then on all Khalsa men were known as Singh (=Lion) and Khalsa women as Kaur (=Prince). Thus Guru Gobind Rai became Guru Gobind Singh.

This took place under the rule of one of the more intolerant Mughal Emperors, who then ruled most of the north of India. Being a Khalsa involved physical fighting against the oppressors, to achieve freedom of worship for all.

Guru did stipulate that the sword was only to be used as a last resort, after all other means had failed. Guru wanted his Khalsa to be Sant-Sipahi (Saint-Soldier), who would not fight for material gain or out of anger, but who would defend the defenceless and fight against injustice.

As visible signs of their commitment the members of the Khalsa were to wear five outward signs, the so called Five Ks, and this practice is followed to this day.

Do realise that initiated Sikhs or Khalsas are only a relatively small group within the wider Sikh community or Panth. Many people of Sikh background wear a Kara, and more committed ones also keep uncut hair and wear a turban. It is unlikely that Sikhs who are not initiated wear a Kachhera, while only initiated Sikhs will wear the Kirpan.

The 5 Ks

The 5 Ks are :

·         Kesh (uncut hair, no cutting, trimming or shaving)

·         Kara (a steel bracelet)

·         Kangha (a wooden comb)

·         Kacchera (cotton boxer short)

·         Kirpan (small steel sword)
The kirpan stands for this fight against injustice referred to above  

The Five Ks symbolise dedication to a life of devotion and submission to the Guru. For an initiated Sikh or Khalsa the fact that the Guru has asked the Sikhs to wear the Five Ks is sufficient reason and no more needs be said.

The Khalsa cannot be anonymous. Her/His religion is known to all. She/He stands out among people, and any unseemly behaviour on her/his part would be noted as unbecoming of a follower of the Gurus.

Anybody seeing somebody wearing the Khalsa uniform (the Five Ks) should know that they can go to her/him for help. Regardless whether they wear western or Panjabi style clothes, they are visible Sikhs. Unfortunately many Sikh ladies, even initiated ones, choose not to wear a turban, and are therefore not easily recognisable as Sikhs.

The five Ks (Kakkars) of Sikhism are derived from the five sons of General Kuldeep Kakkar, a prominent and highly respected military commander of the Kakkar tribe. The five brothers were revered as fierce warriors and championeers of righteousness and truth who were key warriors in the fight to eventually overthrow the Moghul Empire.

The transformation of Sikhism as the Khalsa Panth was formally launched by Guru Gobind Singh Ji on Baishakhi (New year) day in the year 1699. The new community was termed the Khalsa Panth or the ‘Pure Sect’ as its followers were required to be far more strict in observing the tenets of their reformed faith.

The followers of the Khalsa were required to observe five visible symbols of membership, edified by the virtues of the 5 great Kakkar Warriors. These signs as we know are:

1) Unshorn Hair (Kesha)
2) A curved dagger (Kirpan)
3) A comb (Kangva)
4) A steel bangle (Kada)
5) A pair of shorts (Kachha).

Read more and post discussion or debate:  The Five Kakkars

The Pope Benedict XVI‘s first ever visit as pontiff is scheduled in April, 2008 when on April16, Pope will reach New York. In New York he will meet with different religious groups including Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists.

.

.

The World Sikh Council – America Region (WSC-AR) has decided against attending the April 17 inter-religious meeting with the pope because the US Secret Service refused to allow the kirpan, the ceremonial dagger that is one of the five articles of faith for Sikhs.Ten to fifteen Sikhs were to attend the papal audience, most of them veterans of a Catholic-Sikh dialogue begun in 2006. Negotiations have been going on for months between US Secret Service and the Sikhs over the dagger issue.

Eric Zahren, US Secret Service: “No weapon, no matter how sactified it is. We have every respect for it as a religious artifact but it’s by definition a weapon even though that is not the intended use. And we have to answer for the security of the Holy Father while he is here.”

.

.

Anahat Kaur, World Sikh Council: “We have to respect the sanctity of the kirpan, especially at such inter-religious gatherings. We cannot undermine the rights and freedoms of religion in the name of security. Sikhs wearing their three foot long kirpans had met Pope John Paul II in the Vatican in January 2002. Kirpans are only used in self-defense as a last resort.Because kirpans are not allowed on airplanes many Sikhs will drive instead of fly.“

Kirpan is symbolic of a true Sikh.

Numbered at more than 20 million adherents, Sikhism is the world’s fifth largest religion. It has about 250,000 members in the United States. The WSC-AR is a representative and elected body of about 45 gurdwaras and other Sikh institutions in the US and takes up Sikh issues at the national and international levels.

Caution: debatable word play follows.

The World Sikh Council’s press release is aptly titled “Sikhs To Miss Papal Event, Secret Service Bars Kirpaan.” It has all the elements of a good headline. Catchy. Accurate. Avoids hyperboles. Why couldn’t I have woken up this morning and seen this in the paper instead? Let’s put it this way: if I did you may have been spared from another dull blog post.

Jeg har aldrig vidst meget om Sikhismen men var da klar over at de blandt andet var kendt for at bære kniv (kirpan), så jeg satte mig ned for at skrive til den officielle danske sikhmenighed, for at spørge hvordan det lader sig gøre i et land med så strikse våbenlove:

Tusind tak for din mail.

Du har ret i at Kirpan’en er en vigtig del af Sikhernes identitet og beklædning, for at læse mere om den kan du se følgende link:

http://www.religion.dk/artikel/72664:Andet–Sikhere-er-krigere-og-healere
ordet healere er dog forkert oversat, og det skal rigtigt betyde “Saints” altså spirituelle væsener.

Vi har haft problemer med den danske lovgivning og vi har en retssag kørende som muligvis vil blive taget op i menneskerettighedsdomstolen. Indvil videre bærer Sikherne en lille Kirpan på under den tilladte grænse for ikke at komme i klammeri med loven, men vi håber selvfølgelig på at kunne få lov til at bære vores religiøse symbol, da det ikke er et angrebsvåben, men derimod et symbol på retten til at forsvare sig selv samt de nærmeste.

nedenstående artikel fortæller lidt om retssagen der kører.
http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/samfund/article63616.ece

Du er velkommen til at skrive igen hvis du ikke helt fik svar på dit spørgsmål

mvh. Gurdwara Singh Sabha

---

From: xxx@live.com
To: @sikh.dk
Subject: Kirpan
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:26:23 -0500

Kære rette vedkomende.
Jeg skriver til jer fordi jeg er interesseret i emnet våben og våbentilladelse som jeg blogger om på min hjemmeside http://rettentilselvforsvar.wordpress.com/
Jeg kan forstå at jeres kniv, eller kirpan, er en vigtig del af sikh beklædningen og kunne godt tænke mig at vide hvordan det lader sig gøre i det danske samfund. I følge loven er det som bekendt forbudt at bære knive med en klinge på over 7 centimeter, så hvordan bærer i knive her i landet? Er en kirpan traditionelt mindre end 7 cm eller har i speciel tilladelse med udgangspunkt i religiøse eller kulturelle hensyn?Med venlig hilsen og på forhånd tak for svaret.
Bernard

Jeg vil forsøge at følge sagen og holde jer opdateret omkring sikhernes kamp for tilladelse til at bære deres kirpan. Bemærk at dette ikke er en stillingtagen for eller imod sikh-religionen ellers dens værdier som sådan, men en interesse i deres kamp for at bære et våben som ikke kun er en religiøs beklædningsgenstand men også et forsvarsvåben. Hvis de får medhold i menneskerettighedsdomstolen åbner det op for at alle andre danskere ligeledes kan kræve retten til at bære kniv til brug for selvforsvar.

Sikherne ønskes i hvert fald held og lykke herfra.

La Crise de confiance au Québec concernant le C.difficile ne me surprend pas, vous ? avez vous confiance  que c’est sécuritaire dans les hôpitaux du Québec? moi je fait parti de ceux qui disent non, si on en croit les sondages, y’en a une gang qui font pas confiance, et avec raison. Je souhaite vraiment pas avoir a être hospitalisé, en plus d’être hypocondriaque, j’aurais vraiment peur d’y laisser ma peau. On se réveille trop tard au Québec, autant pour ces fameuse bactéries, que pour les fameuses algues bleues, la pandémie de grippe aviaire qui nous guette, etc…. parti comme ca, ca sera pas une guerre qui va achever notre peuple, mais bien une bacterie quelquonque…

Ma claque dans face de la journée va au immigrants, criss que je suis tanné d’entendre parler “D’accomodement” non mais si tu est immigré ici au Québec, c’est toi qui doit d’adapter , c’est pas nous qui doivent tout vous donner, des vitres au YMCA en passant par les examens médicaux, ainsi qu’aux heures ou les femmes doivent être seules pour se baigner dans une piscine , du port du kirpan a l’école et j’en passe, non mais la!!!!!!!!! on est vraiment un peuple de Moumounne pas de couilles! on répond a toutes leurs demandes et exigences, criss moi si je vais immigrer dans leur pays, ma tu avoir le droit de revendiquer que le 24 juin soit la St-Jean baptiste la bas aussi!!!!!!, demander de la tourtière du lac St-Jean pour les fêtes, etc… COME ON!!! get a life!!!!!!!

Des revendications religieuses qui dérangent ?

Nicole Sophie Viau

La religion est au cœur de bien des controverses. En Irlande les conflits armés entre catholiques et protestants se perpétuent. Un peu partout dans le monde, on rapporte presque quotidiennement des actes de terrorisme menés par des intégristes islamiques en guerre contre les “infidèles”.

Ici, nous sommes également affectés à un degré moindre bien sûr, mais non moins préoccupant. Les litiges se retrouvent devant les tribunaux concernant le port du voile ou du kirpan, les pressions plus ou moins insistantes de groupes religieux pour obtenir des dérogations aux règlements et plus récemment, le conflit entre copropriétaires suite à la présence d’une soukkah installée sur le balcon de condos luxueux, l’incendie de la bibliothèque à l’école primaire juive Talmud Thorah Unis dans l’arrondissement Saint-Laurent… Dans de telles situations, les opinions se polarisent, les gestes d’intolérance se multiplient et l’exclusion est l’une de conséquences les plus pernicieuses par la volonté de nier l’identité des personnes honnies.

Je crois à la différence, car elle est un des moyens pour une société d’évoluer, de grandir.  La richesse et la stimulation que m’apporte celui qui vient d’ailleurs ou les personnes qui nous remettent en question font en sorte que je grandis, J’apprécie la cuisine exotique, une autre façon de s’habiller, la diversité des rites, une spiritualité qui tranche avec la culture de masse que nos économies occidentales imposent souvent sans notre avis ou à notre insu. Ce qui tisse une société ce sont ses valeurs communes et ce qui la distingue est sa capacité à accepter la différence. Tout cela est bien beau, mais comment ces valeurs se traduisent dans mes relations quotidiennes avec les autres face à leurs revendications religieuses?

Je me souviens des premières fois que j’ai vu des femmes indiennes à Montréal.  Elles portaient un voile sur la tête et cela ne me dérangeait pas, au contraire je trouvais cela très beau avec leur sari. Alors, pourquoi les revendications pour le port du voile islamique, entre autres, me dérangent? Une première réponse s’impose à moi, le voile est lié à la lutte que j’ai menée pour avoir le droit d’être une femme à part entière.  Le port du voile me dérange, mais ne m’empêche pas d’accueillir la personne qui le porte.  Il y a une différence entre être agacé et être privé d’une liberté.

Par contre, je ne peux pas ne pas savoir que derrière ces revendications, il y a le désir d’imposer une pratique religieuse. Je m’en méfie à causes des dérives actuelles et passées. Le dogmatisme, trop souvent présent dans la religion, conduit à la violence parce qu’il nie la différence.

De façon plus précise, l’aménagement de moyens pour vivre avec les différences et faire confiance en la capacité de nos institutions à défendre nos valeurs, particulièrement nos tribunaux, contribuent à la vie démocratique et à sa pérennité.  En reprenant deux exemples de revendications énumérées au début du texte, voyons s’il est possible de proposer une solution pour démontrer que la bonne volonté évite les conflits.

L’Université pourrait aider les musulmans à se trouver un local près de l’ÉTS et ces derniers accepter ce compromis.  Dans le cas du kirpan, si l’école avait pris un arrangement avec les Sikhs pour que le couteau soit porté sous le vêtement de façon à ne pas être vue? Et si les sikhs avaient pris un arrangement préalable avec la direction de l’école!  Ils vivent dans une société ouverte, mais qui fait face à des pressions pour assurer la sécurité de ses citoyens.

Comment vivre avec ces pressions dans le quotidien? Parfois, c’est la peur de l’autre qui nous porte à le rejeter, à se méfier.  Se donner la peine de connaître l’autre et de s’informer à plusieurs sources demeurent les meilleures garanties de la paix sociale. Dans le quotidien cela se traduit par différencier ce qui nous dérange et une action qui menace ou est une entrave réelle à notre liberté. Surtout, la pratique de la religion ne doit pas servir de moyen pour imposer une domination qui n’a rien à voir avec l’exercice de la démocratie. Jusqu’où peut-on laisser quelques intégristes ou fondamentalistes justifier leurs actions fanatiques par leurs interprétations des saintes écritures?  Ils réussissent là où règnent la misère et l’ignorance.

Tant que nous pouvons manifester nos opinions, être en désaccord et pouvoir vivre la différence sans être inquiétés ou exclus, nous pratiquons la démocratie. C’est le meilleur moyen de combattre l’intolérance et l’intransigeance.