Kirpans not allowed in National Assembly

102 posts / 0 new
Last post
Caissa
Kirpans not allowed in National Assembly

A group of four Sikhs scheduled to make a presentation at Quebec's national assembly Tuesday morning were denied entry to the legislature because they refused to remove their kirpans.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2011/01/18/sikhs-denied-entry-nat-ass-quebec.html#ixzz1BPoXngdh

Geoff OB

Are all the parties represented in the National Assembly of the same opinion on this issue?  Specifically, I would be interested to know what Quebec Solidaire's position is on banning the kirpan.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

It seems strange to ban veils and kirpans but not crucifixes and habits.  They are equivalent symbols in their religion but we trust a catholic priest or nun but not a devout Sikh or moslem.  Ban all religious symbols or none.  This banning selected non Xian symbols but no Xian ones is merely discrimination.

Quote:

The Kirpan (ceremonial sword) worn by followers of the Sikh religion sometimes raises questions or concerns among people who are unfamiliar with the religion or it's tenants. The Kirpan is an ingrained part of the Sikh religion and is in many ways it’s religious symbolism is similar to the Cross in Christianity. Just as a Cross is worn be devout Christians, baptized Sikhs are required to wear the Kirpan. The Kirpan is no more symbolic a weapons than the Christian Cross is symbolic of a torture instrument.

...

The Kirpan has been an integral part of the Sikh religion since it's early inception and has a very sacred religious symbolism for Sikhs. To suggest that it is a `dagger', or a `weapon' or merely a cultural symbol is both misleading and offensive to Sikhs.

To Sikhs the Kirpan is religiously symbolic of their spirituality and the constant struggle of good and morality over the forces of evil and injustice, both on a individual as well as social level. The usage of the Kirpan in this religious context is clearly indicated in the Sikh holy scriptures (Sri Guru Granth Sahib) and wearing it is ment to inspire a Sikh in their daily life;

http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm

Bacchus

Except no one has ever been stabbed with a crucifix in Canada but they have with a Kirpan. (at least two cases, one with a teen at school and another with sikhs fighting in a Sikh temple)

WilderMore

Bacchus wrote:

Except no one has ever been stabbed with a crucifix in Canada but they have with a Kirpan. (at least two cases, one with a teen at school and another with sikhs fighting in a Sikh temple)

There is no chance the wearer of a Kirpan will attack anybody in the National Assembly with it. The decision to ban observant Sikhs from the National Assembly is just plain racism.

Bacchus

I can agree its doubtful but its not guaranteed and I can understand the reluctance to allow it. Why cant they just use the minature ones or the plastic ones that fulfiill the requirements?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Bacchus wrote:

Except no one has ever been stabbed with a crucifix in Canada but they have with a Kirpan. (at least two cases, one with a teen at school and another with sikhs fighting in a Sikh temple)

Wrong. Like I said you want to ban religious symbols then ban them all.  Xians have committed far more crimes with their fucking crucifixes than any Sikh with a kirpan.  If you want to talk about improper behaviour in a church at the same time I think this should set the record straight about the blamelessness the Xians. 

Quote:

 decision by Justice Katherine Swinton of the Ontario Superior Court in the case of John Doe v. Thomas O'Dell and the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, awarded $1.4 million in damages to a 33-year-old man for past and future lost income because he was sexually abused by Father O'Dell.

The legal newspaper Law Times quoted the plaintiff's lawyer, who described the damages as the larges, award concerning sexual abuse against a church in Canada.

The Court held that the diocese is vicariously responsible for sexual abuse committed by its priests. The case is important legally from the standpoint of the size of the damages and the legal analysis of vicarious liability in a case involving sexual abuse by a priest in Canada.

The Court heard that John Doe (a pseudonym to protect the victim's identity) had a happy family life until the end of Grade 5 when he met Fr. O'Dell, who was ordained in the diocese of Sault Ste. Marie in 1973. Doe testified that O'Dell became a friend and spiritual mentor while he was in Grades 7 and 8.

Justice Swinton noted that O'Dell admitted to three sexual assaults which occurred during Doe's Grade 7 to 9 years: O'Dell sodomized Doe with a wooden crucifix in 1983; removed Doe's clothing and placed him naked on the church altar, then forced Doe to have oral sex; and O'Dell performed anal intercourse on Doe.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_17_27/ai_111616383/

Quote:

Vermette was never charged with assaulting any police officers -- a fact his lawyer says proves he didn't put up a struggle as documented by police.

Vermette claims police shoved the crucifix into his body while his feet were shackled to a table and his hands cuffed behind his back.

"They said to me, 'Do you want to see how it feels to rape an elderly woman?'" Vermette told his lawyer. Glazer questions why his client would make up such a humiliating claim -- especially since he already had pictures to document the alleged physical assault and didn't need to add the sex-assault allegations.

Vermette was visibly upset in court Monday as the facts of his case, and alleged abuse, were read aloud.

The LERA commissioner has reviewed Vermette's complaint and initially ruled there was insufficient evidence to proceed. Glazer is now using the appeal process to bring the case before provincial court Judge Brian Corrin for further scrutiny.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/police-refute-suspects-sexual-ass...

Bacchus

Then ban anything that can be used as a weapon. Small crosses and kirpans which cannot be used should be fine

Bacchus

Sorry hadnt read the second posting, assumed it was the same as the first one

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

How does being sodomized with a cross not count? WTF

ETA

since you edited your post I gather you now accept that catholics have used the crucifix as a weapon. 

Freedom 55

Louise Beaudoin, the PQ critic for secularism:

"Multiculturalism is not a Quebec value. It may be a Canadian one — but it's not a Quebec one. Even for the (Quebec) Liberal party, because they're talking about interculturalism and it's supposed to not be the same thing."

"They could make a little bit of an effort, frankly. I think a lot of the onus is being placed on us, telling us how we have to accept this and that. It seems to me a different question should be asked and it should be asked of the people who absolutely insist on wearing either the burqa or the niqab, or the kirpan in the national assembly."

 

http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/canada/article/746755--pq-multicultural...

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Can someone tell me if the National Assembly has metal scanners for all visitors and if so what is allowed in the way of jewelry since a large pendant, let alone a stylized cross could be every bit as dangerous as a kirpan.  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Quote:

Four members of the World Sikh Organization of Canada had intended to make a statement about religious tolerance at legislative hearings inside the national assembly.

...

The Sikhs said that, while their own religion forbids covering women's faces, they had planned to speak out against Bill 94 anyway, in the name of tolerance for other religions.

They had apparently been warned in advance that they might not be allowed to enter with the daggers. But the Sikhs noted that legislatures in other provinces and in Ottawa had always allowed kirpans — as had last year's Vancouver Olympic venues, despite heavy security at the Games.

"The national assembly has no written rules or policies regarding the kirpan, and we can't even find out who is making the decision to exclude us," Balpreet Singh, the WSOC's legal counsel, said in a statement.

"The tenets of the Sikh faith also teach us to strive for justice and equality for everyone.

"Freedom of religion may be enshrined in Canada's charter, but that's meaningless unless we all stand up to protect the rights of religious minorities — especially when we disagree with their beliefs."

 

Yes it is always good to tell people they have to bow to your power before you will allow them to speak about their customs.  They could come into the building to talk about religious values but only if they agree to leave behind their religion's teachings.  

Pogo Pogo's picture

I think the rule should be that if McIvor could use it as a weapon, it is banned.  Nothing in the national assembly that would be banned in a preschool daycare centre.

Alternatively we could use some common sense but where is the fun in that.

Bacchus

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Can someone tell me if the National Assembly has metal scanners for all visitors and if so what is allowed in the way of jewelry since a large pendant, let alone a stylized cross could be every bit as dangerous as a kirpan.  

Seriously? Dude you are reaching. Clothes could be just as dangerous since I can strangle someone with my jacket

mahmud

Bacchus wrote:

Except no one has ever been stabbed with a crucifix in Canada but they have with a Kirpan. (at least two cases, one with a teen at school and another with sikhs fighting in a Sikh temple)

 

Maybe they should ban -Catholic- Priests dicks.

Sineed

In my workplace, someone was stabbed with a ballpoint pen.  It was nasty.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Context is everything and in this context these people were trying to speak to a National Assembly committee about religious tolerance and were denied by a low level security guard.  This is acceptable in a free and democratic state?  There was absolutely no risk in this context and that is the problem with this denial of the right to enter the legislature and speak to an issue.  Especially when the banning itself is related to the issue itself.  

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Speaking of dangerous religious symbols, can you imagine the damage you could do to someone's skull with a crozier (trying to recall if they used one in the confrontation between the Archbishop and the knights when Richard Burton starred in Becket).

Anyway, if they were so damned worried about "armed Sikhs" loose in the National Assembly, couldn't they have demanded that the sergeant-at-arms follow them around while toting this baby?

National Assembly Mace

To quote from the National Assembly's home page:

Quote:

The Mace symbolizes the Assembly's power to meet and make laws, a power granted by the King or Queen, and represents the authority of the President, or Speaker, of the National Assembly. The large, ornate gold Mace is also a symbol of the power of the Assembly to protect its constitutional rights and those of the MNAs from external threat, a responsibility conferred upon the Sergeant-at-Arms.

 

Le T Le T's picture

Quote:
Maybe they should ban -Catholic- Priests dicks.

yes. :)

Quote:
"Multiculturalism is not a Quebec value. It may be a Canadian one — but
it's not a Quebec one. Even for the (Quebec) Liberal party, because
they're talking about interculturalism and it's supposed to not be the
same thing."

Radical multiculturalism of course is a value of the peoples whose land the Quebecois stole and try to pretend that they have some god-given right to occupy. Like people in the ROC, the Quebecois should remember that although Indigenous Peoples in this territory have rarely asked for settlers to leave the land, Quebecois and Canadians expect Indigenous Peoples to give up their inherent right to the land to the point that the laws and culture of Quebec and Canada are based on total control of the stolen land. Canadian "multiculuralism" or Quebecois "non-multiculturalism": different flavours of the same brand of colonial ice cream.

 

 

Bacchus

"different flavours of the same brand of colonial ice cream."

 

I really like this tuen of phrase Le T

milo204

to be honest, having seen some of the kirpans that are considered acceptable (the small harmless ones) as well as the larger ones that hang on your side that look like a large knife, to me it seems like the wearer could choose accordingly depending on if they're going into an area where knives are generally not allowed.  If you can satisfy both your religious requirement and the security one why not?  it seems reasonable.

but i think one of the reasons this is an issue is that if they allow this they'll have a hard time saying you can't cover your face, and they're determined to ban the niqab.

 

 

Caissa

An emotionally charged debate over multiculturalism that has raged in Quebec in recent years has landed on the national stage and it centres on a ceremonial dagger worn by Sikhs.

MPs face a demand to ban the kirpan, which is worn at all times by at least one Ontario MP.

The discussion is being spurred by the Bloc Québécois, which promised Wednesday to take up the issue with the House of Commons' all-party decision-making body.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2011/01/19/bloc-sikh-kirpan-ban-parliament.html#ixzz1BaDii8Vw

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
 it seems like the wearer could choose accordingly depending on if they're going into an area where knives are generally not allowed.  If you can satisfy both your religious requirement and the security one why not?  it seems reasonable.

 

That's kind of what I'm wondering. Why not say "We're all switching to small, plastic Kirpans, so no more worries on planes, in schools, in courtrooms... case closed".?

 

Is there a cultural resistance to the idea? It's my understanding that for the purposes of religious symbolism, it need not be accessible nor functional as a weapon. But do some wearers prefer "the real thing"?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Thanks Snert I am sure the Sikh community would love to hear from you on how they should practice their religion and culture.  If this is a security issue then it seems the response should be equal to the threat.  This is a very low threat especially when dealing with a delegation attempting to speak in a legislature. If it is not a real security threat then it seems to me it is state enforced conformity.  Hardly democratic let alone libertarian.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Thanks Snert I am sure the Sikh community would love to hear from you on how they should practice their religion and culture.

 

I'm not telling them what to do. I'm just curious, though, under the circumstances, why they wouldn't opt for an easy fix for all present and future Kirpan hassles. And wondering if there's a reason that I don't know about.

NorthReport

I know this does appear intolerant but I'm not into public displays of religion, as it's just seems to be too divisive. Let's keep this stuff in our homes or places of worship. 

Snert Snert's picture

Most often a Kirpan will not be a public display.  Three of the five "K's" (religious duties for a Sikh) wouldn't ordinarily be visible, and the other two (uncut hair, an iron bracelet) are common enough outside of the community as well.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

I know this does appear intolerant but I'm not into public displays of religion, as it's just seems to be too divisive. Let's keep this stuff in our homes or places of worship. 

I might agree with this whole heartedly if it included  Xians. However I do not think that my Catholic family or any good Xian would agree with such a ban.  No more nuns in habits on the street or pedophile priests with Roman collars.  No more jewel incrusted crosses and crucifixes displaying not only your superior wealth but your righteousness too.  But since the majority of people who have a religious faith would feel it to be a personal intrusion for the state to ban their symbols of devotion I respect that and say stop banning selective faiths that are not "Canadian or Quebecois" enough.  Religions should be tolerated and treated equally.  Applying the force of the state to coerce people to chance how they want to present themselves to the world is IMO just wrong.  

Snert Snert's picture

Um, you don't think maybe some of the concern over Kirpans (as opposed to, say, starched collars) is that a Kirpan is a knife? 

Or it's all just xenophobia, you figure?  If so, why NO CONCERN whatsoever for the iron bracelet that Sikhs wear?  If all we wanted to do was make life hard for Sikhs, wouldn't we say "no iron bracelets"?  Or for that matter, no wooden combs?

I'm not suggesting that we need to have some kind of zero tolerance crackdown on Kirpans, but do we have to pretend they're not a weapon?  Symbolic, but also functional?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Another day another thread where the progressive Snert argues the MSM position.  Boring

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Snert wrote:

Um, you don't think maybe some of the concern over Kirpans (as opposed to, say, starched collars) is that a Kirpan is a knife? 

By definition a red herring has to have some truth in it. 

Snert Snert's picture

I'm sorry, but I can't really help it if the MSM agrees that a Kirpan is a knife.

I bet Hitler would agree too!  I'm probably in the company of Hitler!!!!

Heck, I'm probably in the company of everyone but you.  You're the only one brave enough to stand up to the MSM and me and pretty much everyone else on the planet and tell us that a Kirpan isn't a knife, despite looking like one, symbolically representing one and even functioning like one.

TariAkpodiete

i just posted in another thread - as i didn't see this one until afterwards - that the Canadian Hindu Advocacy has just written to the PQ and the QNA in support of this ban - http://rabble.ca/comment/1214504/%C2%A0-Ron-Banerjee

TariAkpodiete

also, i will note that while i am supportive and respectful of Sikhs and their culture, they do have a bit of a way to go when it comes to being supportive and respectful of other sorts of diversity in Canada:

World Sikh group against gay marriage bill - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/03/28/sikhguy-050328.html

The world's highest Sikh authority has admonished Sikh-Canadian MPs to block the gay marriage bill in Parliament, warning it is against Sikh code and "the laws of nature." Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, the highest Sikh authority, said he personally reminded six visiting Sikh-Canadian MPs of their religious duties when they visited him in January. They were among a group of MPs travelling with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"The basic duty of Sikh MPs in Canada should be to support laws that stop this kind of practice [homosexuality], because there are thousands of Sikhs living in Canada, to ensure that Sikhs do not fall prey to this practice," he said in a report published Monday.

Paul Martin talks with Indian PM Manmohan Singh, right. Included are Canadian parliamentarians Ruby Dhalla and Gurbax S. Malhi, top, in New Delhi, India, in January. (AP file photo)

Martin had been scheduled to make a personal visit to meet Vedanti and visit the Golden Temple in Amritsar, but it was cancelled to make time for stops in Thailand and Sri Lanka in the wake of the Dec. 26 tsunami. However, the Sikh-Canadian MPs were able to meet with Vedanti, and received a stern lecture about the importance of voting against the gay marriage bill currently being debated.

Bill C-38, which has already passed first reading, is expected to become law this spring.

Vedanti said he was dismayed that one MP, Ontario Liberal rookie Navdeep Bains, argued against him, but said the others listened respectfully.

"The Sikh religion would never accept such MPs," said Vedanti. "Nobody would support such a person having such dirty thoughts in their mind because it is against the Sikh religion and the Sikh code of conduct and totally against the laws of nature."

---

and that was despite: "The religious bodies of Sikhism do not teach that homosexuality is "unnatural and ungodly". The Sikh holy book, the Guru Granth Sahib, does not explicitly mention homosexuality." - http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Homosexuality_and_Sikhism

milo204

kropotkin, i don't think any of us here take positions based on whether or not the media takes a similar position.  consequently, i'm not going to oppose something simply on the basis it is supported in some way by the media.

I think the observation is relevant.  If there is an option that respects religious practice and also fits in with universally accepted security requirements, why would it be wrong to suggest the wearer take that into account?

isn't that the very definition of reasonable accommodation?

kinky friedman

This fascist Canadian Hindu Advocacy has come out agaibst kirpans and WSO:

 

www.canhindu.com/bankirpan.doc

 

 

We are the Canadian Hindu Advocacy, a national organization and the largest representative of the Hindu community in Canada. We would like to congratulate you and your party on recent moves to restrict Sikh kirpans and Muslim niqabs.

 

Kirpans can be used as deadly weapons and there have been documented cases of Canadian Sikhs injuring others using kirpans.

 

Sikh turbans and Islamic attire like niqabs, hijabs, and burkhas have been used in certain cases of violence, robberies, and concealment by terrorists.

 

By contrast, Jewish and Hindu communities have achieved maximum success in North America by integrating into society in a harmonious fashion. There is no place in Canada for destructive cultural traditions being imported from overseas. Hindu and Jewish traditions, on the other hand, are conducive to democracy and should be encouraged.

 

We thank you and your party for recognizing these fundamental truths.

 

Regards Ron Banerjee Canadian Hindu Advocacy

kinky friedman

They have apparently contacted the Que National Assemby, PQ, and BQ.

 

 

www.canhindu.com/banwso.doc

 

We are the Canadian Hindu Advocacy, a national organization and the largest representative of the Hindu community in Canada. We would like to congratulate and thank the Quebec National Assemby for excluding the World Sikh Organization of Canada from participation in the debate over Bill 94.

 

There are many compelling reasons to exclude this organization from public discourse, aside from the very legitimate kirpan issue. The World Sikh Organization is an organization which defends the right to advocate for a mythical Sikh state, to be named 'Khalistan'.

 

The 'Khalistan' movement, which WSO tries to equate with PQ goals for an independent nation, is very different from French Canadian aspirations. 'Khalistan' means 'Land of the Pure', and such a state could only be created by perpetrating genocide or ethnic cleansing against the almost 50 percent of India's Punjab state which are non Sikh minorities.

 

This movement was responsible for the rape and mass slaughter of thousands of civilians, and supporters were suspected of blowing up an AIr India jet in Canada, killing over 330 Canadians.

 

Such a movement bears more similarity to the German Nazi movement in the 1940s than to any group advocating nationhood for Quebec. We thank the Quebec National Assembly, and recommend that the WSO be excluded in the future, regardless of whether or not turbans and kirpans are worn.

 

Regards Rupesh Bhardwaj Canadian Hindu Advocacy

TariAkpodiete

well, Kinky Friedman, earlier today when i objected to Banerjee's 'press releases', and specifically said that his organization was a 'micro' one, and really just him and a few henious friends, he responded with: 

We have offices from coast to coast. We have an ethnic liaison and outreach branch responsible for interfaith relations. We also have a political affairs bureau in Ottawa.

And that's not even including our liaison offices in the US. Which have very strong contacts with various groups, including assorted Tea Party organizations and others.

Grassroots organizing, media engagement, high level input into governmental policies. We do it all.

of course, none of that is true, well, except perhaps for the part about 'media engagement' which i pointed out to him was mainly him writing lots of letters to the newspapers about his mostly imaginary organization. i also ridiculed him for not using proper formats when fabricating his 'press releases', and he said he'd look into that feedback with his "pr team". 

the problem is that while we know he's something of a scumbag, the falsse persona he presents for  both himself and his organization makes him appear quite large so he's able to fool a lot of people, including some mainstream journalists, legitimate organizations which don't know any better, as well as politicians who think he really does represent the Hindu community. 

WilderMore

TariAkpodiete wrote:

Banerjee's 'press releases', and specifically said that his organization was a 'micro' one, and really just him and a few henious friends, he responded with: 

 

At the risk of dating myself, Banerjee used to post on babble. His handle was RBan, and he was kicked off the board around 2005/6 timeframe. Mostly for spreading Hindu-superiority messages.

Lachine Scot

With all this debate about kirpans as knives--OK, as other people have stated, does anyone honestly believe there was any threat from these 4 individuals?  Why invite them and then not let them in?  I think we are getting sidetracked from what is a clear-cut case of racism and religious intolerance. 

milo204

i don't think anyone believes these four people were in any way a threat, nor has anyone suggested that except right wing goofballs.  the problem is that the religious symbol happens to be a real knife which even if it is a religious symbol can still be used as a knife and has been in the past.

i think the most sensible thing (as suggested by someone in the star article) is to wear the still acceptable but tiny kirpan, or it's time to make a kirpan that can't be taken out of the sheath or the necklace idea was good too...

 

Unionist

Lachine Scot wrote:

 I think we are getting sidetracked from what is a clear-cut case of racism and religious intolerance. 

Really? Clear cut? No kidding.

 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

TariAkpodiete wrote:

also, i will note that while i am supportive and respectful of Sikhs and their culture, they do have a bit of a way to go when it comes to being supportive and respectful of other sorts of diversity in Canada:

 

World Sikh group against gay marriage bill - http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/03/28/sikhguy-050328.html

The world's highest Sikh authority has admonished Sikh-Canadian MPs to block the gay marriage bill in Parliament, warning it is against Sikh code and "the laws of nature." Giani Joginder Singh Vedanti, the highest Sikh authority, said he personally reminded six visiting Sikh-Canadian MPs of their religious duties when they visited him in January. They were among a group of MPs travelling with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

[...]

 

 

This "warning" has about the same value as one against Catholic politicians because of the ramblings of their relgion's hightest authority...

[I was going to say pontificating, but I have made enough bad jokes today]

 

 

pookie

Unionist wrote:

Lachine Scot wrote:

 I think we are getting sidetracked from what is a clear-cut case of racism and religious intolerance. 

Really? Clear cut? No kidding.

 

Ok.  How about plain ol' zenophobia then.

I note that the Bloc now wants to ban kirpans from Parliament too.  I think this will produce some interesting fault lines.

Last night Michael Coren and Tarek Fatah debated this on P&P.  Colour me amazed, but I actually agreed with (most of) what Coren had to say, 

Fatah was downright frightening.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/ID=1755032036

Ghislaine

Wow, I never expected the Bloc to take a stance like that.

Caissa

A form of Quebec exceptionalism is perhaps being put forward.

I understand how this grows out of the Quiet Revolution and the dark Duplessie days that preceded it.

I don't agree with it but recognize that it is an issue for Quebecers to work out.

I support an individual's right to wear symbols of religion, politics etc. wherever and whenever they so choose.

Ghislaine

Caissa, it is not just an issue for Quebecers to work out, as the Bloc is a federal party trying to get them banned from parliament.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
With all this debate about kirpans as knives--OK, as other people have stated, does anyone honestly believe there was any threat from these 4 individuals?

 

Generally, when we say, for example, no knives allowed on an airplane, we don't make an exception for respectable looking folk, or men in suits, or people we have a good "gut feeling" about.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the threat these individuals probably didn't pose. But you really want to start cherrypicking exceptions where weapons are concerned?

Caissa

Sorry, Ghislaine. I meant the debate re. the National Assembly. I see the Bloc's interjection as an extension of that debate.

I think they are playintg to the home crowd while knowing the ban will not be implemented in Ottawa.

Lachine Scot

Snert wrote:

Generally, when we say, for example, no knives allowed on an airplane, we don't make an exception for respectable looking folk, or men in suits, or people we have a good "gut feeling" about.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the threat these individuals probably didn't pose. But you really want to start cherrypicking exceptions where weapons are concerned?

The problem with your analogy is that it's not a plane, and these 4 guys were specifically invited to speak about religious (in)tolerance, and then turned away for something any white Quebecois security guard with access to wikipedia could have forseen.

Besides, you're ignoring the paranoid security culture that treats people such as 4 Sikh men entirely different than it treats "men in suits".  What bothers me is not that I had a "good gut feeling" about these guys and then was disappointed to see them slighted by someone.  Instead, it's the culture that treats Arab, South Asian, Muslim, etc. men as inherently dangerous and violent that I find objectionable.  Not letting them into the legislature is no different to me than law enforcement harassing them in their regular life or other forms of institutional racism.

Pages

Topic locked