babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
i still think the easiest way to solve this debate is (what some sikhs have proposed) to carry a kirpan that cannot be confused with a knife. Then it can be worn at all times (on planes or other places where knives are not allowed) and still meet the religious requirement.
As I understand there isn't consensus among Sikhs about this. Some think that a nonfunctional symbolic kirpan is sufficient while others insist on the real thing since they're supposed to be able to defend someone else with it at need. So that doesn't get rid of the problem.
Quote:
i think the point of the scottish daggers is relevant, perhaps someone with more knowledge on this could say, but if that cultural symbol isn't allowed why would they allow others? did the scottish people remove their daggers without complaint and that's why it never came to be debated or talked about?
It's not really relevant because it's not a religious obligation to possess or wear a sgian dubh. It isn't a comparable thing.
As I understand there isn't consensus among Sikhs about this. Some think that a nonfunctional symbolic kirpan is sufficient while others insist on the real thing since they're supposed to be able to defend someone else with it at need. So that doesn't get rid of the problem.
It's not really relevant because it's not a religious obligation to possess or wear a sgian dubh. It isn't a comparable thing.
What's this thread doing in Ontario?
Sorry fir the concern,
We shall absorb your paltry nation yet, Unionist. But for now, I shall acquiesce to your request.
Some paltry. Some absorb!!
Resistance is futile.