Angry parents shout abuse at a 12-year-old Montréal boy as police escort him to school.

April 18, 2002 8:05 AM

Angry parents shout abuse at a 12-year-old Montréal boy as police escort him to school. This horrific, ugly scene, reminiscent of desegregation, is thanks to his school, which sent Gurbaj Singh home for three months because they discovered his kirpan (a ceremonial dagger required by the Sikh articles of faith). He won a temporary court injunction on Thursday. In the early 1990s, wing nuts protested the idea of Sikh RCMP officers being allowed to wear turbans on duty, and Royal Canadian Legion halls prevented turbaned Sikh veterans (and anyone else wearing religious headgear) from entering their premises. What is it with some of my fellow citizens and Sikhs, anyway?
posted by mcwetboy (31 comments total)

People fear what they don't know or understand.

Man, when I was a kid, I always carried a pocketknife. I think everyone did. I suppose I'd have abuse shouted at me, too, these days. Lor'.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:36 AM on April 18, 2002

When I was in Mexico a few months ago, I got into a conversation with a Canadian from BC, who said we should "kill all the Arabs" because they "wear turbans" and "live like rats," taking away jobs from "real Canadians" such as himself. Eventually I figured out he was talking about Sikhs, which he called "east Indian Arabs." I had no idea immigration outside of East Asia was an issue in Canada. I wonder what the future will hold there.
posted by cell divide at 8:51 AM on April 18, 2002

I'm not shocked the bigotry, hell, there are French Canadians who look down their noses at people who are culturally identical to them, except for speaking English instead of French.

Having been raised Indian and amongst a lot of Sikh friends, I gotta say, though: The dagger thing is just stupid. The turban, equivalent to the headwear of a lot of other religions, is fine. Silly, but fine.

But if we aren't allowing weapons in schools, they shouldn't make exceptions for one religion's oddity. I mean, what if I'm a devout Nugentite, and I have to carry a concealed handgun at all times?

Frankly, I just wish everybody would get past this hangup on religions and superstition so that we can stop having these stupid debates.
posted by anildash at 9:10 AM on April 18, 2002

Do we allow the dagger to be brought to school here in America? I wonder how long the boy would have sat in an interrogation chamber while the feds searched for a list of people he was wanting to kill.

A knife of any kind has no place where children learn and play. Even if we weren't living post Columbine, post 9/11, there could still be accidents or whatnot when the child decides to show off his symbol of religion.
posted by schlaager at 10:10 AM on April 18, 2002

The first ACLU lawsuit under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Cheema v. Thompson, illustrates how despite the clamor by the right wing for religion in school, the rights of students who belong to minority religions are often ignored. Sikh children, ceremonial daggers, California.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:28 AM on April 18, 2002

Even if we weren't living post Columbine, post 9/11, there could still be accidents or whatnot when the child decides to show off his symbol of religion.

I've got to agree, despite my initial reaction to the story. Even if the kid never takes it out, it's a huge danger--even if only to him. The kid's running around the playground, ferchrissakes. Running with scissors is bad enough, but running with daggers?

I understand the religious component, but the family (and the Sikh religion, if necessary) should OK the use of a "symbolic" kirpan--some sort of harmless representation. Maybe a tiny kirpan, to wear on a keychain, or something would do the trick.

Of course, there's no excuse for lining up and screaming at the child. If the parents' problem is with the kirpan, that's one thing, but it sounds like their issues go a lot deeper than that.
posted by jpoulos at 10:38 AM on April 18, 2002

The kirpan is symbolic. From what I'm given to understand from googling about while researching this post, a kirpan is about as sharp and dangerous as a letter opener. If that. It's not even sharp. Metal cutlery in a school cafeteria would be far more dangerous. So's the stylus on my Palm, I bet.

People hear the word "dagger" and just wig out.
posted by mcwetboy at 10:53 AM on April 18, 2002

Two things:

1. "there are French Canadians who look down their noses at people who are culturally identical to them" Anildash: Have you ever been to Quebec?

2. The issue of violence or danger to other students is a canard; this is straight-up intolerance and ignorance. A kirpan poses as much danger to another student as a pen or pencil or, Singh's lawyer pointed out, a geometry compass. None of these objects has been banned; none should. The problem comes when ignorant parents hear "dagger" without knowing a kirpan is duller than a butter knife.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:13 AM on April 18, 2002

Ok, let me see if I get this straight. My kid can not pray in school because that would be abusing the implied "separation of church and state", but people here are actually backing this kid bringing a dagger to school. Is this world f'ed up or what? Yeah, there's no bias here.
posted by the_0ne at 11:40 AM on April 18, 2002

the_One: i would imagine your child could pray all he wants by himself, during lunch or recess. since this dagger seems about as dangerous as someone wearing a large cross i'm not sure i see how the world is f'ed up or biased because some people think he should be allowed to bring it to school.
posted by m@L at 11:47 AM on April 18, 2002

My kid can not pray in school ...
I'll bet your kid could bring a cross or a star of David to school if he wanted. That's all a kirpan is really. Its no different than any other symbol.
posted by srw12 at 11:48 AM on April 18, 2002

To correct an error in my post: Gurbaj Singh won a temporary court injunction on Tuesday.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2002

Most Sikhs - I am given to understand -wear harmless symbolic representations of Kirpan. Even those who wear fearsome looking ones, have not been known to use ithem for violent ends. Neither have I heard of any accident involving Kirpans.

Having said that: I believe that if you choose to live in a different cultural environment, and choose to send your kid to a multicultural setting, you should be ready to accomodate their views on contentious issues like this. The net loser would be the kid who would be brought up in a fairly fractious environment in school from now on - which would no doubt scar him.
posted by justlooking at 11:49 AM on April 18, 2002

The situation does seem a bit wacky to me. Basically a kid is saying, "God wants me to carry a dagger, Ms. Crabapple!" Rather than the response being, "Oh man, we gotta get this kid help quick," most of society probably doesn't even think it's that strange. We make a lot of consessions to religion.

mcwetboy: Do you think uniformed police officers should be allowed to wear Budweiser baseball caps? Propellored beanies?
posted by Doug at 11:51 AM on April 18, 2002

doug: do you think jewish police officers should be allowed to wear yamakas? that seems a bit closer to the issue at hand than budweiser caps, unless of course their are people who use budweiser hats as part of their religious tradition.
posted by m@L at 11:55 AM on April 18, 2002

Even those who wear fearsome looking ones, have not been known to use ithem for violent ends.

This isn't entirely true. There was an incident in Vancouver, BC, during a particularly angry dispute between an ultra-conservative group of Sikhs and a liberal group of Sikhs, over the operation of their church. There was a scuffle during which some loon stabbed someone with his kirpan.

The kirpan is supposed to be a ceremonial dagger that is never drawn from its sheath. The Sikh-Canadian community was understandably upset that someone used one violently.

That some nutbar used a kirpan isn't an indictment of them: other nuts use Bic pens or fireplace pokers, neither of which are dangerous when wielded by the sane.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:01 PM on April 18, 2002

Doug sez: Do you think uniformed police officers should be allowed to wear Budweiser baseball caps? Propellored beanies?

Not sure where you're coming from, there, Doug. If they belong to a faith that requires them to wear such headgear at all times in public, then yes. But, of course, there is no such thing, and your argument is specious. The obligations of faith cannot be equated with cultural heritage (mountie hats, officer's club rules in legions). You should never be penalized for trying to follow those obligations. And I'm saying that as an atheist.

m@L, in response: do you think jewish police officers should be allowed to wear yamakas?

IANAJ, but I'm given to understand that the obligation is to have the head covered, not that it be covered only by a yarmulke; wouldn't a policeman's hat suffice? Good point, less than ideal example.
posted by mcwetboy at 12:07 PM on April 18, 2002

Ok, let me see if I get this straight. My kid can not pray in school because that would be abusing the implied "separation of church and state", but people here are actually backing this kid bringing a dagger to school. Is this world f'ed up or what? Yeah, there's no bias here.

Actually, there is nothing to stop your kid from praying. The rules only prevent teachers from forcing everyone to pray.

Not sure where you're coming from, there, Doug. If they belong to a faith that requires them to wear such headgear at all times in public, then yes. But, of course, there is no such thing, and your argument is specious. The obligations of faith cannot be equated with cultural heritage (mountie hats, officer's club rules in legions). You should never be penalized for trying to follow those obligations. And I'm saying that as an atheist.

I believe the language used is "reasonable accomodations." The big question is whether wearing the headgear interferes with job performance.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:30 PM on April 18, 2002

I understand the religious component, but the family (and the Sikh religion, if necessary) should OK the use of a "symbolic" kirpan--some sort of harmless representation. Maybe a tiny kirpan, to wear on a keychain, or something would do the trick.


jpoulos got it right, these do exist and a lot of sikhs use the representational ones, I have a small set my mom (a sikh) gave me for my son. It hangs in his room.

On another note, kirpans are NOT meant to be dull, the dull ones are a modernized variety, which came about due to these kind of situations. Traditionally, if the kirpan is removed from it's sheath, it must be bloodied. This is to create a kind of severity, don't pull it out, unless you really need to use it. Orthodox Sikhs will bloody the kirpan, even if they have to cut themselves to do so, if removed from it's sheath.

Disclaimer: I am only half sikh, so all my sikh knowledge comes from her, this is my understanding of the kirpan. Oh, and anil was right, turbans are kind of silly (unless you are in a desert or something and need to protect your head, but then I find all religion silly so...), ahh my boarding school days and teasing the sikhs...
posted by bittennails at 12:34 PM on April 18, 2002

What is it with Canadians and Sikhs? Sikhs have some sillyass customs which are incompatible with other peoples sillyass customs and sometimes just not very compatible with reality. This dagger bullshit could be easily dealt with by wearing a neck chain with a dagger charm about an inch long. If it's "just symbolic", what's the big deal? Lawyer weasel words aside, I'd take a dull dagger with a handle and guard over a compass in a fight anyday. The slippery slope argument applies here as well, like it or not.

The Mounted Police thing was simple. As a quasi-military organization, conformity is a big part of training and motivation. Mounties wear hats. In the interest of political correctness, the turban was shoved down the force's throat by politicians. People are coping. In an age where physical ability standards are being lowered left and right to allow women to be soldiers and die for their country just like men (except for the fact that because of their lesser physical ability they're more likely to get the other soldiers with them killed as well, but at least their feelings aren't hurt!)this was small beer. I'm not sure how the issue of safety helmets was addressed. But the question of liability the first time a Sikh officer is injured or killed because he wasn't wearing a helmet will make for an interesting court case.

The "wing nuts" (now there's a judgement made without any intolerance and ignorance at all... ) who didn't want turbans worn in their own, private buildings protested because their sillyass custom was for all men to go hatless inside their buildings in tribute to the sacrifices of their comrades who died defending western civilization from real intolerance. And before anyone goes sleepless worrying about the subjugation of the hapless Sikhs by the dreaded white male bigots, please consider that although the Sikhs have endured much verbal abuse from non-Sikhs who don't see the inportance of their customs relative to the big picture, the only Sikhs who have been physically attacked in the dispute over their customs have suffered at the hands of other Sikhs. If you haven't been paying attention, they were fighting and shooting each other over the issue of whether to have tables in their temples or not. (OK, Ok, it was alot more than that, [read the "fighting" link) but it all comes down to fundamentalism vs. common sense.
posted by BGM at 1:03 PM on April 18, 2002

This surprises me, actually, I always felt that the cultural diversity of Canada was greater than that of the US, and the Toronto especially was one of the most mixed cities in the world. Montreal too, to a certain extent.

Anyway, the issue I see here is not about the dagger, but parents yelling at this kid, and of course the general hatred of all Arab peoples in Canada and elsewhere. I knew a number of Islamic kids in highschool, and talking to them I realized that they were more American than kids who were more devoutly religious. They felt that their religion encouraged questioning and discussion, and seemed to behave as if America was an Islamic state, and they behaved as best they could within its confines.

What I found really remarkable about these kids is that they were really, really religious. They never spouted off pieces of the Koran, or brought Islam up, and they had the same interests and vocabulary as anyone else, but they had discipline in every facet of their life and absolutely no shame about their upbringing. You could not get them to cheat on something if you tried. The majority of my class was brought up Christian, and the few that considered themselves christian didn't seem to care much about it, much less use Christian beliefs in the course of living. Those that did were the blind hollerin' and imposin' for god type. So basically you had the ones filled with shame and all the typical American teenager crap, and you had the ones who put god before anything. And then you got the weird kids like me and the Islamic kids, and the nerds, who were, although obnoxious, decent, practically minded, very interested in learning things and being level headed.

And you know what? Aside from the muslim kids, who had scruples, we could drink them jock bastards under the table. No lie. I think there's a lesson for everyone here.

We could drink the drama kids under the table too, but that may go without saying.
posted by Settle at 1:51 PM on April 18, 2002

The funny thing is - I always felt that Sikhs imbibe cultural values wherever they live - more wholeheartedly than other people from South Asia. They also tend to be way more tolerant. You go to most Gurdwaras any time of day - you would get a full square meal ....

They also make very good soldiers. They have traditionally been warriors and have always done well in India army.
posted by justlooking at 2:36 PM on April 18, 2002

the general hatred of all Arab peoples in Canada

In parts of Canada. I think we're fairly tolerant in my neck of the woods.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:51 PM on April 18, 2002

This has completely shattered all illusions I held about Canada being some sort of utopia. I'd always imagined it as a place with spectacular New Zealand-esque scenery, peopled by folk with easy going Australian-esque attitudes and a disproportionately high level of cute girls saying stuff like 'Hoo aboot it? *wink*'. David Suzuki lives there, for crying out loud.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 4:30 PM on April 18, 2002

Utopia? We got winter up here. There is NO winter in Utopia. Of that I am damn sure.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:35 PM on April 18, 2002

obiwanwasabi - Do some reading on the White Australia policy before making them a part of your idyllic picture.
posted by NortonDC at 5:57 PM on April 18, 2002

don't lump all canadians into one based on the actions of a few pinheads.
posted by bwg at 8:07 PM on April 18, 2002

obiwanwasabi - Do some reading on the White Australia policy

Erm...I'm pretty sure that living here, working for these guys for many years and currently working (indirectly) for this guy exempts me from having to read up on the WAP.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:08 PM on April 18, 2002

Anildash: Have you ever been to Quebec?

Yep.
posted by anildash at 9:20 PM on April 18, 2002

The obligations of faith cannot be equated with cultural heritage

Why? Why is someone's faith more important a factor than, say, my sense of fashion? I'm not even making a joke here. I shouldn't be allowed to be a NYC cop if I have big mutton chop sideburns, but if I think a supernatural being wants me to have a beard, suddenly the story changes? And what if my faith is purely personal? Do these concessions only go to those with organized religions? Are organized religions somehow more important than personal faith?
posted by Doug at 11:16 PM on April 18, 2002

If you disagree with the laws in Canada, you don't have to live there. Simple as that.
posted by pooldemon at 11:57 PM on April 18, 2002