Sikh and yee shall find…. bullshit.
According to Sir Mota Singh, it is discriminatory not to discriminate in favour of Sikh schoolchildren. No, really…
This muppet – apparantly the UK’s first Asian judge – reckons that applying the same rules to Sikhs as to everyone else, is discriminatory. Run that by me again? No, don’t, I can’t be bothered. The UK’s multicultural rot really set in way back in the early 70s when Sikhs were exempted from the motorcycle helmet law – that gross unfairness sparked huge growth of the Motorcycle Action Group, a mob I was loosely involved with, and also sparked a one-man campaign against the exemption by a chap called Fred Hill whose rage against this discrimination in the law led to many jail sentences, and eventually his death in prison.
Being a retired judge, this pillock is no doubt familiar with injustice, but it doesn’t seem to have percolated through – maybe the turban? Sunshine, what you are asking for is not parity, it is privilege and privilege in law is an affront to *all* justice.
I wear a knife. I’ve carried a bladed instrument of one kind or another practically every day of my adult life. Today I have a Leatherman Wave, and it’s been my constant companion these past three years. With this multi-tool, and its predecessors, I have fixed countless cars and bikes, I have mended office equipment, I have retrieved tiny lost doodahs and thingies, I have cut off thongs, I have peeled fruit, sliced cake, removed SIMS from phones, and delivered a baby. I am, nonetheless, always at risk of arrest and trial for carrying this item. That doesn’t worry me because I’m pretty well convinced that I could persuade a jury of my many and varied lawful uses for this tool. Any Sikh who carries a knife should do likewise, and not simply flash their religion as a get out of jail free card.
When my lad goes to school, he doesn’t carry a knife – he does when camping as all good scouts should – but his school, naturally enough these days, has rules agains that sort of thing. If a Sikh lad doesn’t like that – tough. Tough. It’s just *tough*. A rule that doesn’t apply to everyone – as we see with these troughing Labour MPs trying to claim exemption – is an unjust rule.
Minority groups must accept the rule of law, just as the rest of us do. No exemptions should be permitted. Claiming that we must accept two tier legal systems is *not* the way to approach or support equality; it is, fairly obviously, grossly discriminatory, and the fact that a retired judge can’t see that, and apparantly his former colleagues in the “Supreme” Court agree, is evidence enough that this country is wholly, and deservedly, fucked.
Tags: discrimination, equality, knives, m'lud, offensive weapond, sikhism
8. February 2010 at 5:09 pm :
Hello Frank, I thought you’d died.
Yes, it all started with all that helmet doodah. A differently white day for British justice, and no mistake. I heard that Sir Mota “Bike” Singh by mistake on the wireless this morning and thought he was suffering from dementia.
Suppose I start a religion, worshipping interstellar lizards or whatever (a bit like Scientology), and one of the requirements is that adherents should at all times carry a Calico M960 sub-machine gun with the safety catch off and 100 parabellum rounds ready to go. What then?
9. February 2010 at 1:36 pm :
Hello Frank, I thought you’d died.
I get that a lot.
one of the requirements is that adherents should at all times carry a Calico M960 sub-machine gun with the safety catch off and 100 parabellum rounds ready to go. What then?
Ah you should never have one up the spout and the safety off – lot of good men walking around with nine toes in consequence of that.
Astonishing that this idea of bending over backwards to minorities is still given *any* credence, look at this balls up in the met. Now me, I think we’re all minorities. There’s only one of me. And the best way to protect my interests is…. to treat me the same as everyone else, everyone else the same as me. Anything else is a recipe for corruption.
11. February 2010 at 6:19 pm :
I understand the equality argument and the anti-religion arguments, but I can’t help wondering – how many people have been injured by a kirpan?
You are quite right, of course, knives don’t kill, people do. But it is easier to ban the weapon than put bad people in jail. It doesn’t mean the ban will work – it didn’t for handguns.
The crash helmet is annoying too – should be personal choice to wear one (it is not as though anyone else is protected by my wearing it), although my insurance premium might rise.
We need less rules.
11. February 2010 at 7:06 pm :
We need less rules.
fewer
11. February 2010 at 10:15 pm :
Hello Frank, you want to watch out for that Fuller. He promised the court he’d stay away from weaponry, but let somebody mention knives, expanding coshes or armaments and he’s in there. Most people run the Bettaware catalogue or perhaps Avon, but Fuller will be round your house with his hollow-points, his kevlar vests and his carbon-fibre cross-bows. This is a man who knows where to get tailor-made calfskin holsters. He’s a nice enough chap to have a drink with, but you’ll only end up buying smoke grenades out of pity. I’ve got a box of them in the hold, ostensibly for smoking out moles, but I haven’t got moles. I haven’t even got a garden. He’s obviously become a rep for Modo and done the sales course. You have been warned.
Fuller is right about Mota, though, who must be losing touch. It’s not a discrimination issue at all – it’s a limit of school authority issue. We already had this out in the Lords in the case of Shabina Begum, and that other ‘Silver Ring Thing’.
In both cases the court held that so long as the school was being reasonable, it’s remit would run. So in Begum, it was not discrimination to refuse her entry to the school because there was a perfectly good muslim uniform available. She was just being silly. In the silver ring thing the court very unwisely got all tangled up in ruling on what constituted legitimate Christian expression, but still came down in favour of the school.
In the case at instance, the school offered to let the boys wear a symbol if it was welded in to the case so that it was there but completely unavailable. Contrary to Mota, I reckon the case would be out on the path; what goes for Begum goes for this one.
On the wider issue, I completely agree with you.
12. February 2010 at 11:46 am :
this is a disgusting article and very offensive and should be deleted immediatly.
unlike other religious groups, sikhs actually respect life and needed learn how to master weapons in the past – only 300 yrs ago, when they had to protect their land and religious rights against the invading muslims. the sikh only make up 1% of indias population- so were heavily outnumbered. sikhism is a martial religion-
this measn sikhs have their own martial art, and have only but respect for weapons.
combined with sikh principles – sikhs believe that all humans are equal regardless of race religion and gender, and have shown this through out history.
it is clear that its not weapons that cause harm but the people using them, and in the case of the sikhs, it is clear they are good people who understand this.
im sure no one would object to sikhs having weapons of mass destruction due to their ethical code of conduct.
alot more sensitivity should be shown to sikhs and sikh practices.
ironically- after the british took over india, with the punjab being the last place they invaded- punjab being the home land of the sikhs- the british only allowed sikhs to carry weapons if they worked for the empire.
sikhs were masters of using all weapons in a spritual and religious way for the good of all mankind
in the 70’s it was the courts who decided that sikhs are allowed to wear turbans on motobikes, partly because millions of sikhs went to ww1 and ww2 for the british with out helmets. sikhs earned a reputation of being excellent soldiers of a spritual nature, given that sikhism is a martial religion and rumour has it that a special unit of sikhs assasinated hitler.
regardless of what the sikhs want- it is the courts who decide and take into account all the evidence- currently the law states that weapons are illegal to carry but religious weapons are exempt.
im a sikh and i believe that any citerzern who acts uncivilised or who is not educated about the citerzerns of this country should be thrown out- just as this article states “what are sikhs doing here if they dont follow the rules?” when clearly the law already allows sikhs to be sikhs in the uk and the courts have have the last say.
the sikhs lobby and ask for rights in the proper ways – by the book.
where are the intelligent sophisticated people who remember that it was the british forefathers who invented democracy.
12. February 2010 at 6:00 pm :
I agree with everything you say.
However, what I really want to know is a bit more about this:
“I have cut off thongs”
12. February 2010 at 8:51 pm :
currently the law states that weapons are illegal to carry but religious weapons are exempt.
Where? Statute? Case law? There is no blanket exemption.
What The Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2008 actually says is that where a weapon would ordinarily come within the scope of a charge under s. 141(1) of the Act, it may be a defence
“to show that his conduct was for the purpose only of making the weapon available for the purposes of use in religious ceremonies.”
Even that is only a defence to certain technical charges and must be shown that it is for use in a specific religious ceremony, not general wear. You can spend three weeks arguing about the definition of ceremony, if you like, but the fact that the act stipulated a ceremony rather than religious purposes will be interpreted as what it is – an accepted religious event. Going to school doesn’t count.
The present case isn’t before the courts yet and only a complete nicompoop (but I expect they will find some, Cherie Blair will do anything for money) would try to distinguish this from Begum (which she also lost, but she got paid anyway). It’s a loser.
13. February 2010 at 3:19 pm :
“im sure no one would object to sikhs having weapons of mass destruction due to their ethical code of conduct.”
“sikhs earned a reputation of being excellent soldiers of a spritual nature, given that sikhism is a martial religion and rumour has it that a special unit of sikhs assasinated hitler.”
Can’t decide…brilliant satire or a deranged loon engaged in a piece of all too familiar special pleading…you decide…press your buttons…NOW!
16. February 2010 at 12:10 am :
‘We need less rules.
‘fewer’
We need less rules about grammar 🙂
‘sikhs were masters of using all weapons in a spritual and religious way for the good of all mankind’
Yeah, I’ve seen ‘Mystery Men’ too: Blue Raja uses forks and spoons as well as knives.
16. February 2010 at 5:29 pm :
this is a disgusting article and very offensive and should be deleted immediatly.
You could always complain to the Mods.
Where? Statute? Case law? There is no blanket exemption.
Yeah but you know what WOAR, the BBC seemed to think there was this exemption too. I mean it’s bad enough that there’s a de facto exemption, applied by police and CPS, but it if was written into statute I think I’d shit…
It beggars belief that anyone can even contemplate legislative exemptions for religion, for anything. I mean, if *this*, why not *that*? Why not FGM?
Tossers…
16. February 2010 at 9:17 pm :
And talking of Sikhs…looks like I’ve joined you on Sunny’s banned list.
The man really can’t take criticism.
17. February 2010 at 1:45 pm :
And talking of Sikhs…looks like I’ve joined you on Sunny’s banned list. The man really can’t take criticism.
You know why that is don’t you? He’s a twat.
17. February 2010 at 2:21 pm :
A new post, just for you Shatterface
17. February 2010 at 4:58 pm :
I went to a meeting at the House of Lords the other day, going through the security i realised I was carrying my swiss army knife. they police and security staff were very civilised. Took it from me gave me a property ticket and I collected it after the meeting. nothing else said. They realised I was law abiding citizen obviously.
17. February 2010 at 7:23 pm :
“And talking of Sikhs…looks like I’ve joined you on Sunny’s banned list.
The man really can’t take criticism.”
Why on earth would you even think of posting something like that? Can’t you just get the “I’m a racist, right-wing troll T-shirt” and be done with it?
17. February 2010 at 11:48 pm :
‘You know why that is don’t you? He’s a twat.’
I’m finding monosylabic insults unsatisfying these days so I’m experimenting with using the term ‘bilateral gynandromorphic hermaphroditism’ for those who simultaneously display the properties of a dick and a twat.
26. March 2010 at 7:18 am :
Hey Frank, why don’t you head down to the local Gurdwara and persuade Sikhs to adopt your views?
Oh yes that’s right, you’re an internet warrior!
Sikhs always struggle for their rights, so be prepared.
If integration is the key, then why didn’t your colonial dog ancestors apply the same logic when in India?
31. March 2010 at 10:28 am :
OK, the knfe they carry was apparently introduced so that they would have a means of defending themselves or others if the need arose. The original kirpan was therefore a functional weapon. These days, sikhs are known to carry kirpans which are much shorter-bladed, blunt and even welded into the sheath. All of these things mean that the kirpan is now a symbol, not a functional tool and therefore this demented fool has just lost his argument.
If you accept that a kirpan need not be a functional weapon and is but a symbol, then you can bloody well make do with a symbolic kirpan; something made of soft metal like gold, about an inch long and worn on a chain round the neck would do.
26. December 2010 at 4:11 am :
I’ve met so many two faced sikhs it almost made me join the BNP.
They act like they saved India from the muslims, killed Hitler, Invented the internet, and created the dicimal system all in 500 years. They say this while smoking B&H fags and drinking a pint, and then whisper some nasty shit about the freshy IT guy at work because he’s not a sikh. That judges attitude is no shock to me, these people actually have no morals.
PS count your change after visiting a sikh run newsagent or offy, seriously just do it….you’ll see.
17. February 2011 at 10:01 am :
Frank you are a moron, have you ever wondered ‘why’ sikhs get to wear knives and are not required to wear helmets. It is the British government that allows them to do this why Frank?
25. February 2011 at 10:49 pm :
LOL Frank you have got me in stitches mate, i love hearing from internet warriors such as yourself. You forgot to mention that we invented the wheel, automobiles, tvs, mobile phones etc.
Come on Frank, sort it out son….
2. June 2011 at 11:27 pm :
Frank you are just a racist man sitting behind his computer and discriminating other religions. Why don’t you just accept that the British government has allowed all this. Why can’t you accept other religions. You know that without the Sikh regiment the British wouldn’t have gone far in the war. Hitler himself addressed the Sikhs and tried to get them to fight for Germany.
16. October 2011 at 8:05 am :
Hi,
i thinks it important to stick to the facts. the criminal justice act 1988 allows blades to be exempt for religious reasons.
and the sikhs are covered by this law. it would be very hard for non sikhs to object to this law unless there was a serious threat.
frank does not have any credibility or publications to his name. he is simply a bored guy expressing his views, most of which can actually be used to sue him as evidence,
for that reason i think the entire site should be closed down.
see the following videos
http://youtu.be/EqrkCOOEnB4
http://youtu.be/z-VD_xnVLxw
http://youtu.be/04jIoEmccYA
http://youtu.be/TBwHUU9OfHU
16. October 2011 at 5:59 pm :
i thinks it important to stick to the facts. the criminal justice act 1988 allows blades to be exempt for religious reasons. and the sikhs are covered by this law.
Yes. Those are the facts. And that is entirely wrong.
frank does not have any credibility or publications to his name. he is simply a bored guy expressing his views, most of which can actually be used to sue him as evidence
I have plenty of publications actually, but yes, these are just my views – so what?
or that reason i think the entire site should be closed down.
Er, no. Sorry.