In the name of Freedom Of Religion…

KatherineMW says:

Canada has had this for a while: http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2011-60-e.htm#a7

Kirpans have been specifically allowed in schools by the Supreme Court of Canada. In Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 31 the Supreme Court overturned a school board’s prohibition on kirpans as part of the board’s broader policy on weapons, holding that such a prohibition infringed the student’s freedom of religion in a way that could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter. Although the prohibition was motivated by the objective of ensuring a reasonable level of safety at school, the court held that options were available that would have less impact on the student’s freedom of religion, such as allowing the student to wear the kirpan under restrictions that would have ensured that it was carefully sealed within his clothing. The court noted that there was no evidence of violent incidents related to kirpans in schools across Canada, and other objects such as scissors and baseball bats could be much more easily obtained by any student with violent intentions.

Despite some evidence of resistance among the Quebec public,32 this case nonetheless seemed to reflect the reality of compromise with respect to kirpans that already existed in school boards across Canada. Courts in British Columbia and Ontario had already specifically upheld similar policies.33 Using similar reasoning, the British Columbia Court of Appeal also upheld the right to wear a kirpan in a hospital in British Columbia (Worker’s Compensation Board) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)34 under (then) section 3 of the British Columbia Human Rights Code35 prohibiting discrimination in the provision of accommodation and services.

As a matter of policy, Sikh members of Parliament are entitled to wear the kirpan to the Canadian House of Commons, and visitors may wear the kirpan in the public gallery. However, in this respect, Quebec legislators have, in the past, adopted a different approach to their federal counterparts. In early 2011, a Sikh delegation seeking to testify on Quebec’s reasonable accommodation bill was denied entry to the National Assembly when its members refused to remove their kirpans.

Nevertheless, where safety is of real concern, it is clear that kirpans are prohibited despite provincial or federal laws protecting freedom of religion. For example, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has held that prohibiting kirpans during air travel is legitimate for the protection of passengers and staff. 36 Similarly, in order to protect personal security, public order and the administration of justice, the Manitoba Court of Appeal upheld the right of a judge to bar kirpans from the courtroom in R. v. Hothi et al. 37 While the court acknowledged that the kirpan was a religious symbol and not a weapon, it based its decision on the authority of a judge to maintain control of his or her courtroom. This authority has traditionally encompassed the right to ensure that there are no weapons whatsoever in the courtroom, as the presence of a weapon could thwart the process of justice by being perceived as an adverse influence. Nevertheless, individuals involved in the Multani case were permitted to wear the kirpan during the hearing before the Supreme Court.

My gut reactions is that invoking freedom of religion to allow weapons in places where weapons are not otherwise permitted is taking “reasonable accommodation” rather too far. I would prefer Sikh people in places where weapons are disallowing being allowed to carry something that looks like a kirpan but is very blunt and doesn’t function as a knife. Even if 100% of the people carrying the knives would never use them against another person, there’s still the possibility of someone else taking the knife away from them and using it violently.

However, I am not aware of a single case, since the 2006 Supreme Court ruling, where such accommodation has resulted in the kirpan being used for violence, so I don’t have an evidentiary basis for my gut-level sense that the law unduly privileges religious freedom over safety. Going by Canada’s experience, Washington students will not be any less safe because of this law.Report