Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
glorybebe

man denied courthouse entry -wearing kirpan

83 posts in this topic

A Sikh man says his religious Charter rights were violated when he was not allowed to take his ceremonial dagger into the Calgary courthouse.

Tejinder Sidhu, 25, was summoned to court by subpoena to testify as a witness to a fatal car accident Monday.

Sidhu was stopped at the airport-style security screening, which greets all visitors to the Calgary Courts Centre that opened last fall. An Alberta sheriff told him he would have to leave his kirpan at security or he couldn't enter the building.

'I don't feel that I should be asked to remove it — especially being a witness to a case.'

— Tejinder SidhuBaptized orthodox Sikh men carry the small ceremonial dagger under their clothes as a symbol of their religious beliefs.

Sidhu offered to be escorted in to testify if he could keep his kirpan, but that was rejected.

"I don't feel that I should be asked to remove it — especially being a witness to a case — I'm being basically denied my civil duty or my civil right … to testify in court," Sidhu told CBC News.

A Sikh man says his religious Charter rights were violated when he was not allowed to take his ceremonial dagger into the Calgary courthouse.

Tejinder Sidhu, 25, was summoned to court by subpoena to testify as a witness to a fatal car accident Monday.

Sidhu was stopped at the airport-style security screening, which greets all visitors to the Calgary Courts Centre that opened last fall. An Alberta sheriff told him he would have to leave his kirpan at security or he couldn't enter the building.

'I don't feel that I should be asked to remove it — especially being a witness to a case.'

— Tejinder SidhuBaptized orthodox Sikh men carry the small ceremonial dagger under their clothes as a symbol of their religious beliefs.

Sidhu offered to be escorted in to testify if he could keep his kirpan, but that was rejected.

"I don't feel that I should be asked to remove it — especially being a witness to a case — I'm being basically denied my civil duty or my civil right … to testify in court," Sidhu told CBC News.

Continue Article

"So after basically debating for about five, 10 minutes, basically, I just left the courthouse and was unable to fulfill my civic right or my civic duty."

Sidhu said he asked the officer to pass on to the judge that he wanted to testify but couldn't get in because of the security requirement.

Andy Weiler, spokesman for the Alberta solicitor general's office, which oversees courthouse security, said kirpans are on the list of items banned from Alberta courthouses.

But Weiler said the department will review the incident and examine how other jurisdictions in Canada handle the issue.

more

A knife is a knife is a knife. I don't think they should be allowed to wear these things. If it goes against the laws set before you move to our country, then you should respect our laws. Besides, what if someone else grabbed it and used it for against either the wearer or another person?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same could happen to a police man. He asked to be escorted, that's a reasonable compromise. Good to see bureucracy at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same could happen to a police man. He asked to be escorted, that's a reasonable compromise. Good to see bureucracy at work.

It is agianst the law, the policeman was following the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should have recognised that his personal beliefs do not make him above the law. The 'law' in this sense was reasonable. He is an auberginic buffoon in my opinion.

Meow Purr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Change the law.

Change the law so a .001% of the population can bring a weapon into a courtroom? That makes more sense than this idiot putting aside his knife to be held in safekeeping and returned after his deposition? Sorry, that makes no sense. He should be arrested for violating his subpoena.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Change the law so a .001% of the population can bring a weapon into a courtroom? That makes more sense than this idiot putting aside his knife to be held in safekeeping and returned after his deposition? Sorry, that makes no sense. He should be arrested for violating his subpoena.

I lived around a large Sikh community. They wore their beautiful clothes and were really, really nice people. I really liked everyone I met. And not one of them wore their daggers out of respect for the community. I don't like the idea of ANYONE wearing a dagger, have you seen the size of those things? Granted, they are beautiful and really interesting to look at, but I don't want to see anyone with a weapon on them but the police.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Change the law so a .001% of the population can bring a weapon into a courtroom? That makes more sense than this idiot putting aside his knife to be held in safekeeping and returned after his deposition? Sorry, that makes no sense. He should be arrested for violating his subpoena.

You're ****ing kidding, right? Don't call someone to be a witness if you won't let him into the courtroom. Are you seriously gonna arrest him for that?

There's a perfectly reasonable middle ground here, if that doesn't make sense to you, you're uncapable of basic logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're ****ing kidding, right? Don't call someone to be a witness if you won't let him into the courtroom. Are you seriously gonna arrest him for that?

There's a perfectly reasonable middle ground here, if that doesn't make sense to you, you're uncapable of basic logic.

What? He would be allowed in the courtroom if he would simply not insist on bringing an illegal weapon in. That's the simple and basic logic. There is no middle ground nor should there be. It is him making it impossible for himself not to enter, not the other way around, hence he's not fufilling his civic duty. They gave him a completely reasonable option. They'd hold the knife for him until he is done. That's reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhh, no it isn't. Giving up that knife may not be much to you, but it may be much to him, and it obviously is. Instead they could have easily escorted him in there, and yet they didn't. Sure it's law, but that's obviously a reason why that law is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh, no it isn't. Giving up that knife may not be much to you, but it may be much to him, and it obviously is. Instead they could have easily escorted him in there, and yet they didn't. Sure it's law, but that's obviously a reason why that law is flawed.

Just a question, SnakeProphet, are you Sikh? If you are, could you give us more in depth info as to the ideology to the kirpan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the law for good reason. He needs to figure out for himself which is more important. Obeying the law, or his dagger. If his dagger is more important to him than the laws of the country he resides, then he has no business being there and needs to return home.

One cannot superimpose their indiginous customs and laws on a host country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the law for good reason. He needs to figure out for himself which is more important. Obeying the law, or his dagger. If his dagger is more important to him than the laws of the country he resides, then he has no business being there and needs to return home.

One cannot superimpose their indiginous customs and laws on a host country.

Anyone with common sense could figure that out. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyone with common sense could figure that out. :rolleyes:

You would think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh, no it isn't. Giving up that knife may not be much to you, but it may be much to him, and it obviously is. Instead they could have easily escorted him in there, and yet they didn't. Sure it's law, but that's obviously a reason why that law is flawed.

It doesn't matter what it means to him. We can't make laws for every little belief out there and extra manpower shouldn't be diverted to escort him so this guy can testify in a case. Nobody is telling him what he can wear or do in his private life but a federal building is a federal building. Nobody else would be allowed to wear a knife an nor should he. It's that simple. Being of some religion doesn't and shouldn't give you rights nobody else has. If he doesn't like it he can go to a country where it's not a problem.

It's the law for good reason. He needs to figure out for himself which is more important. Obeying the law, or his dagger. If his dagger is more important to him than the laws of the country he resides, then he has no business being there and needs to return home.

One cannot superimpose their indiginous customs and laws on a host country.

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's the law for good reason. He needs to figure out for himself which is more important. Obeying the law, or his dagger. If his dagger is more important to him than the laws of the country he resides, then he has no business being there and needs to return home.

One cannot superimpose their indiginous customs and laws on a host country.

I agree! And i,m sure there are times when they remove the knife, as i,m pretty sure they wouldn,t wear it to bathe or go to bed etc... So removing it to go into a court of law should be concidered an acceptable time to remove it also! It,s not like anyone asked him to remove it out of disrespect, only asked in order to respect our laws! If we want to live togeather then we all need to give and take a bit, with respect to eachother of course!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that he should understand the laws regarding objects that could be considered weapons being in court rooms. Is his ceremonial knife more important than upholding the integrety of the situation. No one is saying he would use it in a violent way, but this is a case where someone died and probably some heft manslaughter charge is on the line and having a knife in the vacinity of a desperate person is not smart. That is why they also don't allow glass in the courtroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uhh, no it isn't. Giving up that knife may not be much to you, but it may be much to him, and it obviously is. Instead they could have easily escorted him in there, and yet they didn't. Sure it's law, but that's obviously a reason why that law is flawed.

Hmmmm. Is it as flawed as the law that doesn't allow him to carry his kirpan on Airplanes, too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree! And i,m sure there are times when they remove the knife, as i,m pretty sure they wouldn,t wear it to bathe or go to bed etc... So removing it to go into a court of law should be concidered an acceptable time to remove it also! It,s not like anyone asked him to remove it out of disrespect, only asked in order to respect our laws! If we want to live togeather then we all need to give and take a bit, with respect to eachother of course!

Exactly, great post, SWTP!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a question, SnakeProphet, are you Sikh? If you are, could you give us more in depth info as to the ideology to the kirpan?

No, I'm not. The kirpan is a symbol of your duty to protect and stand up for people in need.

It's the law for good reason. He needs to figure out for himself which is more important. Obeying the law, or his dagger. If his dagger is more important to him than the laws of the country he resides, then he has no business being there and needs to return home.

You think laws are infallible? If a law doesn't cut it, you make a new one, laws aren't sacrosanct.

One cannot superimpose their indiginous customs and laws on a host country.

And this is exactly what this isn't about, but I guess that doesn't concern your xenophobic attitude. You're trying to fit this into a profile here, but it doesn't work that way. I don't see any mention of him being an immigrant, yet you just assumed he is. Just spit it out already, I tire of people walking on egg-shells, to soothe their own conscience.

It doesn't matter what it means to him. We can't make laws for every little belief out there and extra manpower shouldn't be diverted to escort him so this guy can testify in a case. Nobody is telling him what he can wear or do in his private life but a federal building is a federal building. Nobody else would be allowed to wear a knife an nor should he. It's that simple. Being of some religion doesn't and shouldn't give you rights nobody else has. If he doesn't like it he can go to a country where it's not a problem.

Or he can stay there and work towards a law that allows him to fulfill his duty as a citizen of that country. Ever heard of something called equality? Just because he's in a minority, doesn't mean you can simply disregard what he has to say.

I doubt there'd be any extra manpower necessary.

Hmmmm. Is it as flawed as the law that doesn't allow him to carry his kirpan on Airplanes, too?

And where do you think is that law flawed? How am I supposed to answer that question, if you don't specify, what exactly you're talking about here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or he can stay there and work towards a law that allows him to fulfill his duty as a citizen of that country. Ever heard of something called equality? Just because he's in a minority, doesn't mean you can simply disregard what he has to say.

I doubt there'd be any extra manpower necessary.

Equality is not making exception for every individual it is making laws that apply equally to everybody, race, religion or anything else not withstanding. The law would be discriminitory if one portion of the population was able to bring weapons into a courtroom while the rest wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Equality is not making exception for every individual it is making laws that apply equally to everybody, race, religion or anything else not withstanding. The law would be discriminitory if one portion of the population was able to bring weapons into a courtroom while the rest wasn't.

Well, that is a huge consideration-where do you draw the line? just because it is your religious or cultural belief does not make it OK. Other wise infanticide would be rampant because of the attitude that only male children count ( with some cultures)....Oh, the laws would be in total chaos, it would be horrible! We need to have laws that work for the majority of people. And the people who move here, from any country need to know the laws and respect them, otherwise, immigrate elsewhere. When my grandparents came here, they had to learn English, and work very very hard to support their children. They didn't think the country should change just for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that is a huge consideration-where do you draw the line? just because it is your religious or cultural belief does not make it OK. Other wise infanticide would be rampant because of the attitude that only male children count ( with some cultures)....Oh, the laws would be in total chaos, it would be horrible! We need to have laws that work for the majority of people. And the people who move here, from any country need to know the laws and respect them, otherwise, immigrate elsewhere. When my grandparents came here, they had to learn English, and work very very hard to support their children. They didn't think the country should change just for them.

I agree. That's what I was saying. I was just using a counter point to try to display that it isn't being discriminitory not letting this guy into a courtroom with a knife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Equality is not making exception for every individual it is making laws that apply equally to everybody, race, religion or anything else not withstanding. The law would be discriminitory if one portion of the population was able to bring weapons into a courtroom while the rest wasn't.

And? What does that have to do with anything? I don't think anyone cares what equality doesn't mean. What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And? What does that have to do with anything? I don't think anyone cares what equality doesn't mean. What's your point?

You asked me if I ever heard of equality. The better question then would be, what was your point, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.