📝 🇬🇧 🇮🇳 Banning the Kirpan: Exploring the nuances of the dilemma | Millennial Woes

We have been told recently that a kirpan is a “small” Sikh ceremonial blade, usually about three inches long. But, looking through the newspaper archives (demonstrated by the photo above), British journalists and Sikhs themselves have historically used the word “kirpan” to refer to blades of many different sizes, so it is not surprising that, even today, nobody seems to be sure what the word actually means, or what exactly we have committed to tolerating on our streets.

Even before being officially legalised in 1988, the kirpan (in all sizes) was almost always tolerated in Britain. Various Sikhs were arrested for carrying one but charges were usually dropped, convictions only happened for long blades and even then not always, and in at least one instance the police actually apologised for the arrest. Interestingly, two of those arrested Sikhs were converts - one White in 1973 and one Black in 1982.

Where it was used in crime, it was only ever against other “Asians”. I found two examples. In Southall in 1983 a street fight occurred between two “Asian” gangs and involved the use of both short and long “kirpans”, among many other types of weapon. Dozens of men were injured. In Kent in 1987, a huge fight broke out inside a Sikh temple between “rival groups of Asians”, some of whom had blades of 75cm in length. Four men were slashed.

But all of these victims were Asian, and the stories would only make local news. Most White British, the broad public, would be oblivious. Perhaps that is how the kirpan could be formally legalised, the very year after that fight in a Sikh temple. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 made it officially legal for Sikhs to carry a ceremonial blade in public. (This was later ratified by the Offensive Weapons Act 2019.)

Thereafter, there was the question of how much to tolerate it. In several cases in the 1990s and 2000s, it caused concern in schools and airports around the country. In every case, the answer found was to tolerate it more. It is remarkable how smooth the trajectory of acceptance has been. Then again, what school would forbid a pupil from carrying one around, when, given the legalisation, that would amount to the school breaking the law?

Though the law stipulates no size limit, there seems to be an assumption in the legal profession that most Sikhs only carry a small blade of about three inches in length. (Although it has to be said, even this could easily kill a man.)

But, as noted, even before this law, Sikhs carried much longer blades than that. Moreover, there is “mission creep”; if a law officially allows small blades, gradually longer blades will be tolerated, since nobody wants to take a non-white to task. I can’t find a single case after 1988 of a Sikh being arrested for carrying a kirpan of any length. Laws are used expansively against Whites, but diminishingly against non-whites. They have ever more leeway, we have ever less.

If we read the actual text of both acts, we see that the exemption is not solely for Sikhs. In fact, Sikhs aren’t even mentioned. It applies to the adherents of any religion which requires the carrying of weapons. But of course, Sikhism is the only such religion. Some strands of modern Paganism and Wiccanism involve an athame, some strands of Buddhism a phurba, but there is no requirement to carry one around so neither qualifies for the legal exemption.

In theory, a bunch of White people could invent a religion which required them to carry swords around, and going by established law the British state would have to tolerate it. In practice, of course, this would never happen. Therefore, in practice what British law provides is a privilege for Sikhs that isn’t, and never would be, enjoyed by anyone else. Natives can only enjoy that privilege if they convert to the foreign religion of Sikhism.

This bizarre situation went on unchecked because very few people had any reason to be aware of it.

https://www.woes.blog/p/banning-the-kirpan

—❗️🇮🇷/🇧🇭 BREAKING: Iran has decided to attack Bahrain again

Explosions are being reported.

@Middle_East_Spectator

—❗️🇮🇷/🇺🇸 Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Kazem Gharibabadi:

‘The U.S. has not merely ‘violated’ the Memorandum of Understanding. With tonight’s action (naval blockade) the MoU has been completely dismantled.

Iran is no longer bound by the MoU.’

@Middle_East_Spectator