Kirpan Daggers on Planes

Forums › Off topic › Kirpan Daggers on Planes

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#1260856 17-Mar-2015 11:02

I just don't get it.

Why do people get a free pass on laws just because their made-up religion is against it? And why is it only major religions that get this free pass? Are they somehow more sane than minor religions? Not really, they all seem equally crazy to me.

I mean, if some random claimed voices in their head told them to carry deadly weapons at all times, we would probably consider preventative detention and/or psychiatric care, and we certainly wouldn't get the PM weighing in and saying he should be allowed to exercise his religious freedom. this is fundamentally no different from what Sikhs are claiming, except there are more of them and it was written down a few hundred years ago.

Reminds me of the scene from Holy Grail:

"if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

Inphinity

2780 posts

Uber Geek

#1260876 17-Mar-2015 11:10

I'm torn. On one hand, it makes perfect sense to let a group with some emotional and psychological stability issues wander around freely with weapons when noone else is allowed to. On the other, no it damn well doesn't. Perhaps we should consult the Flying Spaghetti Monster's wisdom on how to proceed.

Handsomedan

7281 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1260881 17-Mar-2015 11:15

It's an interesting debate...on one hand, we have to allow the weak to enjoy the freedom of their religious views.
On the other hand we must protect the majority against themselves.

Personally, I am against any person carrying a weapon, ceremonial or not.
I am also against rules allowing religious freedom to dictate that some people can enter a bank fully covered from top to toe, whilst others (the vast majority) must remove sunglasses and motorcylce helmets.

Think for a moment what the various ruling parties of the religious-sect-owning-countries are like, when asked to accede to the wishes of a minority...i.e. me and you.
No - I cannot allow my wife to hold my hand or show her knees or whatever - so out of respect, we cover her and refrain from showing affection and so on and so forth...why do we not impose our "beliefs" on visitors to these shores?
Because we have a weak-willed constitiution that panders to the minorities - regardless of race, religion, etc. Just look at how powerful the cultist Brian Tamaki is likely to become, after his holy city is built...scary.

Take their knives off them - subject them to the same laws the rest of us have to follow and be done with it.

One rule for one, one rule for all.

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1260896 17-Mar-2015 11:24

NonprayingMantis: I just don't get it.

Why do people get a free pass on laws just because their made-up religion is against it? And why is it only major religions that get this free pass? Are they somehow more sane than minor religions? Not really, they all seem equally crazy to me.

I mean, if some random claimed voices in their head told them to carry deadly weapons at all times, we would probably consider preventative detention and/or psychiatric care, and we certainly wouldn't get the PM weighing in and saying he should be allowed to exercise his religious freedom. this is fundamentally no different from what Sikhs are claiming, except there are more of them and it was written down a few hundred years ago.

Reminds me of the scene from Holy Grail:

"if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away."

Because humans cannot make their mind up.

On the one hand, we seem to allow gods to put daggers on planes. On the other, we jail people for murder if their god told them to do it. Given the former, in the latter case that should be a 100% cast iron defence....

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1260899 17-Mar-2015 11:30

Handsomedan: It's an interesting debate...on one hand, we have to allow the weak to enjoy the freedom of their religious views.
On the other hand we must protect the majority against themselves.

Personally, I am against any person carrying a weapon, ceremonial or not.
I am also against rules allowing religious freedom to dictate that some people can enter a bank fully covered from top to toe, whilst others (the vast majority) must remove sunglasses and motorcylce helmets.

Think for a moment what the various ruling parties of the religious-sect-owning-countries are like, when asked to accede to the wishes of a minority...i.e. me and you.
No - I cannot allow my wife to hold my hand or show her knees or whatever - so out of respect, we cover her and refrain from showing affection and so on and so forth...why do we not impose our "beliefs" on visitors to these shores?
Because we have a weak-willed constitiution that panders to the minorities - regardless of race, religion, etc. Just look at how powerful the cultist Brian Tamaki is likely to become, after his holy city is built...scary.

Take their knives off them - subject them to the same laws the rest of us have to follow and be done with it.

One rule for one, one rule for all.

Lots of people including those in authority and position of law and justice are against many things, doesn't stop people with criminal intent though just doing whatever the hell they want.

I guess in that sense im a bit hypocrytical as I am the first person to call for law changes that allow for trained and authorized civilians to carry a weapon for self defence. Yet the idea of Sikhs carrying daggers bothers me.

At the end of the day its about very stringent background checks and controls to make sure only the right people are afforded such a privilege, if that means getting a colonoscopy at the local police station once every 6 months then so be it, I do however think religion (especially religion tied to extremist actions) should not be something that gets a free pass into the realm of carrying weapons routinely.

If anything self defence should trump ceremonial or religious reasons, but again, strictly controlled and enforced.

ObidiahSlope

260 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1260915 17-Mar-2015 11:45

It is all a farce, security theatre.

Nothing illustrates this better than the former Minister of Transport failing to take it seriously.

Obsequious hypocrite

cokeman2

919 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1260917 17-Mar-2015 11:50

if anyone bothered to read up on the sikh religion (which i care none did ) they would understand why they carry the scared sword around its not a ornament as sum of you think.

just because the Sikhs been carrying swords(kirpan) around for hundreds of years , we think sikhs are a nut case now will harm people cause they carrying the kirpan around.

PC gone mad yet again

Social Bitcoin meetup every 2 weeks in Hamilton PM me for details

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

khull

1245 posts

Uber Geek

#1260939 17-Mar-2015 11:55

Political correctness gone mad? Next you'll have people bringing in lightsabers and pitchforks on board.

Shows how much NZ is in bed with the US trying to align with the 2nd amendment of the US constitution

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1260946 17-Mar-2015 12:00

cokeman2: if anyone bothered to read up on the sikh religion (which i care none did ) they would understand why they carry the scared sword around its not a ornament as sum of you think.

just because the Sikhs been carrying swords(kirpan) around for hundreds of years , we think sikhs are a nut case now will harm people cause they carrying the kirpan around.

PC gone mad yet again

People have been carrying firearms around for hundreds of years and look at all the rules and hoops those people have to jump though. If i'm a licenced pistol holder and cant carry my Glock around for self protection (even at home) then why should someone on the basis of religion (and a pretty violent religion at that) be allowed to carry knives ?

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1260948 17-Mar-2015 12:04

khull: Political correctness gone mad? Next you'll have people bringing in lightsabers and pitchforks on board.

Shows how much NZ is in bed with the US trying to align with the 2nd amendment of the US constitution

Actually you'll find NZ is the opposite, more in line with UN agenda to disarm all civilian populations and instill their own armed militarized police force, hell we even have a government slush fund for it paid for by the Rainbow Warrior reparation (Peace & Disarmament Trust)...which rewards and funds NGOs to spread UN lies and agenda.

khull

1245 posts

Uber Geek

#1260949 17-Mar-2015 12:05

heylinb4nz:
cokeman2: if anyone bothered to read up on the sikh religion (which i care none did ) they would understand why they carry the scared sword around its not a ornament as sum of you think.

just because the Sikhs been carrying swords(kirpan) around for hundreds of years , we think sikhs are a nut case now will harm people cause they carrying the kirpan around.

PC gone mad yet again

People have been carrying firearms around for hundreds of years and look at all the rules and hoops those people have to jump though. If i'm a licenced pistol holder and cant carry my Glock around for self protection (even at home) then why should someone on the basis of religion (and a pretty violent religion at that) be allowed to carry knives ?

Because people of faith have no need to justify themselves on the basis of religion and if you question their belief you'd be seen as a lunatic ?

Where people of science are applied a different set of rules and rigor ?

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1260954 17-Mar-2015 12:12

cokeman2: if anyone bothered to read up on the sikh religion (which i care none did ) they would understand why they carry the scared sword around its not a ornament as sum of you think.

just because the Sikhs been carrying swords(kirpan) around for hundreds of years , we think sikhs are a nut case now will harm people cause they carrying the kirpan around.

PC gone mad yet again

My ancestors carried swords and longbows around for thousands of years. Does that mean I now can?

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1260963 17-Mar-2015 12:21

heylinb4nz:
cokeman2: if anyone bothered to read up on the sikh religion (which i care none did ) they would understand why they carry the scared sword around its not a ornament as sum of you think.

just because the Sikhs been carrying swords(kirpan) around for hundreds of years , we think sikhs are a nut case now will harm people cause they carrying the kirpan around.

PC gone mad yet again

People have been carrying firearms around for hundreds of years and look at all the rules and hoops those people have to jump though. If i'm a licenced pistol holder and cant carry my Glock around for self protection (even at home) then why should someone on the basis of religion (and a pretty violent religion at that) be allowed to carry knives ?

I'm not sure if it has ever been tested in a court but in theory it is only an offence under the Arms Act to carry a pistol beyond the curtilage of your dwelling house. For example, S51 of the Arms Act makes it an offence to carry a firearm in a public place. Your house is not a public place.S36 states "No person shall carry a pistol or restricted weapon in any place beyond the curtilage of his dwelling, save under and in accordance with the conditions endorsed on his firearms licence by a member of the Police."

By implication, then, you may carry it within the curtilage of your dwelling.....

From Wikipedia

"In law, the curtilage of a house or dwelling is the land immediately surrounding it, including any closely associated buildings and structures, but excluding any associated "open fields beyond", and also excluding any closely associated buildings, structures, or divisions that contain the separate intimate activities of its own respective occupants with those occupying residents being persons other than those residents of the house or dwelling of which the building is associated"

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1260980 17-Mar-2015 12:35

I don't believe these should be allowed for two reason. Firstly, as we should respect their rules and traditions visiting their countries they should follow our rules and traditions when visiting here, secondly I there should be a blanket ban on civilians carrying offensive weapons. I also believe there should a move to the general disarmament of civilians but that's a different subject.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1260982 17-Mar-2015 12:38

KiwiNZ: I don't believe these should be allowed for two reason. Firstly, as we should respect their rules and traditions visiting their countries they should follow our rules and traditions when visiting here, secondly I there should be a blanket ban on civilians carrying offensive weapons. I also believe there should a move to the general disarmament of civilians but that's a different subject.

I take the opposite view - if they can, so can we...

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7