Kirpan Daggers on Planes

Forums › Off topic › Kirpan Daggers on Planes

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

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1261651 18-Mar-2015 13:25

KiwiNZ:
Geektastic:

What sort of sharpness test do you propose for knives to determine whether they can be allowed on board or not?

Simple if it can cut paper then it's not allowed. I struggle to find a logical reason why anyone would need to carry a knife onto an aircraft. The rules are well known if it is vital you take it with you either courier it to your destination as I have done or put it in the stowed luggage.

Would we then need to ban the carrying of whetstones or mini ceramic sharpeners (both not triggerable by metal detector) so people wont resharpen them onboard ? What about a stab test ? it may not cut paper, but it can certainly puncture things.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1261655 18-Mar-2015 13:28

frankv:
KiwiNZ: If these are allowed then we will see clowns claiming their bongs are religious symbols as are knuckle dusters, guns etc. A blanket prohibition makes administration easier and removes to an extent grounds for accusations of discrimination against any particular group.

The benchmark for laws shouldn't be whether they are easy to administer.

Hear hear !!!!!.

Although I hate to break it to KiwiNZ that the nature of certain blanket prohibitions do in fact discriminate people.

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 555

#1261686 18-Mar-2015 13:40

heylinb4nz:

Although I hate to break it to KiwiNZ that the nature of certain blanket prohibitions do in fact discriminate people.

I don't think "descriminate" is the correct word there ... "impacts" fits better. If the ban was worded like this "Sikhs may not carry Kirpan daggers on aircraft" then that would be discrimination, if there is a blanket ban on saying "no-one shall carry a dagger on aircraft" then that just impacts Sikhs, it doesn't discriminate against them.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1261705 18-Mar-2015 14:08

heylinb4nz:
frankv:
KiwiNZ: If these are allowed then we will see clowns claiming their bongs are religious symbols as are knuckle dusters, guns etc. A blanket prohibition makes administration easier and removes to an extent grounds for accusations of discrimination against any particular group.

The benchmark for laws shouldn't be whether they are easy to administer.

Hear hear !!!!!.

Although I hate to break it to KiwiNZ that the nature of certain blanket prohibitions do in fact discriminate people.

People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1261712 18-Mar-2015 14:17

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:
frankv:
KiwiNZ: If these are allowed then we will see clowns claiming their bongs are religious symbols as are knuckle dusters, guns etc. A blanket prohibition makes administration easier and removes to an extent grounds for accusations of discrimination against any particular group.

The benchmark for laws shouldn't be whether they are easy to administer.

Hear hear !!!!!.

Although I hate to break it to KiwiNZ that the nature of certain blanket prohibitions do in fact discriminate people.

People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Except when clauses like"This act shall not bind the crown" or "Except government employees in the course of their duties" are inserted then it does in fact discriminate between tax paying public and the powers that be. Note: I have had plenty of dealings with the like of Governor General, Ministry of Justice, Tribunals system and MPs directly, and even when the law is clear, they try to exempt themselves from having to act.

While individual sections of the public are not discriminated against, the government does love to discriminate the public as a whole.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1261717 18-Mar-2015 14:21

heylinb4nz:

Except when clauses like"This act shall not bind the crown" or "Except government employees in the course of their duties" are inserted then it does in fact discriminate between tax paying public and the powers that be. Note: I have had plenty of dealings with the like of Governor General, Ministry of Justice, Tribunals system and MPs directly, and even when the law is clear, they try to exempt themselves from having to act.

While individual sections of the public are not discriminated against, the government does love to discriminate the public as a whole.

That is ridiculous, of course there are exemptions like that to allow the Police to carry arms etc or to carry out their duties. I accept you have a hatred for authority but how on earth could the AOS carry out its duties if they could not carry arms in public etc.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1261740 18-Mar-2015 14:48

KiwiNZ:
People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Only repression. A forced conformity to the lowest common denominator of existence, hopefully as defined by the beige majority, but more likely by the power elite.

If a law says "Thou shalt not wear a turban" and I don't ever want to wear a turban, then it doesn't impact me. It only impacts those who want/need to wear a turban... i.e. Sikhs. A culturally-insensitive law is by its very nature discriminatory.

heylinb4nz

656 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 141
Inactive user

#1261752 18-Mar-2015 15:01

KiwiNZ:
heylinb4nz:

Except when clauses like"This act shall not bind the crown" or "Except government employees in the course of their duties" are inserted then it does in fact discriminate between tax paying public and the powers that be. Note: I have had plenty of dealings with the like of Governor General, Ministry of Justice, Tribunals system and MPs directly, and even when the law is clear, they try to exempt themselves from having to act.

While individual sections of the public are not discriminated against, the government does love to discriminate the public as a whole.

That is ridiculous, of course there are exemptions like that to allow the Police to carry arms etc or to carry out their duties. I accept you have a hatred for authority but how on earth could the AOS carry out its duties if they could not carry arms in public etc.

I have a hatred for authority when its abused or unduly encroaches on the rights of law abiding tax paying citizens, and our existing government (and their employed goons) and those before them have a ripe history of such deeds.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1261756 18-Mar-2015 15:04

frankv:
KiwiNZ:
People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Only repression. A forced conformity to the lowest common denominator of existence, hopefully as defined by the beige majority, but more likely by the power elite.

If a law says "Thou shalt not wear a turban" and I don't ever want to wear a turban, then it doesn't impact me. It only impacts those who want/need to wear a turban... i.e. Sikhs. A culturally-insensitive law is by its very nature discriminatory.

The banning of turbans would be a quantum leap from the banning of dangerous weapons etc.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1261843 18-Mar-2015 17:07

Mark:
heylinb4nz:

Although I hate to break it to KiwiNZ that the nature of certain blanket prohibitions do in fact discriminate people.

I don't think "descriminate" is the correct word there ... "impacts" fits better. If the ban was worded like this "Sikhs may not carry Kirpan daggers on aircraft" then that would be discrimination, if there is a blanket ban on saying "no-one shall carry a dagger on aircraft" then that just impacts Sikhs, it doesn't discriminate against them.

I don't think 'descriminate' is the right word anywhere...!

Geektastic

18009 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8465

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1261844 18-Mar-2015 17:09

KiwiNZ:
frankv:
KiwiNZ:
People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Only repression. A forced conformity to the lowest common denominator of existence, hopefully as defined by the beige majority, but more likely by the power elite.

If a law says "Thou shalt not wear a turban" and I don't ever want to wear a turban, then it doesn't impact me. It only impacts those who want/need to wear a turban... i.e. Sikhs. A culturally-insensitive law is by its very nature discriminatory.

The banning of turbans would be a quantum leap from the banning of dangerous weapons etc.

Maybe. Although the French might not see it that way....they had no trouble banning muslim face coverings, for example. They are unlikely to be indulging in too much liberal lefty hand wringing over banning turbans if they decided they wanted to.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1261846 18-Mar-2015 17:11

heylinb4nz:

I have a hatred for authority when its abused or unduly encroaches on the rights of law abiding tax paying citizens, and our existing government (and their employed goons) and those before them have a ripe history of such deeds.

Any genuine examples?

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1261848 18-Mar-2015 17:14

Geektastic:
KiwiNZ:
frankv:
KiwiNZ:
People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Only repression. A forced conformity to the lowest common denominator of existence, hopefully as defined by the beige majority, but more likely by the power elite.

If a law says "Thou shalt not wear a turban" and I don't ever want to wear a turban, then it doesn't impact me. It only impacts those who want/need to wear a turban... i.e. Sikhs. A culturally-insensitive law is by its very nature discriminatory.

The banning of turbans would be a quantum leap from the banning of dangerous weapons etc.

Maybe. Although the French might not see it that way....they had no trouble banning muslim face coverings, for example. They are unlikely to be indulging in too much liberal lefty hand wringing over banning turbans if they decided they wanted to.

The French decision regarding the Burqa was disgraceful

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

Mark

1653 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 555

#1261859 18-Mar-2015 17:31

KiwiNZ:

The French decision regarding the Burqa was disgraceful

It's not just a "burqa ban", there is a ban in place for a public display of pretty much all religious symbols, and it's been in France for a century or so ... brain is rusty here but I think its called "lacite" (will have to go google it). So yes a woman in a burqa can get stopped, but then so can a jew with a star of david on display or a christian with a big old crucifix.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1261867 18-Mar-2015 17:59

frankv:
KiwiNZ:
People can try and claim discrimination however if a law has blanket coverage there no discrimination.

Only repression. A forced conformity to the lowest common denominator of existence, hopefully as defined by the beige majority, but more likely by the power elite.

If a law says "Thou shalt not wear a turban" and I don't ever want to wear a turban, then it doesn't impact me. It only impacts those who want/need to wear a turban... i.e. Sikhs. A culturally-insensitive law is by its very nature discriminatory.

There are already exemptions, for example employment a Church CAN limit their choice of minister to one who shares their particular flavour of belief. Women clothing outlets can discriminate against men. You can discriminate on the basis of language skills, i.e. a 111 operator who is unable to speak english.

I think that common sense justifiable exemptions are acceptable.

The no knife/weapons/etc on planes IS common sense and is in no way discriminatory.

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