>When the laws of culture 'b' are in clash with an incoming culture 'a', then the laws of culture 'b' should take precedence. And I don't much care which culture is 'a' and which is 'b'.

Exactly. I'm not trying to enforce Serbian style barbecue upon anyone here (because that'd be the end of King of the Hill if I had any success - gas barbecue is an oxymoron in my language).

If foreigners of female persuasion are forced to cover their heads in Muslim countries, likewise I'd expect them to accept that some pieces of garment may be banned, with equal rights, in other countries. Which would include anything weapon-like.

>In this case, Canadian laws (which bar the carrying of knives by students) represent culture 'b'.
>
>I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about traditions here, only laws. When the mounties fought the 'big fight' to force Sikh officers to wear traditional mountie hats thus barring them from wearing their religious headgear when on duty, I thought they were being ridiculous. I mean, for crying out loud, they were arguing over a damn hat. That was just a tradition thing that meant little or nothing in the scheme of things.

But you're wrong. Once you want to wear an uniform, it's of unified form for everybody who wears it, that's the point. Want to show your individuality? Well then don't go for a job where you have to wear one. Uniform, by definition, erases personality, and any differences between those who wear it.

>This, however, is about allowing some students to carry knives, while barring others from doing the same, and the thought of allowing all students to carry them in the interest of fairness is too stupid to contemplate.

Indeed.