>Recently Sharia was rejected in Ontario. So, faith based court proceedings are not OK, but faith based carrying of weapons is?

First, Sharia law was not rejected by the Supreme Court. But there's no doubt in my mind that if it got to the Supreme Court they would say no to it.
Why?... because it is essential that we who live together in a common society (note, this allows natives to have their own, for their common societies) have to have one set of rules and one set of punishments to work with. Rules can have exceptions (few don't have exceptions except 'everybody plays the fool. there's no exception to this rule' < s >) and in this case knives are not allowed in school unless in the hands of a Sikh student.

So, yes, faith-based knife carrying by Sikhs is allowed and faith-based judiciary is not.
You should be aware that the Supreme Court here has, on rare occasions, ruled that something did violate certain protections of the Constitution yet were acceptable anyway "for the greater good". In other words, I'm confident they considered even that option and went with legality anyway.

The Constitution gives us all the right to be different, not the need for all of us to be the same. The Supreme Court puts the brakes on some things but, thankfully, not many.



>
>>When I was in high school oh so very long ago a fellow pulled a knife on 3 of us.
>>Before you could blink we jumped him and got hold of the knife with no damage done.
>>We dropped the knife down a sewer.
>>End of story.
>>
>>The Supreme Court is not "dictating" anything that is not in OUR Constitution. That some of us, including me, finds distaste in some of their rulings does not mean their rulings are wrong.
>>
>>
>>>I agree with you Alan. These are teenagers we're talking about. What's to stop one of the non-sikhs from grabbing the dagger. If even one child is harmed it's too much.
>>>
>>>The supreme court is composed of a tiny insignificant fragment of the population. It's high time the stop dictating to the rest of us.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060302/india_nm/india239031
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesn't this ruling open up a lot of "questions"?
>>>>
>>>>we went through exactly the same arguments etc a number of years ago in Ontario, and with the same result. Kirpans are allowed beause they are required by the religion, and religion must be respected above all else.
>>>>
>>>>My take? It's a knife and should not be allowed. But then, you know me; I have little respect for the delusions of religion.
>>>>
>>>>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'.
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>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.