>>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.

A kirpan is not necessarily a real knife. It is likely to be a small piece of metal representing a sword, but smaller than a letter opener. Does the new ruling actually say that a Sikh can carry a foot-long dagger in school?