Sikhism:
Conflict over carrying a ceremonial knife

Sponsored link.

Overview:

About 10% of the estimated quarter million Sikhs in Canada are orthodox and follow "the five Ks" -- clothing practices which include the wearing of a ceremonial knife, called a kirpan. Gurbaj Singh, 12, was one. ₃ A school in Montreal, Quebec, Canada prohibited him from wearing his kirpan on school property, fearing the possibility of violence. Others schools in Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia allow the wearing of a kirpan, which orthodox Sikhs believe is compulsory for all baptized members of the faith.

The Supreme Court of Canada delivered a unanimous ruling in this memorable case on 2006-MAR-02. Like so many past decisions, the court attempted to strike a balance between two conflicting concerns. In this case, it is religious freedom vs. public safety. The Court overturned the ban. Justice Louise Charron wrote that religious tolerance is"

"...a very important value of Canadian society....If some students consider it unfair that Gurbaj Singh may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instill in their students this value that is...at the very foundation of our democracy." ₉

The event:

Gurbaj Singh Multani, was a pre-teen, aged 12, who attended an elementary public school operated by the Commission Scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys (Marguerite-Bourgeoys School Board or CSMB)) in Montreal, Quebec. In 2001-NOV-19, he accidentally dropped his kirpan when playing at recess. This triggered a dispute with the board over his right to wear the knife. Initially, lower level officials at the CSMB allowed him to wear his kirpan as long as it was placed in a scabbard with a flap sewn securely shut so that the knife could not be removed. However, more senior levels of the CSMB overturned that decision and prohibited Multani from wearing a kirpan under any circumstances. They would have allowed a symbolic kirpan -- perhaps a non-functional piece of jewelry -- but not a real knife. Multani's famly sued.

The trial and appeal:

On 2002-MAY-27, the trial judge overturned  the SCMB's decision and allowed him to wear a kirpan, but only if he followed six restrictions established by the court.

On 2004-MAR-04, the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the Superior Court's ruling, thus once again preventing Gurbaj Singh from wearing his kirpan.

His parents had withdrawn him from the public school, and enrolled him in a private school where he was permitted to wear his kirpan. A five-year legal battle resulted, ending at the Supreme Court of Canada.

The appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada:

The factum written by the Canadian Human Rights Commission -- an intervener in the case before the Supreme Court -- stated:

"This appeal therefore involves conflict between two fundamental rights: 1. the right of every person to attend public school and express his or her religion without discrimination; and 2. the CSMB’s right and duty to establish safety policies to protect the persons for whom it is responsible." ₄

They concluded that:

"The CSMB has the right and a duty to ensure safety in its schools. However, to maintain its policy prohibiting the kirpan, it had to show that it carefully analysed the magnitude of the risk caused by the presence of a kirpan at school and that that risk is incompatible with the standard of safety necessary in schools. It had a duty to show, if applicable, that it considered and reasonably rejected any accommodations that would reduce the risk by making the kirpan reasonably inoffensive.....For all these reasons, we respectfully submit that the Court of Appeal erred in not compelling the CSMB to consider all possible accommodations before upholding its ban on the kirpan." ₄

The legal fight culminated in an 8 to 0 decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that any school board's blanket ban on the wearing of a kirpan is unconstitutional in Canada.  The ruling allows schools to place reasonable restrictions on the wearing of a ceremonial knife. For example, the Peel public school board in Ontario requires the student to:

Justice Louise Charron wrote on behalf of the unanimous court:

"...not a single violent incident related to the presence of kirpans in schools has been reported....Although it is not necessary to wait for harm to be done before acting, the existence of concerns relating to safety must be unequivocally established for the infringement of a constitutional right to be justified. A total prohibition against wearing a kirpan to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others."

The court ruled that the board's actions had "deprived him of his right to attend a public school." They stated that accommodating the kirpan "demonstrates the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities."

The court's decision will probably not impact on the prohibition of kirpans on airplanes, in some court rooms, etc. Justice Charron wrote: "Each environment is a special case." ₃

During the court case, the school board had argued that "the kirpan is a weapon designed to kill, intimidate or threaten." This argument did not impress the court. Justice Charron wrote that this was factually wrong and "disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion." She noted that students have access to other items that can be used in violent acts "...and that are much more easily obtained by students, such as scissors, pencils and baseball bats."

Sikhism prohibits the use of a kirpan as a weapon. Its use bears some similarity to an athame, a doubled sided knife used by Wiccans in their rituals. Athames are not used to actually cut anything.

Reactions to the Supreme Court's ruling:

Reaction among some Canadian religious groups concerning the court decision:

Reaction was highly diverse:

"The Supreme Court reaffirmed that freedom of religion is a fundamental value. It is important that the Court has recognized that individuals are entitled to have their religious practices accommodated unless there is a compelling reason not to do so, so long as there is a sincere belief that the practice is a requirement of the faith....This decision is another example of the Supreme Court playing its invaluable constitutional role of carefully balancing legitimate, competing rights; in this specific case these are freedom of religion and safety. A multicultural democracy like Canada requires an ongoing healthy tension between the particular claims of minorities and overall societal interests. Out of necessity, this kind of debate can only be resolved by the courts on a case-by-case basis." ₁₀

A wall of silence among Christian information sources:

Although this court decision is considered by many commentators as the most important ruling on religious freedom and tolerance in Canada for many years, Christian denominations and para-church organizations remain strangely silent on this development. On 2006-MAR-07, five days after the court decision, a search of:

We are at a complete loss to understand why Christian groups in Canada have ignored this court decision. It is, in our opinion, the most important ruling on religious freedom in years. It has the potential of impacting other religious controversies, such as the refusal of some Quebec schools to allow Muslim female students to wear hijab (a scarf to cover women's hair). Non-Christian religions have reacted with strong support, as indicated above. However, the Christian press remained silent. We have written to a number of church organizations and para-church groups including the Anglican Church of Canada, Focus on the Family, Life Site, the United Church of Canada, etc. asking why they have ignored this decision.

References used:

The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.

1. Sean Gordon, "Ban overturned: Top court okays kirpan in schools. Religious freedom at stake, justices say," The Toronto Star, 2006-MAR-03, Page A6.
2. "CAIR-CAN welcomes court ruling on religious freedom. Ruling gives hope to Muslims for accommodation of religious practices," American Muslim News Briefs, 2005-MAR-02.
3. Jim Brown, "Top court quashes Sikh dagger ban," CNews, 2006-MAR-02, at: http://cnews.canoe.ca/
4. The text of the Canadian Human Rights Commission factum is at: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/
5. The text of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association factum is at: http://www.ccla.org/
6. "Court of Appeal" decision, 2004-MAR-04, at: http://www.canlii.org/
7. "Supreme Court of Canada -- Appeal heard," 2005-APR-12, at: http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/
8. "The Kirpan Website," Sikhs.ca, at: www.sikhs.ca/
9. "Canada Sikhs kirpan win," The Telegraph, Calcutta, India, 2006-MAR-02, at: http://www.telegraphindia.com/
10. "CJC welcomes Supreme Court of Canada judgement in kirpan case," Canadian Jewish Congress, 2006-MAR-02, at: http://www.cjc.ca/

Copyright © 2006 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update 2006-MAR-07
Author: B.A. Robinson