LONDON 2012: Olympic fans can carry small religious daggers, confirm Locog
LONDON 2012 organisers have insisted they will not ban ceremonial daggers, carried as articles of faith, at next year's Olympics.
PERMITTED: Sikh's carry a Kirpan, a small sheathed dagger, as an article of faith. They will be allowed at next year's London 2012 Olympics
Sikh sports fan Gurdev Singh was banned from entering Lord's cricket ground - venue to 2012 archery events - to watch this week's Test match between England and India.
Sikhs are allowed to carry a small ceremonial dagger, known as a Kirpan, under provisions set out in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act, although the laws are vaguer about private property.
The sheathed scimitar, which is attached to a cloth belt and normally worn discreetly under clothes, is one of five "articles of faith" that baptised Sikhs must carry at all times.
Maylebone Cricket Club officials have since admitted their mistake and apologised to Mr Singh and Locog have also clarified their position.
"At Games-time, small symbolic ceremonial daggers, with a maximum blade length of three inches, carried for religious reasons will be allowed," said a statement.
© Sportsbeat 2011
OLYMPIC TORCH RELAY: Week one from Land's End to Cardiff
London 2012 /
London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay
IN PICTURES: Week one of the London 2012 Olympic torch relay
London 2012 Olympic Torch Relay /
Summer Sports
Working...
Comments
Interesting, I know the law
Interesting, I know the law is 3 inch (for things like swiss army knives, fishing knives etc) but I am wondering how this law would affect people getting on a plane? As far as I am aware you can't take anything like that on a plane and they allow no exceptions. Just wonder how they enforce it form a legal standpoint if the 1988 act allows it? I wonder if any airline has been challenged? I do think the cricket incident has been blown up a bit. If it was an old Lords club member turning up with a swiss army knife to use as a corkscrew I doubt he would have been stopped. However, I don't think religion should come above security. A blade of any length can injure or kill and there will those who look to exploit this at the Olympics. It only takes one nutter as we have just seen in Norway....
The law says that you can
The law says that you can carry any weapon if it can be proven to be part of a religious or national dress and not used in an offensive manner. an example of this would be the scottish dirk if worn with the scottish national dress of a kilt etc or the kirpan if you're sikh. but remember the onus is on you to prove your innocence so you'd need to prove visits to a temple or knowladge of the relidgeon prior to an arrest to save a conviction. also be realistic,,,, just because you claim you're a follower of the norse god odin this doesn't give you allowances to carry a hammer, battle axe and broadsword.
Now to the plain part.
Airports are private grounds and the owners may say no to possession of ANY item they wish for "safety" grounds. So in this instance if you have a kirpan you may be innocent of possession of an offensive weapon but if you don't leave it behind or vacate the airport they can claim trespass and have you arrested on these grounds.
closing: know the law and arm your self with knowladge.
you my dear friend will be
you my dear friend will be the fall of liberty in the world my friend. people like you would give up liberty for security. this should never be the case. freedom and liberty are of the utmost importance and giving up ones liberties for security is a one way street towards slavery!
A stiletto heel can be used
A stiletto heel can be used to injure somebody in the hands of a nutter or even chairs, as seen at some football matches. Baptised Sikhs have been wearing kirpans in this country for decades and only in the last 5years have they been seen as a security risk, yet there has been no evidence of misconduct involving a kirpan. To be allowed to walk around with a kirpan would mean you also have the 4 other articles of faith, one of them being uncut hair, which would take a lot of effort to fake. BAA have a standard length of kirpan that can be taken on a plane.
Fact: A law was passed in
Fact: A law was passed in 1922 that a kirpan was not a weapon. This law was re-confirmed under the Criminal and Justice act in 1988.
Fact: It was due to the Sikhs,their martial tradition and their strict code of conduct that they made up the most part of the largest volunteer army in the world during WW1 and WW2.
Fact: If Sikhs are good enough to fight in battle with just a turban instead of a helmet, than this should be the case on a motorbike. A traditional Sikh turban has been proven to be safe as most are made up of at least 10 metres of fabric.
"Maylebone Cricket Club
"Maylebone Cricket Club officials have since admitted their mistake"
What mistake? Surely, as the owners of the ground, it's up to them what rules they make and anyone visiting that ground must abide by those rules. As long as they apply the rule equally to all, then there is no discrimination.
What if someone claimed that
What if someone claimed that under their religion, they're required to carry a ceremonial vest of plastic explosive?
Where do you draw the line?
Simple. By having One Law For All.
Nobody should be permitted to carry knives or ride motorcycles without a helmet, unless they have some sort of medical condition. I've nothing against Sikhs, it's just that they shouldn't get any special treatment. We could all make up a religion that required us to do things that are against the law.
Do not interfere in others
Do not interfere in others religion. Sikhs do not comment on your religion so same is expected from you.
It seems that the louder you
It seems that the louder you shout, the more threatening you sound, the more hurt you can demonstrate, in the name of religion that is, the more likely those gutless feeble-minded politicians will capitulate.
Do they not realise that granting these special privileges only leads to more demands, to evermore ridiculous arbitrary excuses? Does it not send a message to everyone that there can be laws applicable to one group of people but not another?
This is a stupid way of carrying on. It will become such a complex, fragile and delicate business that no politician will dare tiptoe through the minefield of sensibilities. I fear, however, that, in the tradition of religion, inequalities will be addressed on the streets.
Post new comment