The K M Links Game - December 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Should they carry them?
17 Answers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-120786 6/BBC-race-row-Sikh-listeners-threaten-Muslim- radio-presenter-denigrated-religious-symbol.ht ml
Oh dear, oh dear, unrest between the Asians, this time taking place on their very own BBC's Asian Network.
Not wishing to get too much involved between the two religions, but has Muslim presenter Adil Ray got a point?
With knife crime rife, should Sikhs be allowed to carry these knives on British streets, or anywhere else for that matter?
In fact should there also be an Asian Network ?
The Asian Network was set up eight years ago by the BBC's then director general Greg Dyke after he described the corporation as 'hideously white'.
In 2008 the Labour peer Lord Ahmed accused the station of being biased against Muslims in favour of Sikhs and Hindus.
'You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people, all of the time'.
Oh dear, oh dear, unrest between the Asians, this time taking place on their very own BBC's Asian Network.
Not wishing to get too much involved between the two religions, but has Muslim presenter Adil Ray got a point?
With knife crime rife, should Sikhs be allowed to carry these knives on British streets, or anywhere else for that matter?
In fact should there also be an Asian Network ?
The Asian Network was set up eight years ago by the BBC's then director general Greg Dyke after he described the corporation as 'hideously white'.
In 2008 the Labour peer Lord Ahmed accused the station of being biased against Muslims in favour of Sikhs and Hindus.
'You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people, all of the time'.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A statutory defence against the charge of carrying a bladed article is available if it is being carried for religious reasons.
This is yet another example of exceptions being made which enable minorities to flout laws to which the majority are subject, and which, I contend, breed division and strife.
Others seem to think not, preferring instead to equate such exceptions with concessions (by which I assume they mean cheap or free bus fares) being made for children and the elderly:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question79 7661-2.html
This is yet another example of exceptions being made which enable minorities to flout laws to which the majority are subject, and which, I contend, breed division and strife.
Others seem to think not, preferring instead to equate such exceptions with concessions (by which I assume they mean cheap or free bus fares) being made for children and the elderly:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question79 7661-2.html
Of course, New Judge, the same section of the law on knives also discriminates in favour of those who have the knife with them as part of national costume and those who have the knife for use at work,.Why do you single out Sikhs rather than, say kilted Scotsmen (who traditionally carry a dagger in their sock), or carpenters ?
Mind, if you wondered why Sikhs on motor scooters are exempt, by law, from wearing crash helmets..........
Mind, if you wondered why Sikhs on motor scooters are exempt, by law, from wearing crash helmets..........
It is not flouting the law and I used the wrong term. It is being made exempt from the law. I think to seemingly flout the law would be more appropriate.
These are exceptions made for minorities - be they Scotsmen or Sikhs carrying knives, Sikhs not wearing crash helmets, travellers having special provisions made under planning regulations or any other similar group. The privileges thus afforded are not available to the majority meaning that the law is not equally applicable to everybody. And that�s what breeds division, hatred and contempt.
The issue of tradesmen carrying tools whilst going about their business is entirely different. They are not being made exempt because of their minority interests but because they need tools to carry out their work. A Sikh does not need to carry a knife. He chooses to do so and is allowed to. I am not.
These are exceptions made for minorities - be they Scotsmen or Sikhs carrying knives, Sikhs not wearing crash helmets, travellers having special provisions made under planning regulations or any other similar group. The privileges thus afforded are not available to the majority meaning that the law is not equally applicable to everybody. And that�s what breeds division, hatred and contempt.
The issue of tradesmen carrying tools whilst going about their business is entirely different. They are not being made exempt because of their minority interests but because they need tools to carry out their work. A Sikh does not need to carry a knife. He chooses to do so and is allowed to. I am not.
-- answer removed --
The knife one is not really an exception for minorities. The Act says that it is a defence for any person to prove that they have the knife with them with 'good reason or lawful authority' It than goes on to say 'without prejudice to the generality of [that] it is a defence to prove the knife is for work, national dress or religious purposes The Act is saying no more than that those three situations are to be regarded as 'good reason'. You can see how otherwise some magistrates might differ on whether national dress etc fell within the general defence. The oddity is that the draftsman and Parliament thought it necessary to say, specifically, someone having the knife for work was within it. And, in any case, all the defences have to be proved.
Yes indeed they do, fred.
However, whilst I have seen many examples of workmen being prosecuted and being required to provide the statutory defence, I have yet to see details of the �religious grounds� defence being necessary following prosecution. I would imagine (though cannot be sure) that police are unlikely to recommend a charge in such circumstances for fear of being branded racist or discriminatory and that the CPS would not bring a prosecution when they know that such a defence will be mounted.
This really boils down to a matter of equality before the law and how far that equality should be stretched to accommodate minority interests. Parliament has decided that the law should allow the sort of exceptions that have been described. I believe it is wrong in making those provisions and such �special treatment� only serves to breed, among the majority, the very resentment and prejudice that the country could do without.
We live under a government that believes it is acceptable to treat different groups in different ways when applying the law. Communities secretary Shahid Malik said recently (when answering questions about how the planning law is applied to gypsies) �Fairness does not mean treating people equally. It means addressing the different needs of different people.�. Thus a farmer wanting to provide a caravan in his fields as shelter for his workers had his application turned down. A Romany gypsy who bought the same fields upon the farmer�s retirement wanted to �return to his traditional ways� (despite living in a bungalow nearby) and applied to put eight caravans on the site. His application was approved.
If examples like this do not breed division and resentment, I don�t know what does.
However, whilst I have seen many examples of workmen being prosecuted and being required to provide the statutory defence, I have yet to see details of the �religious grounds� defence being necessary following prosecution. I would imagine (though cannot be sure) that police are unlikely to recommend a charge in such circumstances for fear of being branded racist or discriminatory and that the CPS would not bring a prosecution when they know that such a defence will be mounted.
This really boils down to a matter of equality before the law and how far that equality should be stretched to accommodate minority interests. Parliament has decided that the law should allow the sort of exceptions that have been described. I believe it is wrong in making those provisions and such �special treatment� only serves to breed, among the majority, the very resentment and prejudice that the country could do without.
We live under a government that believes it is acceptable to treat different groups in different ways when applying the law. Communities secretary Shahid Malik said recently (when answering questions about how the planning law is applied to gypsies) �Fairness does not mean treating people equally. It means addressing the different needs of different people.�. Thus a farmer wanting to provide a caravan in his fields as shelter for his workers had his application turned down. A Romany gypsy who bought the same fields upon the farmer�s retirement wanted to �return to his traditional ways� (despite living in a bungalow nearby) and applied to put eight caravans on the site. His application was approved.
If examples like this do not breed division and resentment, I don�t know what does.
New Judge - that is the key question I think - 'Is it acceptable to treat different groups in different ways when applying the law' or to paraphrase your Shahid Malik quote
- Does fairness mean treating people equally, or does it mean addressing the different needs of different people?.
I would say that different groups do have special needs: the old , the young, the infirm, different genders and physical abilities. Any civilised society should take account of these needs and allow for them.
However, when it comes to cultural or religious or political groups, that's a different matter. They do not have special needs - they have special WANTS. They WANT to carry a dagger, live in a caravan, wear a silly hat, whatever. Their 'needs' are self-imposed.
As I put it more bluntly on the swimming thread, religious nutters have usually chosen to be that way. Why should the rest of us be forced to pander to their self-imposed nuttiness?
- Does fairness mean treating people equally, or does it mean addressing the different needs of different people?.
I would say that different groups do have special needs: the old , the young, the infirm, different genders and physical abilities. Any civilised society should take account of these needs and allow for them.
However, when it comes to cultural or religious or political groups, that's a different matter. They do not have special needs - they have special WANTS. They WANT to carry a dagger, live in a caravan, wear a silly hat, whatever. Their 'needs' are self-imposed.
As I put it more bluntly on the swimming thread, religious nutters have usually chosen to be that way. Why should the rest of us be forced to pander to their self-imposed nuttiness?
We have a Sikh neighbour,and apropos of this question I asked him to show me his kirpan (the ceremonial dagger) that sikhs are expected to wear,as the The Sri - Gur Granth Sahib (the Sikh Holy Book) requires.
I do agree that the Muslim presenter was being untactful (at least) and disrespectful(at most) but he knew what he was saying would cause trouble.
When he got it out did I tremble,was I frightened/
Well,I might have been if it was more that 4" long! LOL
Due to the laws about carrying knives in the UK 99% of Sikhs carry this tiny replica dagger,I don't even think it's sharp,and you probably couldn't even eat an apple with it!
I do agree that the Muslim presenter was being untactful (at least) and disrespectful(at most) but he knew what he was saying would cause trouble.
When he got it out did I tremble,was I frightened/
Well,I might have been if it was more that 4" long! LOL
Due to the laws about carrying knives in the UK 99% of Sikhs carry this tiny replica dagger,I don't even think it's sharp,and you probably couldn't even eat an apple with it!
Your added explanation is superb, ludwig.
There must be a distinction between needs and wants and generally, as you have adequately explained, religious or cultural requirements are wants not needs.
Having said that, even when special arrangements are made for the genuinely needy I cannot think of an example where catering for those needs means providing an exception to the law by which everybody else is bound.
There is the world of difference in catering for genuine needs and providing facilities for special groups to seemingly flout the law so as to accommodate their foibles.
Some of the contributors to this and similar threads seem either unable to make that distinction or introduce such comparisons to be deliberately specious.
There must be a distinction between needs and wants and generally, as you have adequately explained, religious or cultural requirements are wants not needs.
Having said that, even when special arrangements are made for the genuinely needy I cannot think of an example where catering for those needs means providing an exception to the law by which everybody else is bound.
There is the world of difference in catering for genuine needs and providing facilities for special groups to seemingly flout the law so as to accommodate their foibles.
Some of the contributors to this and similar threads seem either unable to make that distinction or introduce such comparisons to be deliberately specious.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
ChatterBank19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Crosswords73 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles85 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles131 mins ago
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|