Sooo their faith encourages carrying a blade just in case they need to stab someone, gotcha. Sure as fuck they aren’t carrying a blade to make sandwiches.
The knife the attacker used wasn’t even a kirpan, nor was he carrying the knife for religious reasons. Which is to say that he was carrying a knife that was illegal to carry under UK law (because it wouldn’t have been eligible for the religious exemption). A law that forbade Sikhs from carrying a kirpan would not have prevented this murder, because the knife in question was already illegal to carry.
We shouldn’t be thinking of this under an “us vs them” framing that would place half a million Sikhs in the same category as this despicable murder, because this murder has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the man was Sikh. The only “us vs them” distinction that I’m comfortable in making us “murderers vs not-murderers” — and that would put me squarely on the same side as the vast vast majority of British Sikhs — who are not murderers.
No it actually kinda originated in a time where they got Islam forced upon them, but it carried on as a symbol and tool of standing up for the weaker and justice.
So for shanking motherfuckers, not sandos! Unfortunately the most recent publicly shanked motherfucker was a teenager, not an oppressive king. Stabbing teens isn’t standing up to injustice, and if they actually did use their knives righteously, politicians wouldn’t let them within a week’s travel of a capitol
No, it’s a tool to protect the innocent in distress, not cerimonial. Some Sikh will use a small symbolic pendant but that is not what the religion calls for, it must be long enough to be useful in a fight.
Sooo their faith encourages carrying a blade just in case they need to stab someone, gotcha. Sure as fuck they aren’t carrying a blade to make sandwiches.
The knife the attacker used wasn’t even a kirpan, nor was he carrying the knife for religious reasons. Which is to say that he was carrying a knife that was illegal to carry under UK law (because it wouldn’t have been eligible for the religious exemption). A law that forbade Sikhs from carrying a kirpan would not have prevented this murder, because the knife in question was already illegal to carry.
We shouldn’t be thinking of this under an “us vs them” framing that would place half a million Sikhs in the same category as this despicable murder, because this murder has absolutely nothing to do with the fact the man was Sikh. The only “us vs them” distinction that I’m comfortable in making us “murderers vs not-murderers” — and that would put me squarely on the same side as the vast vast majority of British Sikhs — who are not murderers.
No their faith requires them to wear a ceremonial dagger.
For making sandwiches?
No it actually kinda originated in a time where they got Islam forced upon them, but it carried on as a symbol and tool of standing up for the weaker and justice.
So for shanking motherfuckers, not sandos! Unfortunately the most recent publicly shanked motherfucker was a teenager, not an oppressive king. Stabbing teens isn’t standing up to injustice, and if they actually did use their knives righteously, politicians wouldn’t let them within a week’s travel of a capitol
No, it’s a tool to protect the innocent in distress, not cerimonial. Some Sikh will use a small symbolic pendant but that is not what the religion calls for, it must be long enough to be useful in a fight.