"Ret." gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>>> I'm sure that due punishment will be of great comfort to the NOK of
>>>>> those who die from knife wounds...
>>>> How many people have been stabbed in schools by Sikhs since the
>>>> CJA'88 gave an exemption for Sikhs to carry knives in public?
>>> How many sikh children have been *permitted* to carry knives in
>>> schools since the CJA '88? Despite the Act, I have no doubt that all
>>> schools have their own rules banning knife carrying by their pupils.
>> Are the reasons for such a lack of deaths relevant?
> Of course they are. Your question assumed that despite the carrying of
> kirpans by schoolkids, there have been no stabbings involving them.
No, my question assumed nothing. I asked how many there'd been. You
referred to the next of kin - I asked how many incidents there'd been.
> The true reason is that despite the legislation, all school kids are
> forbidden to bring knives to school.
Are they?
Or do many school rules - like the Criminal Justice Act - give an
exemption for religious reasons?
>>>> If somebody's beaten to death with somebody's bare hands, should we
>>>> ban hands? Or just punish those who use them inappropriately?
>>> Silly point.
>> No, not really.
> We *can* ban knives (which are more lethal than hands) but we cannot ban
> hands.
But reserving punishment to those who use knives inappropriately is,
apparently, not a "great comfort" to those who die as a result. Why
should that differ from other weapons?
Should schools go to the extremes of airliners - where only blunt plastic
cutlery is available?
> If these ceremonial kirpans can be rendered incapable of causing
> serious injury
The vast majority - if not all - already are.
> then I would have no objection.
Strange how you seem to be doing exactly that.
> It is another case of multi-culturalism creating friction.
No, it's yet another case of you looking for half-arsed non-reasons to
take offence over nothing just to try to prove your point. |