UKIP slams EU racism

Christina · 01-06-2006, 06:44 PM

You are obfuscating and refuse to give a straight answer.

We have a situation where a non-Sikh would be arrested and imprisoned for carrying a ceremonial sword, but a Sikh would not. It is lawful for Sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword that could be used as a weapon, but if you are not a Sikh, you will be assumed to carry it as a weapon.

We are not equal under the law.

Foreign religious custom triumphs English Law and UKIP supports this!

Christina · 01-06-2006, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intbel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

If someone is carrying a weapon without Lawfull permission, they would be breaking the Law.
If someone is carrying a weapon Lawfully,they would not be breaking the Law.

Do you think Sikhs should be exempted from the law regarding the carrying of knives?

Precisely Intbel!

Hartlepool · 01-06-2006, 08:26 PM

Certainly not,we are all one under our Laws,besides,things like Sikh's and daggers are too easy to copy,any fool can don a turban,stuff a dagger into their waistband and declare that they have just taken up the Sikh religion.

Who can say they have or have not?

Not me. :wink:

andypandy · 01-06-2006, 09:49 PM

Surely there can be no religious excuse for any form of concealed weapon?

The issue of the right to carry arms or any other self defence weapon is a totally separate issue for me here.

English Law pre-exists any settlement of the Sikh Community, and if they do not like the law of the land, then they should leave. If there is any racism in Britain regarding this, it is at the hands of the Sikhs for assuming their moral or religious superiority over that of the indigenous legal system.

Independent UKIP · 02-06-2006, 01:49 AM

I have only just thought of this and should have thought of it earlier, not that I expect anyone to change their view.

Most of the Sikhs came from the UK apparently. If they were carrying 'weapons' how could they have been allowed on the Eurostar/ferry/flight. Surely the only realistic answer is that they were not carrying weapons as is suggested and their items were recognised for the religious items that they are. I doubt anyone seriously thinks they were brought at Brussels Market? Have these supposed 'weapons' been brought back to the UK after the Brussels visit? I haven't heard of a mass arrest of Sikhs entering the country with offensive weapons. Perhaps some of the group are still overseas but surely most have come back to the UK with these supposedly offensive weapons? Isn't the only reasonable suggestion that the British & Belgian states rightly do not consider them to be offensive weapons and have for a nice change reacted proportionately?

If so, the original news release at the head of this discussion seems entirely correct about the implied racism at the parliament.

mkpdavies · 02-06-2006, 08:00 AM

Everyone should be equal under law, thus no I don't agree that only one religion should be able to do something.

However, this is not the issue at hand. The UKIP team in Brussels believe the situation was handled badly and with undertones of racism. I can't say if there was or wasn't, because I wasn't there, however not letting an old guy go to the bogs when it had already been agreed they COULD enter the building with their daggers seems like shoody treatment to me.

The EU couldn't handle a **** up in a brewary though, so no one should be surprised.

gawain · 02-06-2006, 09:14 AM

MKPD
You have hit the button on the head precisely. That was the point, and remains the point. As I pointed out Scots wearing the Skean Dhu are not habitually arrested when in ceremonial costume. Can you imagine the fuss if they were? Thus for all the vapours Christina has been exhaling this is not a matter of differential law, but common decency, which was in short supply at the EP this week.

Tom Wilde · 02-06-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent UKIP

Most of the Sikhs came from the UK apparently. If they were carrying 'weapons' how could they have been allowed on the Eurostar/ferry/flight. Surely the only realistic answer is that they were not carrying weapons as is suggested and their items were recognised for the religious items that they are. I doubt anyone seriously thinks they were brought at Brussels Market? Have these supposed 'weapons' been brought back to the UK after the Brussels visit? I haven't heard of a mass arrest of Sikhs entering the country with offensive weapons. Perhaps some of the group are still overseas but surely most have come back to the UK with these supposedly offensive weapons? Isn't the only reasonable suggestion that the British & Belgian states rightly do not consider them to be offensive weapons and have for a nice change reacted proportionately?

It's an interesting point. I'm no expert, but I've heard that these Sikh ceremonial knives (kirpans) can be full-sized daggers about 8 inches long or can be little dinky symbolic knives just a couple of inches long or less - apparently that is enough to satisfy the religious requirement that Sikhs carry the kirpan at all times. I imagine that the smallest ones are about as dangerous as nail-clippers. Does anyone here know the size of the kirpans being carried by the group barred from the EU? Maybe the fact that they were allowed on the ferry/plane/whatever with them does point to them being at the "small and symbolic" end of the spectrum.

02-06-2006, 08:00 AM	#46 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,183 Party: Libertarian Party	Everyone should be equal under law, thus no I don't agree that only one religion should be able to do something. However, this is not the issue at hand. The UKIP team in Brussels believe the situation was handled badly and with undertones of racism. I can't say if there was or wasn't, because I wasn't there, however not letting an old guy go to the bogs when it had already been agreed they COULD enter the building with their daggers seems like shoody treatment to me. The EU couldn't handle a **** up in a brewary though, so no one should be surprised. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

02-06-2006, 09:14 AM	#47 (permalink)
gawain Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 268	Quite MKPD You have hit the button on the head precisely. That was the point, and remains the point. As I pointed out Scots wearing the Skean Dhu are not habitually arrested when in ceremonial costume. Can you imagine the fuss if they were? Thus for all the vapours Christina has been exhaling this is not a matter of differential law, but common decency, which was in short supply at the EP this week.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-06-2006, 06:44 PM	#41 (permalink)
Christina Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Eccleston, St Helens Posts: 1,529	You are obfuscating and refuse to give a straight answer. We have a situation where a non-Sikh would be arrested and imprisoned for carrying a ceremonial sword, but a Sikh would not. It is lawful for Sikhs to carry a ceremonial sword that could be used as a weapon, but if you are not a Sikh, you will be assumed to carry it as a weapon. We are not equal under the law. Foreign religious custom triumphs English Law and UKIP supports this!

01-06-2006, 08:26 PM	#43 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,817 Party: Popular Democrats	Certainly not,we are all one under our Laws,besides,things like Sikh's and daggers are too easy to copy,any fool can don a turban,stuff a dagger into their waistband and declare that they have just taken up the Sikh religion. Who can say they have or have not? Not me. :wink:

01-06-2006, 09:49 PM	#44 (permalink)
andypandy Senior Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 880	Surely there can be no religious excuse for any form of concealed weapon? The issue of the right to carry arms or any other self defence weapon is a totally separate issue for me here. English Law pre-exists any settlement of the Sikh Community, and if they do not like the law of the land, then they should leave. If there is any racism in Britain regarding this, it is at the hands of the Sikhs for assuming their moral or religious superiority over that of the indigenous legal system.

02-06-2006, 01:49 AM	#45 (permalink)
Independent UKIP Uber Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 2,433	I have only just thought of this and should have thought of it earlier, not that I expect anyone to change their view. Most of the Sikhs came from the UK apparently. If they were carrying 'weapons' how could they have been allowed on the Eurostar/ferry/flight. Surely the only realistic answer is that they were not carrying weapons as is suggested and their items were recognised for the religious items that they are. I doubt anyone seriously thinks they were brought at Brussels Market? Have these supposed 'weapons' been brought back to the UK after the Brussels visit? I haven't heard of a mass arrest of Sikhs entering the country with offensive weapons. Perhaps some of the group are still overseas but surely most have come back to the UK with these supposedly offensive weapons? Isn't the only reasonable suggestion that the British & Belgian states rightly do not consider them to be offensive weapons and have for a nice change reacted proportionately? If so, the original news release at the head of this discussion seems entirely correct about the implied racism at the parliament.