There has been a great deal of political capital made recently over the death of Henry Nowak, stabbed to death by Dikrum Sigwa in Southampton, with a ceremonial Kirpan with an 8 inch blade, which Sigwa claimed he carried as a necessary aspect of religious observance.
DZ does not intend to comment on the politcal aspects, other than to describe the actions of the Nazi, Nigel Farage, as utterly deplorable, and clearly intended to stir up racial hatred against the Sikh community.
But there is a legal aspect here that I find concerning.
In the UK, to legally carry a knife the cutting edge must be 3 inches (7.62 cm) or less.
If the blade is longer than 3 inches (e.g., fixed-blade, hunting, or large kitchen knives), you are not permitted to carry it in public unless you have a "good reason" or lawful authority. Examples include:
Using it for work purposes (e.g., a chef carrying their professional knives).
Taking it to a gallery, museum, or historical re-enactment.
Using it for outdoor activities (e.g., fishing, farming, or hiking).
Note: You must only have the knife on you for the specific activity you are doing. You cannot stop at the pub or run personal errands while carrying it. Furthermore, self-defence is never recognized as a valid reason for carrying a knife, or any weapon in the UK.
Observance of religious dogma is notably also not considered a valid reason, yet the kirpan used by Sigwa had an eight inch blade. It is, I understand, perfectly acceptable to Sikhs to limit the size of the kirpan to three inches, or even less. But even at that length a knife can cause serious, or even fatal injury. For this reason even such a knife can still be considered in law an offensive weapon under certain circumstances, and their carriage in public still result in prosecution.
Amazingly, carrying a kirpan in schools is permitted in the UK as an article of faith. Airlines however insist that such items can not be worn in flight but kept in checked luggage, a restriction that Sikhs seem perfectly happy to accept.
Suggestions that the laws on the carrying of the Kirpan in public should be re-examined have met with resistance by a small number of Sikhs. The argument is that applying restrictions to all Sikhs because of the actions of one man is inherently unfair.
But this argument, has been tried before.
Until 1996 it was perfectly possible for private individuals to own handguns, though only under licence and very strict regulation.
However at Dunblane primary school in Dunblane, near Stirling, Scotland, on 13 March 1996, 43-year-old Thomas Hamilton killed 16 pupils and one teacher and injured 15 others before killing himself. He used properly licensed firearms.
There was massive public outcry and with an upcoming general election all the major parties promised to ban the private ownership of handguns. Some gun owners made the argument that applying restrictions to all gun owners because of the actions of one man is inherently unfair. Unsurprisingly that argument was dismissed. There was no real resistance. The gun owners took their toys to the police and handed them in quietly and peacefully.
If someone decided to start a new religion, where one of the articles of the new faith was that all adherents be required to carry handguns, it is inconceivable that that would be accommodated.
Religious faith should never be used to give followers of that faith special treatment in any area of life, particularly the carrying of offensive weapons.
