r/ukpolitics • u/SignificantLegs • 16h ago
Twitter Zia Yusuf : đ¨ Astonishingly, Henry Nowakâs murderer would walk around the office of the accountancy firm he worked at openly wearing a large dagger. Imagine you walked into an office and a white accountant was walking around with a large deadly weapon. You would call the police immediately.
https://x.com/ziayusufuk/status/2061117819060654304454
u/Captain_Quor 16h ago
I'll be honest, I've worked with quite a few Sikhs over the years and none of them routinely displayed a large dagger around the office...
323
u/Guyfawkes1994 15h ago
Iâll be honest, a lot of this feels less like a problem with Sikhs as a whole, and more a problem with a psycho family who happen to be Sikhs. Being a Sikh gave this guy cover to act like this because he could claim it was a religious thing, but this doesnât sound anywhere near normal.
164
u/tonylaponey 15h ago
Well yeah - Sikhs are generally regarded as being incredibly chill. Stabby psychos are stabby psychos whatever their culture. About 75 people are threatened or attacked with a knife every day in London. I don't think the one guy that was allowed to carry his knife legally is really the big issue.
117
u/Chanceuel 15h ago edited 8h ago
Sikhs are probably the most loved "foreign" group (religious) in this country by a distance, they have done an incredible job as a community of integrating within the UK while also maintaining their own culture and practices.
→ More replies (30)14
u/Minute-Improvement57 14h ago
I'm sure we're all totally onboard with this same argument when it's used for why half the US should carry guns everywhere.
6
u/tonylaponey 14h ago
You're going to have to explain what you think the argument for civilians to carry firearms is in the US, because I can't really see why it's related to my point at all.
12
u/Minute-Improvement57 14h ago
About 75 people are threatened or attacked with a knife every day in London. I don't think the one guy that was allowed to carry his knife legally is really the big issue.
You basically posted a rephrasing of the corny old line about "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It is sometimes said seriously in the US, but more often lampooned for its unconvincingness in Britain.
→ More replies (1)â˘
u/tonylaponey 11h ago
Well I expressly stated that knives do kill people when I said there were 75 knife incidents in London every day, which means that many multiples of that must be carrying them illegally, probably 10s of thousands. Overall in the UK there are about 250 knife homicides a year on average, half of which are with kitchen knives.
Sikhs are the largest group of people that are allowed to openly carry a knife, and we apparently have one incident in recorded history of that being used to kill someone. Given that I make no apology for lumping that individual in with the other knife offenders rather than concluding Sikh's carrying Kapans is an actual issue.
4
u/Inthepurple 14h ago
US had 10 mass shootings last week
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2026
â˘
→ More replies (2)â˘
42
u/AdjectiveNoun111 Vote or Shut Up! 14h ago
yeah exactly, he was able to use society's fear of upsetting or offending people on religious grounds to get away with behaviour that would be completely unacceptable for the rest of us.
I wonder how many times people at his work felt weird about this guy but never said anything? I know if I worked with a Sikh who carried a giant Bowie knife around all day I'd think it was mental.
Also, yesterday a ton of apologists were around Reddit claiming "Akshully, this wasn't a kirpan", while clearly this guy was in fact wearing a giant knife as a Kirpan.
14
u/Remarkable-Ad155 13h ago
Seem to remember a similar debate a whole back about Sikh football fans being allowed to bring them in to x ground (think it was Wolves). I am absolutely not a Reform person but I must admit it's felt like an accident waiting to happen for a while.
7
u/Guyfawkes1994 14h ago
I think itâs not right for this guy (or anyone, regardless of their religion) to carry around a weapon of that size in public, and that should be banned.Â
But what I donât like about this debate around the kirpan is that because this one guy exploited his religionâs rules - as well as the majorityâs desire to not offend someone else - and has now murdered an innocent person, thereâs now a movement to come down like a ton of bricks on an entire religious community who wouldnât think it was appropriate to carry a weapon like that.Â
So I think itâs a fair question on what should be allowed for Sikhs to use as a kirpan, and something like this shouldnât be acceptable, but I donât think we should ban it entirely. Maybe only something an inch or two long worn as a pendant, or sown into something so it canât be drawn and used as a weapon.
14
u/MatchaMeetcha 13h ago
But what I donât like about this debate around the kirpan is that because this one guy exploited his religionâs rules - as well as the majorityâs desire to not offend someone else - and has now murdered an innocent person, thereâs now a movement to come down like a ton of bricks on an entire religious community who wouldnât think it was appropriate to carry a weapon like that.
It's more that the incident raises people's awareness of the fact that, despite all of the constant calls to ban more and more knives - one group of people were excluded.
The thing about political discussions is that a lot of people don't agree or disagree, they just don't know or think about it. If anything, the more well-behaved Sikhs are the less reason for them to really think about it.
To people who do know, the tolerance of the kirpan is just part of the multicultural compact that's worked out fine mostly. Many people may not feel the same and think it's a nutty thing to tolerate and this situation brings it out.
8
u/EquipmentNo1397 12h ago edited 11h ago
It isn't just one group who have an exclusion though, is it? There's an exception for those in Scottish Highland Dress, or indeed in any national costume; another exception for anyone needing one for work. The law is written in a way that allows someone with a genuine need to have a blade, one that is otherwise prohibited by the law, to have one on their person. As soon as that blade is used in a threatening, intimidating or violent fashion, it is illegal, regardless of any previous exceptions.
Carrying a massive knife around the neck could definitely be considered to be an offensive use of a kirpan, and would therefore be illegal regardless of any exemption.
â˘
u/seshfan2 7h ago edited 7h ago
The problem is that part of the "genuine need" of the knife for Sikhs is that their religion specifically allows them to use it in self-defense. It's hard to make an argument why one religious group of people has a right to self-defense that other Britans do not.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Guyfawkes1994 13h ago
Yeah, that is a fair point. It would normally be unreasonable for two separate groups of people to be treated differently under the same laws, especially when it comes to weapons, even more so after a murder with one of those weapons. If the wider Sikh community insisted that it had the right to openly carry machetes or zombie knives, then Iâd be more open to banning the whole thing. But I feel that while the Sikhs have insisted on their right to carry a kirpan, theyâve self-policed themselves (particularly on the size of the kirpans) to the point that itâs newsworthy that a Sikh murdered someone with a knife. So in this instant, it feels more appropriate to work with them so that they can technically fulfill it without being dangerous to anyone else.
â˘
u/Paraparo 4h ago
Honestly though, take a step back, and that is literally every single weapon restriction law.
Guns, knives, anything dangerous? Most people weren't using then to kill and hurt people. Evidenced by the fact that prior to their restrictions it wasn't you know, endless blood baths on the street or whatnot. The laws only come about because the exceptional violence broke the norm and made what used to be ok, not ok anymore.
I'm an outsider here, but I'm reminded that every time for example, guns in the US comes up, people will say "we had one shooting, then sensibly banned and restricted ownership". Ultimately I think it's unfortunate, I'm always on the less restrictive side, but the precedence of even single incidences resulting in group rights being curtailed already exists. You yourself admit to being ok with it in degrees, so it's very difficult to set firmly which of a dozen degrees is the step too far.
â˘
u/Prince_John 11h ago
No, he used a shashtar for the murder, which is not doctrinal and therefore not legal, and also had a smaller kirpan, which was not used in the attack.
18
u/Nemisis_the_2nd Jaded Centrist 14h ago edited 12h ago
I've been trying to find numbers for violent knife crime for sikhs relative to the general population.
So far, including this case, I have found 4 incidents involving Sikhs as the attacker in the UK since 2000. Of those others, one was ruled self defence, one related to a dispute in the sikh community, and the final one was a revenge attack on an Indian general that led a military attack on their holiest temple.
Thats 4 cases of knife crime in 26 years. For some reason though, a certain part of our population are suddenly clutching pearls over a religious minority carrying ceremonial knives despite having an astoundingly low record of knife crime compared to the general population.
Edit: it puts knife crime in the sikh community at about 1/10th of the national average.
7
u/QforQwertyest 13h ago
I think it's more to do with the fact this guy has exploited a loophole, and so it is a case of what is the right way to now close this loophole.
4
u/Danack 13h ago
I thought Sikhs in this country usually either carried a very small ceremonial dagger, or a dagger that is 'locked' in the scabbard by welding metal, so that the dagger can't actually be pulled out.
But I guess the psycho stabby guy didn't follow those rules.
→ More replies (1)5
u/HovisTMM 12h ago
When I was in school I remember meeting some Sikhs with kirpans, I asked to see it and they explained that everyone had them welded shut so as not to cause alarm to people. I don't know what proportion of Sikhs have them welded but anecdotally in 2020 these teenagers were being raised to think it was normal to weld them.Â
7
2
u/MrSoapbox 12h ago
I think it still needs to be addressed. I was not in favour of Katanas being banned, along with multiple other weapons, but I am also not a fan of religious exemptions (nor do I think that there is ANY need for a weapon using religion as an argument) and more importantly, I believe in consistency and if we have to have laws forced onto us, then for fairness sake, these need to as well.
Considering there's now been a murder, which is all it took for other things, then it's time they got banned.
â˘
u/Scratch_Careful 10h ago
Iâll be honest, a lot of this feels less like a problem with Sikhs as a whole
Reading Sikh social media will quickly disabuse you of that idea.
→ More replies (1)â˘
â˘
â˘
â˘
u/SneakyFire23 9h ago
Yeah I've worked with plenty of Sikhs, kind, friendly, genial to a fault. Always willing to pick up some load or handle some work for people.
One used to have a pin that had a little knife symbol he wore on the turban saying that it satisfied the religious obligation.
The problem here is that the system in its entirety let Nowak down, he died bleeding with no dignity while a lunatic was allowed to take a box lunch to prison with him while not being handcuffed. It's not Sikh's it's that the police did not handle this properly.
30
u/taboo__time 15h ago edited 15h ago
I understand Sikhs have a religious dagger. But what's their own rules on carrying it? Is there disagreement on how openly you should have it? Or how big it needs to be?
46
u/AnnoyedHaddock 15h ago edited 15h ago
Whether itâs concealed or visible is down to law and culture more than religion. Places like India with large Sikh populations many wear it openly. In the West many countries laws dictate it must be concealed/blunted/non functional etc. In the UK laws allow Sikhs to wear it however they wish, that said I know a few Sikhs and they typically donât wear it openly. Theyâre smart enough to realise that someone walking around with a knife on their waist can be quite intimidating.
9
u/taboo__time 14h ago
Sure, culture and religion are somewhat synonymous. But how doctrinal is Sikhism? Would he say "my religion says I have to wear it like this, here's the text, this is the real tradition, the other ways are inauthentic." Did it start like this version, did always mean it to be more symbolic? I should probably just AI google it.
10
u/AnnoyedHaddock 14h ago
Originally it was a practical weapon, although it wasnât originally mandatory to carry and the religion was a couple hundred years old when the 5 ks were introduced. The only requirements are that itâs a single sided curved blade worn on the body via a gaatra.
8
u/PimpasaurusPlum đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż | Made From Girders đ 12h ago
The Kirpan is one of a five ritual items sikh men are required to wear at all times.
Alongside their uncut hair in a turban, a wooden comb, a bangle, and a type of undergarment.
Originally the kirpan was a full size sword, with the dagger form becoming the norm as a result of colonial law.
â˘
u/PianoAndFish 11h ago
While Indic religions generally have more doctrinal flexibilty overall than Abrahamic ones, the five ritual items are part of the Sikh Code of Conduct established by the tenth and final Guru, so it's one of the most essential core parts of the faith and I doubt you would find many Sikhs who would consider it up for debate.
The kirpan absolutely started as a functional weapon and was expected to be ready to be drawn and used at all times, which is why there is some debate on whether one that has for example been welded shut really counts, but it is also strictly limited to defensive purposes and instances of it being used as a violent weapon are so extremely rare that it's not generally considered a risky proposition.
â˘
u/SirBobPeel 1h ago
In some countries, like Italy, they're not allowed to wear it, and so they don't.
4
u/signpostlake 15h ago
Can't say for certain but I've seen lots of comments saying they tend to be covered and out of sight.
â˘
u/BanChri 10h ago
Most sikhs I know carry decently large daggers (~6-8 inch long on the main section) but do so in concealed under-the-arm sheaths. There are some sikhs that carry basically decorative knives, whether that's welded shut, really blunt, or literally a piece of jewellery in the shape of a kirpan, but IME those are a small-ish group (maybe 20% of sikh men, but a fair few women do also where knife jewellery).
â˘
u/Patch86UK 7h ago
All the Sikhs I've known personally and closely enough to have any memory of such things have worn small kirpans with blades maybe 3 or so inches- basically a glorified pen knife.
My understanding is that Nowak's killer also wore a small ritual kirpan, like most other Sikhs, but in addition chose to carry around a second larger knife "for protection".
â˘
u/Historical-Acadia-97 7h ago
The dagger he stabbed Novak with was not a kirpan and too large to be exempt. I suspect this is case with this dagger also
â˘
u/Every_Car2984 6h ago
This is misinformation. There is no size criterion for a Kirpan.
â˘
u/Historical-Acadia-97 6h ago
Whilst no official size, Under the Criminal Justice Act and Offensive Weapons Act, Sikhs are legally allowed to wear a kirpan in public. Blades between 3 to 6 inches are standard, as extremely large swords may raise alarms.
His was larger, worn openly, and in addition to the smaller Kirpan worn from neck under shirt as per court hearing.
UK Sikh issued statement that his knife was misidentified as a Kirpan.
If I am wrong, Iâll correct
â˘
u/Every_Car2984 6h ago
Please show me the part - in either UK law or the Sikh Code of Conduct - that explicitly states the maximum or minimum permissible length of a Kirpan.
→ More replies (1)â˘
u/taboo__time 7h ago
Ah thats interesting, I haven't heard that before.
â˘
u/Historical-Acadia-97 7h ago
Just saw this on twitter. A statement from Uk Sikhs. This needs more traction imo
â˘
u/That_Guy_Mojo 5h ago
In order to carry to Kirpan you need to be Amritdhari.
An Amritdhari goes through an Amrit Sanchar and receives Amrit (God's nector) by doing this they become a member of the Khalsa.
The Amrit Sanchar is done at local Gurdwaras at certain times of the year. It's administered by the Panj Pyare. After the Amrit Sanchar they read out the Rehit Maryada (code of Conduct) a binding document on how an Amritdhari is meant to live. This means drugs, alcohol, and tabacco are all forbidden.
Amritdhari's wear all 5 Kakkar's which includes a Kirpan, Kesh, Kara, Kanga, and Kachera. An Amritdhari does their Nitnem which includes 7 daily prayers. Waking up at Amritvela 4am to do the first five prayers.
The most obvious aspect of being Amritdhari is long uncut hair called Kesh. A Sikhs Kesh is covered by a Dastar (turban).
A Sikh with cut hair can't have a Kirpan. Sikhs with cut hair don't live according to the Rehit Maryada and are called Sehajdharis which means "slow to the path". Around 85% of Sikhs in the UK are Sehajdhari. Being Amritdhari is hard.
In advance of the Amrit Sanchar a Sikh would be in communication with the Granthis (priests) to ensure the Sikh is ready to take this step. Usually they only take applicants who already have hair below the shoulder in length. If you show up with hair thats 10-2 inches long they're going to reject you straight away. Don't even bother pulling up with a fade or buzz cut.
They look at hair length but it is assumed that during this long period of Hair growth you've been studying.
After passing the intial visual test. They test your knowledge of Sikh theology, including your pronunciation of prayers. Sikhs before taking Amrit go through Gurmat classes (theological class) and Santhiya classes (practicing pronunciation). It's like a one on one interview during the test.
You're better off claiming to be Scottish you only need to wear highland dress and you can carry a Sgian Dubh. This knife is also protected under UK law.
Also Sikhism is a religion. Not a race anyone can become Sikh. I know white Sikhs who are Amritdhari and walk around then UK with Kirpans without issue.
â˘
176
u/EddViBritannia 16h ago edited 15h ago
Take an actual look at the image in the tweet before commenting.
That thing is fucking ridiculously big. There is no reason for him to have something that size and especially so prominently displayed.
This isn't the case of a small Kapan around the neck, or attached to the belt the size of a pen knife.
This is walking around with a Bowie knife purely because he's a certain religion.
60
72
u/bitch_fitching 15h ago
I support allowing Australians to carry a large bowie knife, in case they have to play knifey spooney.
13
â˘
u/Prince_John 11h ago
The murder weapon was a large shashtar, which is not doctrinal and therefore not legal to carry.
Police recovered a small kirpan from him as well, but it wasn't used in the attack.
â˘
u/Scratch_Careful 10h ago
This is a distinction without a difference. Shastar just means weapon and Kirpans are shastars. Kirpans can absolutely be a footlong and still be kirpans.
Here's one that is 17in long
https://sacredsikh.com/products/kirpan-pech-kabz-crocodile-style
â˘
u/Prince_John 10h ago
It's not a distinction without a difference if he didn't use his kirpan.
People are using this attack to argue kirpans should be banned.
He didn't use his kirpan. He used another weapon.
â˘
u/Scratch_Careful 10h ago
He did use his Kirpan, just not the smaller one of the two he carried. Pretending it wasnt a kirpan just because he murdered someone with it is absurd.
Either Sikhs shouldnt be allowed to carry swords or we all should. I'd rather the former.
â˘
u/Prince_John 10h ago
No, the court explicitly rejected his defence that he was carrying the murder weapon for religious reasons. He was carrying the discrete tiny kirpan as an expression of his faith.
https://frasernelson.substack.com/p/the-kirpan-did-not-kill-henry-nowak
Q: One of the most disturbing details is that Digwaâs defence claimed he carried the weapon as part of his religion. How do you respond to that?
And, in law, that claim did not stand. The weapon was a 21cm blade, and the court treated it as a large bladed article that is not, and was never intended to be covered by the kirpan exemption. Digwa was already wearing a small kirpan under his clothing which satisfied the religious obligation of an initiated Sikh. He had also chosen to carry a far larger blade. That blade was as illegal for him to carry as it would be for anyone else â and he was convicted not only of murder but of carrying a bladed article in public. In many ways, that demonstrates that the exemption itself works.Q: The reporting confusion seems to be the definition of a kirpan. What is it?
A: It is one of the Five Ks that initiated Sikhs are required to wear at all times. The word itself comes from two Punjabi words: kirpa, meaning mercy, grace and compassion; and aan, meaning honour, dignity and self-respect. So the kirpan is not simply a âknifeâ or a âweaponâ; it is a sacred article of faith, intended to remind Sikhs of their duty to stand against oppression and to protect others.Q: If the murder weapon was not really a kirpan, what was it?
A: It was a pesh-kabz: a heavy, pointed dagger historically used by Sikh warriors for piercing armour. It sits within what we call shastars: sacred weapons. Sikh theology teaches that we should be âsaint-soldiersâ, which is why Sikhs have a rich martial tradition known as Shastar Vidya. But that has never been a licence for violence; the saint-soldier ideal is a moral responsibility to wield strength ethically and with compassion.
What is happening now is that media reporting, which historically reduced the kirpan to a âsmall daggerâ, is increasingly conflating the kirpan with the wider range of bladed weapons associated with Sikh martial traditions. When Sikhs try to correct the narrative, those distinctions collapse into a single category that is automatically treated as threatening.Q: Does anything about this case suggest that the law is too broad and needs changing?
A: This case does not prove the exemption is too broad; it proves the law works as worded: the exemption already does what it is meant to do. The court was saying that this weapon did not qualify for religious protection. The law is not ambiguous on this point. He had a kirpan. He also carried an illegal, offensive weapon that no law would defend. That is precisely why calls now to ban or restrict the kirpan miss the point.I think the most important part of this is a rebuttal to your claim - the court explicitly found that the murder weapon was not a kirpan which was why the exemption did not occur and how he was able to be convicted of carrying a bladed article.
→ More replies (2)â˘
u/JuanFran21 10h ago
According to wikipedia, a modern Kirpan is typically around 5-12 inches long. Which seems consistent with the image no?
→ More replies (6)21
84
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 16h ago
That depends on the weapon, surely?
If they've got a gun, then I'm absolutely calling the police. If they've got a katana, I'm going to assume that they're an annoying weeb trying to impress people with how cool they are, and ignore them. But if they've got AndĂşril, I'm kneeling before the rightful King of Gondor.
22
u/ChaosWithin666 16h ago
Quite right, but what if he says you kneel for no man?
18
u/LycanIndarys Vote Cthulhu; why settle for the lesser evil? 16h ago
He'd only say that to someone that had completed a heroic journey to save the world.
And I can guarantee that I'm far too lazy to have ever done that, so he definitely wouldn't be saying that io me.
18
u/FatYorkshireLad Advocatus Diaboli 14h ago
But if they've got AndĂşril, I'm kneeling before the rightful King of Gondor.
For it is said in old lore, 'The hands of the king are the hands of a healer.' And so the rightful king could ever be known.
Athelas not AndĂşril is the sign of the rightful King. Elven lords distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
5
8
4
u/Fickle_Scarcity9474 16h ago
In my home country I got Sting from Lotr! Also I still have the one Ring in some drawers... I'm probably Bilbo???
→ More replies (3)2
31
16h ago
[removed] â view removed comment
→ More replies (3)30
15h ago
[removed] â view removed comment
10
2
u/twistedLucidity đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż â¤ď¸ đŞđş 14h ago
- How did you get their IP - you an admin with access to server logs?
- VPNs are a thing - did you check against known exit nodes?
- VPSs running a personal VPN are also things - did you check against known data centre ranges?
- Some IP records are bollocks - I show up as being in Norn Iron, which is impressively incorrect
4
â˘
u/BulldenChoppahYus 6h ago
An excerpt here from the sentencing which Iâm sure no one cares about and will get buried with downvotes.
You were sober but were carrying a large Sikh dagger in a sheath attached to a belt over the outside of your clothing. It is a strict requirement of the Sikh faith to have a knife, called a kirpan, at all times. Generally, this will be a small knife, hidden from view, often on a length of cord and worn around the neck. You had that but, in addition, the large dagger in a sheath. You are a member of an order of Sikhs called the Nihang who have a tradition of having a second knife, or kirpan and that is often fully visible, believing that the guru will look favourably on that. You observed that tradition in your everyday life, at work and in public.
However, it was not a strict requirement; that is borne out bythe fact that neither your brother nor father who arrived on the scene after you had stabbed Henry were so dressed. According to Professor Gurnam Singh, Professor of Sociology and an expert in the field: âOver the last 30 years, there has been a trend towards younger people wearing a kirpan with pride, in a desire to express their cultural identity. They see it as an act of resistance to being denied the ability otherwise to display their identity.â
The privilege extended to practising Sikhs of being allowed to be in public with a bladed article and, particularly in respect of the large dagger, a highly dangerous weapon, easily accessible to the wearer, brings with it huge responsibility. It is a fundamental principle of Sikhism that any kirpan is worn as a symbol of religious faith and is never to be carried for an offensive purpose. The legal approach to the carrying of such a knife, as long as the blade length does not exceed 9 inches, is that an offence of Having a Bladed Article in a public place will not be prosecuted; there has been an acceptance that its possession in those circumstances, can amount to a good religious and, therefore, legal reason for having it. The blade of the knife will not be on display; either it is under clothing or, alternatively, in a sheath. For both, it is a religious and, consequently, legal requirement that a kirpan should only be used offensively as a last resort, which would include its use in legal self-defence. In other words, only if use is necessary and, if so, reasonable in the circumstances. It is obvious that for use to be reasonable, any perceived threat justifying its use would only be in circumstances of great seriousness and urgency.
56
u/Levytron900 16h ago
Over half a million Sikhs in the uk, vast majority keep them concealed as they should. Lets not tar the 500k+ with the idiocy of 1
68
u/Lexdiss 14h ago
Why should one particular group get special privileges? If they want to carry knives for ceremonial use then they can be plastic or blunted.
15
u/Nemisis_the_2nd Jaded Centrist 14h ago
Considering how low their rate of knife crime is compared to the general population, I'm almost wondering if they are on to something
4
u/Corvid187 13h ago
They don't get special privileges. The kirpan is allowed as an important cultural symbol, which qualifies as a 'legitimate reason' under existing legislation. This equally covers other ceremonial blades like Scots' Sgian Dubh. There is no special carve-out for it.
31
u/Lexdiss 13h ago
âA cultural symbolâ. That sounds exactly like a special privilege to me.
6
u/WillHart199708 12h ago
Read the comment again. If the right also applies to other ceremonial and cultural dresses then by definition it's not a "special privilege" for Sikhs.
→ More replies (14)3
u/Corvid187 12h ago edited 12h ago
It's not a special privilege in that it applies to all cultural symbols regardless of the particular culture and question. The legislation that allows sikhs to carry the Kirpan is exactly the same legislation that allows Scott to carry the Sgian d Dubh
1
u/Topinio 13h ago
Well, in the case of Sikhs, how about that they have shown themselves as a group to be way more chill and way less stabby and violent than pretty much any other religious or ethnic groups in the country, including the âwhite Britishâ and the subsets of that.
6
u/Lexdiss 13h ago
Well I agree they have integrated as a group far better than others. That still doesnât negate the principle that there should be one rule for all.
Are you advocating that certain groups if theyâre well behaved should be granted special privileges? And those that arenât well behaved should not be?
48
u/ghybyty 16h ago
Why should they get special privileges?
25
u/GopnikOIi 15h ago
Perhaps we should change the knife laws so they aren't a quagmire of legislating to legislate. If I wanted to carry a knife legally in the UK I would have to carry a non locking folder, which is objectively more unsafe for the user compared to anything else.
Knife Laws in the UK are an absolute joke.
â˘
u/duckula_93 9h ago
Very hard to stab something without cutting your hands off with a non locking blade
→ More replies (11)-3
u/WhizzbangInStandard 15h ago
Tbh I think this coverage is going to make a lot of people convert so they have a legal reason to carry a knife
15
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 15h ago
You don't need to convert to carry a pen knife, gardening knife, chef's knife, or building tools.
Just don't walk around waving then in public. You need to conceal them and if you are stopped by police have a good reason why you are carrying them. If you then use them in aggression expect to have the book thrown at you.Â
9
u/WinHour4300 14h ago edited 14h ago
It's not the same. There's no exemption to carry gardening tools or any other workplace knife over the legal limit.
Even as a gardener I can only carry with good reason. I can't keep it in my bag just in case I want to pop in somewhere. If I accidentally leave even many normal garden tools in my bag I'm breaking the law on blades, which carries significant penalties.Â
If unlucky and I'm stop and searched, the police are also allowed to arrest, detain, hold and question me. I would probably need legal help. Unlike many crimes the burden of proof is to prove my innocence.
It's something most gardeners I know find stressful when we have to travel with knives. Of course I understand why this is but a general exemption like Sikhs would be nice, especially for smaller tools or those that aren't particularly dangerous.Â
I certainly can't carry it going out for the evening or randomly wear it in the office!
→ More replies (1)20
u/LetMeBeKeir 15h ago
Actually they sometimes throw the book anyway (if you're tier 2 of course):
→ More replies (12)4
u/HydraulicTurtle 14h ago
You need to conceal them and if you are stopped by police have a good reason why you are carrying them
Of which there aren't that many. Carrying a chef's knife in the street would only have a very, very few number of reasonable explanations that the police would accept. "Religion" being an instant defence is kinda nuts.
5
3
u/WhizzbangInStandard 15h ago
Yeah exactly. Let's say I just want to start carrying one for a cheeky bit of knife crime and I get stopped and searched. I can just claim religious reasons right?
â˘
u/MysteryWra 11h ago
You don't need to convert to carry a pen knife, gardening knife, chef's knife, or building tools.
You can't carry builder's knives for an office job and have your employer bow down and respect you.
0
u/mynameisgill 15h ago
Are they going to stop cutting their hair and wear a turban too?
3
u/WhizzbangInStandard 14h ago
Do you have to? I don't know if there is a strict level of religious adherence you need to be classified as a protected class
→ More replies (2)â˘
u/That_Guy_Mojo 6h ago
Yes you do.
In order to have a kirpan you must be Amritdhari.
An Amritdhari goes through an Amrit Sanchar and receives Amrit (God's nector) by doing this they become a member of the Khalsa.
The Amrit Sanchar is done at local Gurdwaras at certain times of the year. It's administered by the Panj Pyare. After the Amrit Sanchar they read out the Rehit Maryada (code of Conduct) a binding document on how an Amritdhari is meant to live. For example drugs, alcohol, and tabacco are all forbidden.
Amritdhari's wear all 5 Kakkar's which includes a Kirpan, Kesh, Kara, Kanga, and Kachera. An Amritdhari does their Nitnem which includes 7 daily prayers. Waking up at Amritvela 4am to do the first five prayers.
The most obvious aspect of being Amritdhari is long uncut hair called Kesh. A Sikhs Kesh is covered by a Dastar (turban).
A Sikh with cut hair can't have a Kirpan. Sikhs with cut hair don't live according to the Rehit Maryada and are called Sehajdharis which means "slow to the path". Around 85% of Sikhs in the UK are Sehajdhari. Being Amritdhari is hard.
In advance of the Amrit Sanchar a Sikh would be in communication with the Granthis (priests) to ensure the Sikh is ready to take this step. Usually they only take applicants who already have hair below the shoulder in length. If you show up with hair thats 10-2 inches long they're going to reject you straight away. Don't even bother pulling up with a fade or buzz cut.
After passing the intial visual test. They test your knowledge of Sikh theology, including your pronunciation of prayers. Sikhs before taking Amrit go through Gurmat classes (theological class) and Santhiya classes (practicing pronunciation). It's like a one on one interview during the test.
You're better off claiming to be Scottish you only need to wear highland dress and you can carry a Sgian Dubh. This knife is also protected under UK law.
→ More replies (2)5
u/HeverAfter 13h ago
We tarred all of the gun owners after Dunblane with the same brush. That worked pretty well imo as we collectively decided that we didn't fancy another situation. Maybe this is the situation that the public collectively decide that "ceremonial" knives are no longer allowed.
29
u/TheSexyGrape 16h ago
Honestly itâs pretty racist to think that Sikhs should be allowed to carry around a knife that would otherwise be banned if not for their religion
14
u/WO_L 16h ago
Not really, most "banned" knives are completely legal to carry as long as there's a reasonable answer for it. If someone's going camping or just bought a set of kitchen knives, they're allowed to carry them in public and i feel like it being an important part of your religion is another valid reason to carry it.
Now obviously knife crime and murder is bad. That's why the sentencing for it stays the same regardless of the reason you'd carry a weapon.
12
u/Skavau Pirate Party 15h ago
Not really, most "banned" knives are completely legal to carry as long as there's a reasonable answer for it. If someone's going camping or just bought a set of kitchen knives, they're allowed to carry them in public
I mean, you do have to get them home.
i feel like it being an important part of your religion is another valid reason to carry it.
Why?
→ More replies (4)-1
u/WO_L 14h ago
Because i believe religious expression is important.
Removing the religious exemption means that anyone who looks sikh would be constantly stopped and searched and potentially imprisoned/fined just for following their faith.
It's still illegal threaten someone with a knife and it's definitely still illegal to use one to harm somebody. But possession isn't going to inherently hurt someone.
→ More replies (1)5
u/TheSexyGrape 16h ago
Have you ever bought kitchen knives? You get them sealed in plasticâŚ
16
u/WO_L 15h ago
Have you ever gone camping or to an axe/knife sharpening shop?
It's a highland wedding tradition to have a knife in your right sock. Is it racist if we let the Scots do that?
→ More replies (13)3
7
u/SmokyMcBongPot they go Lowe, I get high 15h ago
Phew, as long as we have a thin layer of plastic to prevent anyone from using that knife to kill people, I guess we're all good.
â˘
u/TimeTimeTickingAway 6h ago
Even then, thereâs not an issue with carrying around a Victorinox Swiss Army knife. I should imagine most Sikhâs arenât carrying around anything particularly more dangerous
1
u/Corvid187 13h ago
Why? The law allows for other culturally-significant ceremonial blades like Scots' Sgian Dubh to be worn, the kirpan isn't special in this regard.
→ More replies (3)
19
u/Aristo-Jack 16h ago
It's funny, feels like five minutes ago that right wing politicians were holding up Sikhs as examples of "good immigrants" to show they were accepting of the "right sort" and not simply hostile to all foreign ways.Â
7
u/PimpasaurusPlum đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż | Made From Girders đ 12h ago
This already happened with non-sikh indians. They were yhe good minority until one got to be PM, and the Canadians and Yanks started complaining about their local indians.
Every token gets spent eventually.
â˘
u/Prince_John 11h ago
Everyone gets Othered eventually. It's just a matter of dividing the targets so you can demonise them piecemeal.
13
u/mynameisgill 15h ago
All it takes is one freak incident for the racists to start frothing at the mouth
→ More replies (1)â˘
u/Boring_Gas1397 10h ago
People get arrested for buying Counter Strike replica knives in this country. Why should they get religious benefits?
They are banned from carrying them in UAE, yet weirdly Sikhs still move there. Carve outs for certain groups is silly, why does religion or culture grant them added utility under the law?
6
u/Downtown_Zone 14h ago
That was Tories who liked them because they vote conservative. Reform don't need to care because sikhs aren't voting reform.
3
7
6
u/CreativeEcon101 13h ago edited 12h ago
Farage/ReformUK got bored with attacking Europeans then Muslims, and now they are starting a new hate and division strategy with Sikh.
â˘
â˘
u/derekinman 3h ago
Or maybe they're thinking in the age where knife crime is so prevalent and someone has been stabbed, should we have a conversation about the place religious weapons serve on our streets?
Somebody has just been stabbed to death, a massive systemic failure exposed and all of this in the height of racial tensions in the country.
Conversation and discussion is natural.Â
If the roles were reversed we'd have Keir Starmer on the TV consoling the sihk community and condemning the most evil thing on earth, far right racism for the 50th time. Is that a hate and division strategy too or is it just because the victims white?
2
3
u/N-V-V-M-E-A 16h ago
Funny how this has been the case since forever and no one has been bothered at all by it, but now when the right wingers bring it up itâs sudden outrage. Ask yourself if youâre outraged about this now, why werenât you outraged before?
29
26
u/Status_Initiative_11 15h ago
It's perfectly normal in the wake of an event like this for the laws around relevant topics to have a light shone on them.
E.g. in the states gun control is thrust into the spotlight after a shooting.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Nemisis_the_2nd Jaded Centrist 13h ago
A spotlight and scrutiny is fine. In this case, though, sikh knife crime is exceptionally rare and far below the national average for knife crime.
Even if you counted each individual death as a separate incident, you would have, i think, 6 deaths in 25 years, compared to something in the ballpark of 6000 for the general population. With an average population of about 500,000 sikhs to 60 million people in the same time period, thats a murder rate 1/10th of that in the general population.
In the US, its in the spotlight because it happens with alarming regularity and politicians refuse to tackle the problem.
2
u/Status_Initiative_11 13h ago
And those are valid arguments sure.
In this case it seems the person was not following the law even with the exception, but the exception seems to have lead to him not being challenged on this.
So there's valid arguments around this exception, around all religious exceptions tbh.
One rule for all, is a good principle.
4
u/Nemisis_the_2nd Jaded Centrist 13h ago
 One rule for all, is a good principle.
Is thay not what we already have? Carrying a knife in the UK is legal for anyone, so long as you have a reasonable justification. At least in Scotland, it is simply specified explicitly that religion and culture are considered reasonable justifications. I am less familiar with UK law, but would expect them to be aligned
8
u/Minute-Improvement57 14h ago
Ask yourself if youâre outraged about this now, why werenât you outraged before?
Certainly. His names's Henry.
0
u/TTTJJBB 16h ago edited 16h ago
The only thing that is astonishing here is that immigration expert Zia Yusuf has only just discovered that Sikhs are allowed to carry ceremonial knives.
That being said I think this case has probably made people question whether we should allow them to carry knives at all, and I think muslim women who want to cover their faces are going face similar problems if facial recognition is rolled out everywhere.
Personally I think these two things need to be looked at, maybe the knives can be restricted to weddings and ceremonies and am not sure about the face coverings, but we are in not only in danger of tolerating in intolerance, but allowing Muslims, or anybody who wants to dress like one, a level of anonymity that your average Brit is no longer entitled to.
4
u/VancityGaming 16h ago
People keep saying in the comments that he didn't kill Henry with a ceremonial knife. Was it only ceremonial while in the office?
2
u/Lifeintheguo 13h ago
That knife in the picture is illegal to carry under any context.
The story here is that the people in his office were so afraid of being racist that he was never called out.
1
u/TTTJJBB 16h ago edited 15h ago
AFAIK he carried a knife larger than the size allowed, but am not really sure this is relevant to the argument that we should allow some religious people to carry knives whilst others are not allowed, personally I think the longer we allow religious exemptions for things like this the more absurd the exemption seems.
4
u/AkashicLogos 15h ago
AFAIK he carried a knife larger than the size allowed
Doubt it matters. If you're a Sikh its basically a blanket approval for carrying any knife because which police offer wants to deal with the fallout of being accused of harassing Sikhs for their faith by stopping them to measure?
2
u/SmokyMcBongPot they go Lowe, I get high 15h ago
Aren't weddings/ceremonies already exempted because they aren't public events?
1
1
u/TTTJJBB 15h ago
They are usually in public buildings though and guests normally have to pass through a number of public spaces to get to the private bit. If they wanted to wear one to a wedding, including if they travel on public transport, I think that is fine, but a blanket rule allowing them to carry a knife that could easily be used to kill somebody isn't really justified IMO.
1
u/SmokyMcBongPot they go Lowe, I get high 14h ago
I pretty much agree. I think the "easily used to kill" bit is tricky, but hopefully not beyond a collective compromise.
3
u/randomlad93 13h ago
Sorry Zia but you won't turn us against Sikhs
Of all foreign groupings in society that have every obvious differentiations from us Sikhs are by far the most well regarded and rightly so we have an incredibly long history with then and fuck Zia for trying to turn us ok them
The psycho and his scummy family are to blame as well as the police who were afraid of being labelled as racist
14
u/SignificantLegs 13h ago
but you won't turn us against Sikhs
There are millions of Sikhs living peacefully in countries that ban them from openly carrying massive weapons
0
u/randomlad93 13h ago
The majority of Sikhs carry a tiny Kirpan he was a psycho that spotted a loophole and exploited it should we perhaps regulate sizes sure, we already do that for their location (can't take it into private buildings like airports or music venues)
Zia is trying to sow division he knows it you know it it's his classic attack strategy and we need to resist him, the police are 1000% to blame
→ More replies (2)0
u/sloppy_johnson 13h ago
They fought for us at our time of need. Iâd rather share a country with them and their religious items than the people trying to vilify them and misrepresenting them like yourself. You should be ashamed
â˘
u/LANdShark31 11h ago
I think the broader point is a knife is a knife and no one for any reason should be routinely carrying one on their person that is readily accessible. That includes Sikh or literally any other religion/custom you can think of.
Before you go all stupid and start talking about chefs or the like, they donât carry knives on their person out of the kitchen at most theyâll be in a bag whilst transporting them.
A sensible compromise for these kind of situations that should be amenable to everyone is that theyâre blunted and not pointed. If thatâs still not acceptable then tough shit.
→ More replies (10)
-3
u/ChaosBoi1341 16h ago
Err not if they were Sikh I wouldn't?
20
u/Even-Leadership8220 16h ago
Why should there be an exception for religion. Because you believe in a particular faith you are exempt? Maybe I should make my own religion that allows guns / coke and whores
→ More replies (20)2
u/ChaosBoi1341 16h ago
There shouln't be, but thats not what our bubbly friend tweeted nor the comment I made
And made you should
2
u/RandomSculler 16h ago
Yes I believe there is a legal exemption to carry a Sikh kirpan, provided it is worn in good faith.
Donât really follow the argument this is two tier as there is also a legal exemption for carrying a traditional Scottish skean dhu (as part of Highland dress)
Dog whistling at its finest
→ More replies (3)1
u/negotiationtable 16h ago
Or if they were from a Scottish clan
5
u/taboo__time 16h ago
You've not been to Scotland have you?
→ More replies (4)1
u/tonylaponey 16h ago
I've been to plenty of weddings in Scotland where there was lots of pointy metalwork on display. I even wore one as an Englishman when the groom wanted the ushers to dress formally.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/TheNoGnome 16h ago
I'm not sure an unelected black Muslim trying to stoke racial tension between his chosen party's primarily white voters and the Sikh faith over mistaken policing in the context of high knife crime and low trust between the police and minority ethnic communities is the most thought through position on Earth.
â˘
u/derekinman 3h ago
He's British. What does being a black Muslim matter?
Why are we so intent on dividing ourselves into categories? He's British mate and has his own independent thoughts regardless of his skin colour or religion.
Racial tension doesn't need to be stoked, it's at an all time high and people appreciate hearing about something other than Kier Starmer telling us how how dangerous white far right racists are every chance he gets.
Low trust between the police and minorities yet a white British man lays on the floor handcuffed, bleeding to death being told he's lying about being stabbed while the people responsible stand over him free being called a liar. That's his last memory of life.
People are fucking sick of being treated like shit in their own country.
2
u/SmokyMcBongPot they go Lowe, I get high 15h ago
"a white accountant"
So, we're not even pretending not to be racist nowadays?
15
u/Nostalgic_Liberal 15h ago
He's making the point that the current status quo is racist, which I think is pretty basic reading comprehension.
→ More replies (8)1
1
2
u/Maskedmarxist 13h ago
What about Scottish grooms with their skein dhus, builders with saws, chefs, anglers, knife salespeople, lumberjacks with axes, sailors with their multitools, gardeners with their hoes, forks, spades, axes, machetes. Hunters albeit rare also carry knives and a shotgun. Every kitchen has a veritable armoury of long knives. Then thereâs the historical weapons collectors, I used to have a bayonet from the Franco Prussian war. Swords and guns are available if theyâre over a certain age. Go through every historic house and youâll see how many there are. Bladed articles are not suddenly just a Sikh thing. I do think perhaps they should be registered in some way. But weâd all have to be happy to register every single bladed tool we own in our own workplaces.
11
u/Lifeintheguo 12h ago
gardeners with their hoes, forks, spades, axes, machetes
Arrrested apparently.
7
u/LeedsFan2442 12h ago
You don't need a massive knife in an office
5
u/PimpasaurusPlum đ´ó §ó ˘ó łó Łó ´ó ż | Made From Girders đ 12h ago
You don't need a knife in your sock at a wedding either. You'll no be taking the sgian dubhs.
â˘
u/Goregoat69 11h ago
 You don't need a knife in your sock at a wedding either.Â
I dunno, Iâve been to some rough wedding dos.Â
→ More replies (5)â˘
u/LeedsFan2442 4h ago
If it is under 3 inches I don't have a problem but if not outside the wedding ceremony you don't need it in an office no.
â˘
u/LANdShark31 11h ago
The first one I agree with you on, then you just went ridiculous with the rest.
-2
u/SadCollar7554 16h ago
He's a Sikh. They all wear a ceremonial knife for religious reasons. Everyone knows this, or should know this, already.
17
u/Snoo3763 16h ago
A ceremonial knife doesn't have to be a fucking massive machete worn openly around the office. The rules do need to change.
9
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 16h ago
It's not supposed to be a fucking massive machete.
The Sikhs I have worked with and studied with in the past never walked around with a fucking massive machete. It's as small as the pen knives I randomly used to carry. Though it was only ever mentioned once in conversation.
12
u/Every_Car2984 15h ago edited 15h ago
Thereâs no size criterion; people tended towards the smaller blade to avoid causing undue alarm but there is no prescribed minimum or maximum size for a Kirpan.
To put it another way, there is no reason in the code of conduct as to why it cannot be âa fucking massive macheteâ.
8
u/Snoo3763 15h ago
Massive machete is an overstatement but the knife pictured is much larger than any I have seen a sikh with. Knife rules shouldn't be trumped by religion.
→ More replies (3)1
u/SmokyMcBongPot they go Lowe, I get high 15h ago
There are already conditions in law that apply, it's not "all knives":
[it is illegal to] carry a knife in public without good reason - unless itâs a knife with a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less, e.g. a Swiss Army knife (a "lock knife" does not come into the category of "folding pocket knife" because it is not immediately foldable at all times)
7
u/Snoo3763 15h ago
As I understand it a kirpan does not have to adhere to these rules.
2
u/SmokyMcBongPot they go Lowe, I get high 14h ago
Sure. I don't think it necessarily should, but there can still be reasonable conditions â if you're carrying a 4-foot blade dripping with blood, that's probably beyond the exception.
10
u/OkValuable454 16h ago
So religious reason primes over public safety. Well noted
2
u/Visa5e 16h ago
Whats the threat to public safety? Is there an epidemic of Sikhs using their ceremonial daggers for violence that has somehow passed me by?
3
u/EddViBritannia 15h ago
Was there a threat to public safety of pistols before the Dunblane massacre? Because we banned all pistols after a single incident.
Why does a problem have to become an epidemic before we react when it comes to religion. But when it's other topics it's always about acting swifty.
We've fucking just brought in a licence for crossbows FFS. Something you can't even carry in public, because of a few killings with them.
Why with our current knife crime rate, should a certain section of society be allowed to carry large knives?
I don't want them all banned, if anything I'd reform our asinine life laws to allow fixed and locking blades, only focusing on the blade length. That way everyone can carry a small knife for work, hobbying, etc, and use them safely without them being long enough to do serious harm easily.
→ More replies (2)â˘
â˘
u/OkValuable454 9h ago
So there is already one dead, which was treated and failed miserably by the whole system. The threat is carrying deadly weapons on an everyday basis, it's forbidden to everyone but it should be allowed to one ethnic group for "religious" reasons. If my religion is to open-carry AK47, should I be allowed too ?
0
u/SadCollar7554 16h ago
Yes. Always have. Now if you want to be the first to go tell the Scottish that they can no longer wear the knives that are integral to their cultural dress, be my guest.
0
u/NoFrillsCrisps 16h ago
Employers are 100% legally (and from a safety/practical perspective) within their rights to not allow knives into the workplace regardless of cultural/religious significance. That accounts for sgian-dubhs as well.
There is literally no reason to allow it.
→ More replies (1)2
u/SadCollar7554 16h ago
They're also 100% allowed to permit people to carry them. So what's your point?
Besides which, you're wrong. Employers actually need strong justification to ban Kirpans.
10
u/Electrical-Move7290 16h ago
âCeremonialâ knife.
Itâs a deadly weapon. If I brought a zombie knife into work Iâd have the police called on me.
Why should there be religious exemptions for deadly weapons?
If I start a religion that requires me at all times to carry round a shotgun Iâd be rightly called out for the absurdity of it.
→ More replies (32)2
u/WinHour4300 16h ago
Thatâs not quite accurate. None of the Sikhs I know openly carry a large knife in a sheath in an office. That's not required.
Where a kirpan is worn, itâs often a very small obviously symbolic and pretty harmless version, or at least itâs not visible and to hand.
Frankly it's inconsiderate and dangerous. I was taught in schools that carrying a knife even for self defense is more likely to be used against you.Â
Even if you know they carry it for religious reason, it's still going to make people feel uncomfortable. Especially if they've been a victim of knife crime.
2
u/SadCollar7554 15h ago
I'm not really arguing the toss either way. Just pointing out that no one should be all surprised picachu face at 300 year old information most people really ought to know.
4
u/Fickle_Scarcity9474 16h ago
They can wear whatever they please, once they use it in the wrong way they should be jailed. I think it is pretty simple as a issue.
→ More replies (2)
0
2
u/GodDamnShadowban 13h ago
At scotish events its not uncommon to see guys with daggers (sgian-dubh) tucked into socks. Knife crime in Scotland is a thing but we dont get the same whipping up of moral outrage.
The main difference I see is most of us already know not to mess with the men in kilts, especially if its an open bar event.
â˘
u/JuanFran21 10h ago
This is honestly such a ridiculous "controversy". Yes, it's legal for Sikh's to carry around their ceremonial dagger due to it being a cultural symbol. It's obviously not legal for them to stab someone with it. If we changed the law, what would be stopping this guy from just concealing the fact he has a knife?
This guy is crazy and stabbed someone to death. Are we seriously believing he has no qualms over murder but would be stopped by a law saying he can't carry around his ceremonial knife?
â˘
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Snapshot of Zia Yusuf : đ¨ Astonishingly, Henry Nowakâs murderer would walk around the office of the accountancy firm he worked at openly wearing a large dagger. Imagine you walked into an office and a white accountant was walking around with a large deadly weapon. You would call the police immediately. submitted by SignificantLegs:
A Twitter embedded version can be found here
A non-Twitter version can be found here
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.