Jay, stop being so fucking presumptuous! Grow out of the playground bully mentality cause you are getting tedious,boy.

Re the lundies, great satire- if you get it. Sorry to be blunt but some here are so firmly stuck in the ‘identity’ rut that they may not.

I look forward to reading your article on the subject. In your experience at the grass roots, is this a consensus amongst say the African Caribbean community as well as amongst some Asians?

Plenty of reasons. Firstly the CRE is meant to be merely a body to propose and implement race legislation, not make silly remarks like ‘Britain is becoming more segregated’ (later proved to be false) or that ‘Big Brother is bringing us all closer together’. TP just makes headline grabbing statements that have little inherent value, or lead to any change.
Even the government has stopped listening to it… hence the move towards the CEHR. He has little credibility amongst charities or social organisations that work with ethnic minorities.

It has its own use as a legal body, but TP is using it as a personal vehicle, that’s the problem. I’ll write more about this later…

I’m not sure why you’re making the connection between the kirpan and youth violence. Like I said, there are any number of much more dangerous potential weapons around than a 3 inch dulled kirpan in a sheath worn under the clothes. It’s lost its effectiveness as a weapon, the supreme court decision allows for these conditions to be set, why are you still considering it something more than a harmless symbol?

And I went to school in the city and suburbs of Toronto, if the kirpan issue is relevant anywhere it’s relevant there.

Please note, young Skih men are going to be warrior-like with or without allowing them to carry blunted knife-like objects in crushed-velvet sacks.

The Sikh historical inheritance is a bloody and violent one and the kirpan symbol is a remnant of that. Now it is a symbol Sikhs should treat it as such and compromise to ensure that it is worn in a benign manner. 99% already do that but it does not satisfy all, so go the extra step and ensure it is so. That is the duty of amritdhari Sikhs.

=>”Yes, it does. It epitomises violence as a viable recourse to conflict – no matter that it has been dressed up as chivalric,justice on behalf of oppression and so on.”

Let me give you an example to really bring the message home regarding what the Sikh concept of the aforementioned points is really all about.

Supposing you were walking home from work one evening, on your own, and somebody attacked you with the intention of raping you. If the only way a passing Sikh — indeed, any passing individual — could prevent the attacker from succeeding would be to physically incapacitate them in order to rescue you, then I think you would agree that that would be a reasonable context for the use of force. Unless you think that the more ethical option would be for bystanders to just hang around, waiting for the police to come (which could take a while), while the rapist finishes his sexual assualt and then runs away because nobody should physically restrain him either.

It is not violence in itself which is inherently immoral, but the context in which it is used, the extent to which it is deployed, and the motivations for the person using it. Otherwise you might as well suggest disbanding every nation’s military forces (which prevent foreign invasion). It’s worth bearing in mind that if people really had implemented this line of thought, there really would be no Jewish people left in the world, we’d all be speaking German, Japanese, Russian, or (considering certain other present-day global events) Arabic. Think it over. Hell, taking it further back, Aurangzeb’s capaign of forced conversion to Islam really would have succeeded throughout the Indian subcontinent and there would be no Hindus, Sikhs, or other non-Muslim groups left there either. Including me and you.

You may not agree with this, but the Sikh philosophy on the matter is that passively submitting to unjustified aggression and tyranny, or passively refusing to intervene if a third-party is being unjustifiably attacked and you theoretically have the power to assist/rescue them, is as bad as inflicting that kind of aggression on someone yourself.

Remember also what I said earlier about how the use of violence is only supposed to be an extreme last-resort, and only in a highly-limited number of specific circumstances. This is an absolutely critical point to bear in mind.

To make the matter clearer, let me mention something about the Sikh ideal of the “sant-sipahi”, ie. the “saint-soldier”. As the name indicates, the ‘saint’ part comes first and foremost. Guru Gobind Singh made a very good point about how one should attempt to be a saint first before one tries to become a soldier. It’s to prevent people from turning into psychopathic thugs who resort to violence at the drop of a hat, or who use it in inappropriate circumstances.

The Guru also said that anyone who wanted to understand his message should refer to the scriptures of the Guru Granth Sahib. It’s not exactly a warlike text, if that’s what you’re assuming. You will not find any verses there exhorting ‘holy war’ or ‘death to the infidels. In fact, if one really wants to understand Sikh teachings, one is supposed to listen to it in musical “kirtan” form. If you have any familiarity with it, you’ll know that it’s not exactly the kind of music which inflames its listeners and turns them into violent thugs (the opposite, in fact).

Anyway, the world is still a highly-dangerous place in many ways, we don’t know what the future holds for the human race, and — looking further ahead — the universe is an extremely large place and none of us knows exactly what awaits us “out there”. Regarding physical force as an unacceptable solution no matter what the situation is not only highly irresponsible, it is also potentially suicidal.

Unless you think that “passive, non-violent resistance” would have succeeded against the Mughals or the Nazis or, indeed, would cut any ice with OBL and his fellow jihadists at all, in which case we really are on completely different pages on this issue.

He is definitely not racist, it is just ridiculous to suggest so (I dont mean you, but whoever did suggest that). But why have some people stopped taking the CRE seriously? Would you say it is because of the public statements he has made? Or just because it has outlived its use?

Yes he definitely does. I don’t think he’s racist, I just know that generally people have stopped taking him seriously.. the CRE has become a joke.

Most people do. It is my understanding that the kid was ready to accept restrictions but the school took an absolute line and did not give him the option. Hence it was taken to the High Court. As far as I know it has to be checked in on flights.

By the way, what is the situation re. air travel? I’ve briefly looked on the net but there seems to be some confusion. Some suggest a ‘travel’ kipan of a couple of inches is acceptable, others say it has to be checked in.

Yes, it does. It epitomises violence as a viable recourse to conflict – no matter that it has been dressed up as chivalric,justice on behalf of oppression and so on.