An MEP wants Sikhs to be able to carry knives into the European Parliament building.
She says they can carry them into Westminster, so why not the European Parliament?
Lib Dem MEP Liz Lynn was speaking as an all-party Sikh interest group is launched, but some Sikhs have been denied access to the Parliament building because they seem to think they have to carry a knife – a ceremonial thing called a kirpan.
No, they don’t. If it’s ceremonial and not a weapon, as they claim, why can’t they carry a representation of it? And what are they doing being allowed to carry weapons into Westminster, when anyone else would not be allowed to do so?
This loopy PC MEP puts forward this crazy logic: “I am deeply disappointed that the European Parliamentary authorities refuse to recognise the right of Sikh people to wear the kirpan.
“The kirpan is not a weapon: it is a religious symbol. This is not a question of security but one of religious freedom.”
Even if each and every Sikh who was allowed to enter a government building carrying a knife had only the purest of intentions (and that cannot, of course, be guaranteed), the fact that that weapon is on his person if he got into an contretemps – even by no fault of his own – is itself a security issue. If ten Sikhs are in a meeting, there are ten knives in the meeting.
And what if a religious type claimed it was his fundamental religious freedom to carry an AK-47?
Where I do agree with her is when she says, “I do not see why the rules should be different in the European Parliament.” Quite. The rules shouldn’t be different for the two parliaments. The knives should not be allowed into Westminster – unless, of course, everyone were allowed to carry one, which might not be wise.
No comments:
Post a Comment
We welcome lively and challenging comments. However, please try to stay on topic, be polite and do not use abusive, racist or sexist language, and do not incite your readers to violence or other antisocial behaviour, or your comment will be deleted. This isn't censorship: it's a case of staying within the bounds of decency and having an eye to the law, although we realise the law will be different in different countries.
We do not bar anonymous comments at the moment, but we would prefer that those commenting play fair and use their name or at least a regular nom de plume. It does show a confidence in your convictions. We know, too, that it's easy to use a false name and be effectively anonymous, but, again, we appeal to your sense of good practice. Even a wacky nom de plume is better, since at least readers will come to know that contributor and maybe remember her or his previous comments.
Blatant commercial advertising will be removed.
Comments should not be construed as necessarily the policy or opinion of the Pink Triangle Trust.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.