THE KIRPAN: CAN'T ACCOMMODATION BE A TWO-WAY STREET?

(Written as a letter in Jan. 2011, to The Gazette. Not published)

In his opinion piece, "The National Assembly should not be a rights-free zone", Pearl Eliadis correctly observes that Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms means that Multiculturalism is an interpretive provision and not a free-standing right.

While M.Eliadis uses the Charter section as the basis for allowing Sikhs to bear the kirpan into the National Assembly, consideration can also be given to the use of this same section to deny that right, as it is not a free-standing one.
As an example, to deny a Sikh the right to enter the National Assembly on the basis of his religion, his sex or his political preferences, would infringe on a free-standing right. The wearing of religious attire, on the other hand is an accommodation accepted whole-heartedly by Quebecers and their government.

I believe that Quebecers understand and accept that the kirpan is an integral part of the Sikh religion, having much the same role as the Star of David, the Crucifix and the Crescent for their respective religions. I do doubt, however, that a Christian would be granted access into the legislature with a substantially-sized wooden crucifix, but yet the wearing of a symbolic cross does not pose a problem.
There is the crux of the matter; why can't a Sikh do the same? Is it so difficult to accord a compromise by wearing, when flying or entering buildings such as the legislature, a school or other area designated as a neutral, weapon-free zone; to compromise by wearing a replica made from some harmless material? We are told, after all, that the kirpan has never been drawn as a weapon.
M.Eliadis says that as long as the individual declares upon entry that the kirpan is a symbol of personal restraint and social justice, he should be permitted to enter, while not declaring the hidden weapon constitutes a threat. In this I agree with M. Eliadis.

I have, for the 15 years I was a firefighter and for another ten since carried, on my person, in a sheath, a four-inch folding knife that I have used almost daily in a peaceful manner. This folding knife is not legally constituted as a weapon and I have the right to bear it. My family, friends, colleagues and clients have never, in the past 25 years, ever felt threatened.

And yet, even if I declare my intention of defending Justice and Democracy, I will still not be able to enter any of the fore-mentioned places. I ask you; whose rights then, are being compromised?
Sikhs should be willing to accommodate a society that renounces the carrying of weapons in these places, just as I do; or society should be reasonable and allow me to carry my folding-knife.