Religion, sometimes considered a spent force in Canadian society, has recently reared its head again. This time it is not one of the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism) but an Indian-derived one: Sikhism. The incident began in January when a group of four Sikhs was denied entry to the Quebec National Assembly because they refused to surrender their kirpans, the ceremonial daggers that Sikhs are required to carry on their persons at all times. The grounds for the decision to bar the four was ostensibly security, but perhaps Parti Quebecois MLA Louise Beaudoin voiced the real reason when she stated, “Multiculturalism may be a Canadian value, but it is not a Quebec value.”
Reaction was swift to follow. Sikh groups and their advocates pointed out that in 2006 the Supreme Court of Canada recognized the kirpan as an article of faith, not a weapon, and the wearing of the kirpan as part of Sikhs’ freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The word “racism” was thrown around a great deal. On the other side of the argument, the Bloc Quebecois called for a ban on the kirpan in federal Parliament. Some commentators insisted that when in Canada, Sikhs should do as the Canadians do – that is, put away their kirpans. One reader of the Globe and Mail remarked sarcastically that as a person of Scottish descent he should be able to carry the “dubh,” a traditional Scottish knife worn along with the kilt, wherever and whenever he pleased.
The irony of the whole affair was that the four above-mentioned Sikhs were going to the National Assembly to take part in a debate to defend Muslim women’s right to wear the niqab, or burqa, in Quebec government facilities. Addressing both the niqab and the kirpan, Rogers TV OMNI News personality Zuhair Kashmeri (a Muslim) wondered aloud whether we would soon see crosses being burnt outside mosques and Gurdwaras (Sikh places of worship). But is the kirpan debate really a Christian/conservative/White versus non-Christian/liberal/minority issue?
Considering the political parties of those names, it’s difficult to say that we’re looking at a purely Liberal pro-kirpan/Conservative anti-kirpan picture. Just last week, for example, the Quebec Liberal Party voted with their separatist foes on a motion to prohibit the ceremonial dagger in that province’s National Assembly. At the federal level, Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney, a Conservative, defended Sikhs’ right to carry the kirpan, describing the matter as a “non-issue” that was resolved by the 2006 Supreme Court decision. It should be mentioned that Minister Kenney has not always been so “tolerant” of immigrant groups’ traditions: in the 2009 Citizenship Guide he stated that Canada’s welcoming of newcomers did not extend to “barbaric” practices like honour killings, spousal abuse and female genital mutilation. Nor are the Bloc and Parti Quebecois necessarily right-wing. The current leader of the former party, Gilles Duceppe, was once a trade union negotiator, while as governing power in Quebec the Parti Quebecois promoted universal day care – an anathema to right-wing ideologues who feel women should be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
Furthermore, despite Kashmeri’s talk of burning crosses outside mosques and gurdwaras, there is no indication that the ban on the kirpan was motivated by a desire to keep Canada “Christian.” The Quebec separatist movement – at least that which evolved during the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s and which spawned the Parti and Bloc – was never religious. In fact, the late separatist leader Rene Levesque was an agnostic, and Catholicism did not form the basis of the movement’s concept of Quebec as a society distinct from the rest of Canada. Similarly, Sikhism does not seem to be a target of Christian fundamentalists: if any non-Christian religion is, it’s Islam, even though in terms of their attitudes towards women’s rights, homosexuality and the death penalty Christian and Muslim fundamentalist views often overlap.
Finally, the idea of the kirpan as a White Christian versus minority non-Christian issue is literally brought to its heels by a letter from Ron Banerjee of the group Canadian Hindu Advocacy. Praising the Quebec National Assembly’s decision not to admit the four Sikhs carrying kirpans, Banerjee states openly that the ceremonial dagger is indeed a weapon and that it has been used as such right here in Canada. He goes on to attack the niqab and hijab (headscarf worn by Muslim women) as well as the Sikh turban. Banerjee then contrasts Muslims and Sikhs’ insistence on wearing such attire with Hindus and Jews’ harmonious transition into Canadian society, calling the latter two communities’ traditions as “conducive to democracy.”
I’m not convinced by everything in Banerjee’s letter. There have been “culture clashes” between Jews and Hindus on one hand and mainstream Canadian society on the other. In a case in Montreal, a Hasidic Jewish synagogue demanded that a nearby YMCA tint the windows of its exercise room to prevent congregation members from seeing scantily clad women inside. Similarly in Toronto some discussion took place regarding Hindus scattering their loved ones’ ashes in rivers – though Hindu leaders declared their willingness to work with authorities and though the matter was settled peacefully without much fanfare. It is also true that Sikhs and Hindus have always had an uneasy relationship, both in India itself and overseas. Still, the fact that a non-white non-Christian voiced his opposition to a Sikh tradition in such stark terms casts strong doubt on the notion of kirpan foes as a bunch of “redneck Reformers.”
I personally don’t have strong opinions on the kirpan either way. Religious freedom – which also includes the freedom not to practise any religion at all – is important; hearing the story of a friend from the former Soviet Union who was prohibited from entering a church makes me appreciate my ability to go, or not go, to any place of worship I want. On the other hand, religious freedom is not absolute. Sometimes it should take a back seat to other values. For example, courts have ordered children of Christian Scientists to receive medical treatment against their parents’ wishes. Security is another value that in some cases should trump religious freedom. For example, an argument for banning the burqa could be made if it became widely used by criminals to conceal their identity.
In the case of the kirpan, is it really a safety risk, as security personnel at the Quebec National Assembly claimed? Perhaps on one hand its proponents have underplayed its potential for harm while its opponents have overblown its dangers. The kirpan has indeed been used as a weapon. On the other hand, so have everything from glass bottles (which would make me armed and dangerous when I entered a building with a bag of beer bottles I’d collected to return to the Beer Store for ten cents), pens and even the innocent hairpin. I’m not sure whether security is an adequate justification for banning the kirpan in the Legislature.
I don’t have too many problems with the 2006 ruling declaring the kirpan an article of faith. However, I also have to accept the Quebec Legislature’s right to bar the kirpan from their premises. The reality is that multiculturalism as practised in Anglophone Canada has never been well-accepted in Quebec. Nonetheless, I find the Bloc Quebecois’ demand to prohibit the kirpan in the House of Commons a bit arrogant. That is not to say that a ban on the kirpan in federal Parliament should be totally excluded in future; it’s just that I don’t think it should come from a party that doesn’t believe in a united Canada in the first place.
So far I’m satisfied with the status quo vis-à-vis the kirpan: permitted in the Legislature in Ottawa and that of the Anglophone provinces and prohibited in the Quebec National Assembly. This status quo, and my feelings on the matter, could change. I would be interested in hearing my readers’ opinion on this issue.
Recent Comments