Sikh Queenslanders allowed to carry ceremonial knives in schools after court ruling

[lewisnotmiller]

This brings to mind a question: Is it fair to all of the other drivers who have to abide by helmet laws? If the law states that certain groups can forgo wearing helmets, it seems to me that this is an implication that another consideration has been prioritized over the importance of helmets, which calls into question how other drivers should be treated by that law.

Of course it is true that another consideration has been prioritised. The simple example for both bicycle helmets and knives is that Sikh religious beliefs are being prioritised over health and safety.

Whether that is 'fair' is a little harder. Any society allowing freedom of religion will struggle with the borderlands between competing 'rights'.

In some ways I see the helmet laws as less problematic than the knife laws, since the erson being put at risk is the believer themselves, and I'm generally happy enough for people to have the freedom to take risks that only impact on them. 2 things then spring to mind;

1) These things have a material cost to society in terms of trauma and healthcare. Are we willing to pay it to allow a religious expression?

2) What is the role of society in protecting children from religious beliefs that may lead to self harm, even where they themselves want to adhere?

Ultimately I don't like religious exemptions on helmet laws where children are involved. I'd be willing to forgo them for adults. I get that there might be an inconsistency there from an idealistic viewpoint.

I think mandating helmets is equivalent to stating that they're necessary, which is either true or not. I'm not sure how an exemption could fit fairly into that situation when it would, in my opinion, be saying, "Helmets are necessary, but not always or not for these specific groups."

I don't think it's really society saying they are 'necessary' in any grand way though. For example with the general knife ban, there is a thought that it makes society safer. There is an exemption for professional chefs though, because they are required to carry knives. It's an exemption based on utility rather than a strict ideal.
Where you fall on the utility of religious exemptions is up to you. Personally I'd like to avoid them wherever possible.
Again, sticking to the knife exemption, the kirpan gets a nod because it's a religious symbol, not a weapon. But having a knife for defensive purposes...ultimately what the kirpan symbolises...is explicitly banned, and is the major thrust of the laws. So a symbol is allowed, but the object it symbolises is not. However there is nothing to prevent the symbol being the actual thing. Kinda gets twisted pretty quick unless you simply allow religious rights to take precedence over other rights.

And if you don't allow that, there will be arguments of religious persecution, or hostility to religion. Indeed, they've been raised in this thread.

There's also the question of what happens if an exempted driver is severely injured in a way that wearing a helmet would have prevented or minimized. Do all other taxpayers pay the extra cost resulting from forgoing the helmet?

They do.

This is not to say I'm necessarily against those exemptions, but I definitely see some gray areas and understandable but difficult questions associated with them.

Agreed. I'd prefer more inventive steps were taken. Helmets and harmless kirpans that don't breach religious tenets should be feasible.

 

[Altfish]

You'd break the law?

Our driving laws don't allow religious exemptions for driving intoxicated.
Or knife laws allow religious exceptions.
They are different laws.

If you're looking for a road related example, it's possible to get an exemption from our mandatory helmet laws for religious reasons (and has been for a long time).

But, that is wrong, there should not be religious exemptions.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But, that is wrong, there should not be religious exemptions.

Well, that's a moral argument. For what it's worth, I basically agree.

But when you earlier brought in 'so what happens if I make a religion that allows me to drink and drive intoxicated', I was answering in a legal sense. You'd be breaking the law. There is no religious exemption allowed for with our drink driving laws.

People are constantly suggesting 'if you allow this, then religions can declare anything to get around laws', and that's simply not true.

Better to stick to an argument from fairness or equality than one of utility in this case, I would suggest.

 

[Altfish]

Well, that's a moral argument. For what it's worth, I basically agree.

But when you earlier brought in 'so what happens if I make a religion that allows me to drink and drive intoxicated', I was answering in a legal sense. You'd be breaking the law. There is no religious exemption allowed for with our drink driving laws.

People are constantly suggesting 'if you allow this, then religions can declare anything to get around laws', and that's simply not true.

Better to stick to an argument from fairness or equality than one of utility in this case, I would suggest.

Well, so is carrying a knife, if I carry a knife, I could get arrested and charged.
When I gave the 'drunk-drive' example, I meant that the law is changed to accommodate the religion's beliefs. Like it has done with Sikhs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, so is carrying a knife, if I carry a knife, I could get arrested and charged.
When I gave the 'drunk-drive' example, I meant that the law is changed to accommodate the religion's beliefs. Like it has done with Sikhs.

Again...the law hasn't been changed, per se. Our knife laws have always had a religious exemption. Same as our bicycle helmet laws.
Our drink driving laws do not.


What has happened is that the courts have ruled in the relative precedence and priority of the general knife laws (with it's religious exemption, and it's exemption for chefs) and the school rules against knives.

Laws weren't changed to.accomodate Sikhs, and Sikhs in Australia have always been able to carry kirpan outside of schools.

I'm not suggesting you need to agree with the law. Morally, I have trouble with it.

But the drink driving thing is a furphy. There is no proposed legislative change to our laws, and our existing knife laws haven't led to this type of slippery slope.