Kirpan compromise possible

DON MACPHERSON
Montreal Gazette
Thursday, February 21, 2002

To English-speaking Canadians, assimilating immigrants is old hat. But it's something relatively new to French-speaking Quebecers.

It's been only about a generation since French Quebec went from discouraging immigrants from attending its schools to requiring that they do so.

And it's remarkable how quickly francophones are adapting to the idea of a French Quebec that is multiethnic and multicultural as well as French-speaking. The wonder is not that there are occasional misunderstandings between French-language institutions and the growing number of minority members they serve but that there seem to be so few.

In the mid-1990s, there was a controversy over whether Muslim girls should be allowed to wear the religious head covering known as the hijab to school. Eventually, they were.

Now, a similar problem has arisen over the wearing by Sikh pupils of the ceremonial dagger called the kirpan, which their religion requires all baptized Sikhs to wear at all times.

What makes the kirpan different from the hijab, however, is that it is not only a religious symbol but also, in the eyes of non-Sikhs, a weapon, even though it is not supposed to be used as such or even unsheathed, except for the purposes of religious ceremonies.

This week, a 12-year-old Sikh boy was sent a letter informing him that he won't be allowed back to his school in Montreal's southwestern LaSalle district as long as he insists on wearing his 10-centimetre kirpan.

The school's governing board, which includes representatives of parents, teachers and the school administration, last week rejected a compromise worked out between the Marguerite-Bourgeoys school board and the boy's parents. The compromise would have allowed the boy to wear the kirpan as long as it was tightly wrapped in a cloth sheath.

To the school's governing board, however, the kirpan remains a weapon and as such should be banned from school. The boy's parents have hired lawyer Julius Grey, and court action is possible.

Whether a Sikh pupil should be allowed to wear a kirpan to school might be a new issue in Quebec, but it is not in the rest of the country. So perhaps it might be helpful to try to learn from experiences elsewhere in Canada.

In 1988, a Sikh teacher filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission alleging that he had been discriminated against because of his religion when his employer, the Peel Board of Education, had forbidden him from wearing a kirpan on school property. The Toronto-area board had introduced a no-weapons policy after a number of knife incidents and concern about increasing use of knives and violence in its schools. Like the governing board at the LaSalle school, the Peel board argued that the kirpan can be used as a weapon and is considered as such by non-Sikhs.

A commission board of inquiry ruled in 1991 that the ban on the kirpan discriminated against Sikhs. It found that although the policy was enacted in good faith, it was not reasonable under the circumstances because there had never been a case of violence in any Canadian school involving a kirpan. It ordered the school board to allow Sikh pupils, teachers or staff members to wear kirpans to school subject to certain safety restrictions.

The board appealed the ruling to the Ontario divisional court but lost. The Ontario court of appeal then refused to hear the case.

Several school boards in parts of Canada where there are Sikh communities now allow members of that religion to wear kirpans to school, sometimes with certain restrictions. For example, the kirpan might be limited in length, and the wearer might be required to keep it in a sheath that is out of sight and not easily accessible. These policies show that it is possible to reconcile school safety with religious tolerance in ways that satisfy school authorities and staff, Sikhs and other parents.

The Marguerite-Bourgeoys board owes it to itself to step in and impose such a compromise on all its schools, rather than letting each set its own policy and allowing one of them to drag it into an unnecessary court battle.