Canadian kirpan case

[Paul Horwitz]

The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday issued an interesting ruling 
addressing the issue of whether a Sikh student may be prohibited from 
wearing a kirpan in school.  The case came out of Quebec; interestingly, 
most Canadian religious freedom cases seem to come from either Quebec or 
British Columbia.  Here's a snippet from my post on Prawfsblawg, available 
at:

http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/03/scc_says_kirpan.html

"In today's decision in Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys, 
the Court holds that a decision of a school board prohibiting a student from 
wearing a kirpan -- in effect, a ceremonial dagger worn by Sikhs -- violated 
his freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 
and that this infringement could not be justified, as some infringements can 
be, under section 1 of the Charter.  It looks to me as if the Court was 
unanimous as to the underlying decision that the board erred in banning the 
kirpan, although there are some interesting arguments as to whether the 
decision ought to have been made under the Charter or under applicable 
principles of administrative law.  The Court noted that the student and his 
parents were willing to comply "with certain conditions to ensure that it 
was sealed inside his clothing," but rejected the argument that the student 
could have been made to wear a wooden or plastic kirpan (which the student 
said would not comply with religious requirements) and fairly flatly 
rejected an absolute bar on the wearing of kirpans." . . . . Among other 
things, the Court strongly rejected the argument . . . that allowing kirpans 
exposes kids to violence and affects the "perception of the climate of 
security," pointing out the plethora of potentially lethal objects that are 
readily available in any school, from baseball bats to scissors, and arguing 
that "[i]f some students consider it unfair that [the student] may wear his 
kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their 
possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to 
instill in their students this value that is at the very foundation of our 
democracy."

The decision itself is available at: 
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2006scc006.wpd.html

I should note that much of the remainder of my Prawfsblawg post compares the 
ruling to the contrary argument on kirpans presented by Prof. Hamilton in 
her valuable book God vs. the Gavel, and respectfully sides with the Court's 
view.

Paul Horwitz
Southwestern University School of Law
Los Angeles, CA