Sikh-Gruppe fordert öffentliche Untersuchung des Todes von Henry Nowak
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0g4qmmry7o
Von GnolRevilo
Sikh-Gruppe fordert öffentliche Untersuchung des Todes von Henry Nowak
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0g4qmmry7o
Von GnolRevilo
20 Kommentare
Sad thing is, the misinformation came from Digwa himself, and repeated by the courts.
So if the person says its a Kirpan then who are people to say otherwise, other than the Sikh community that would understand that is ceases to be a Kirpan the minute its used as an offensive weapon.
So it doesn’t sound like the misinformation was deliberate.
> „Under the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 and its July 2022 statutory guidance, a kirpan is clearly defined and understood to feature a curved blade,“ Singh’s letter said.
> „The prosecution and police possessed the weapon for over six months; they knew, or ought to have known, that the blade of the weapon was straight, not of Sikh origin, and could not be a kirpan.
> „By allowing a convicted murderer’s false characterisation of the weapon to stand unchallenged in open court, the justice system facilitated a highly damaging wave of misinformation.“
[Ramblings of a Sikh also discussed this:](https://ramblingsofasikh.substack.com/p/how-the-kirpan-became-legal-in-britain)
> The 2019 Act also went further than the 1988 legislation in one important respect. It excluded from its ban curved swords made specifically for religious ceremonies, meaning that a kirpan forged for religious use is not caught by the prohibition regardless of blade length. The specification of a curved blade is consistent with the traditional form of the kirpan, which in its design is a talwar. It also, whether intentionally or not, draws a clear line between the kirpan and the straight-edged pesh kabz that Digwa used, a distinction the community has made, even if the court did not.
> However, this distinction also exposes a legal grey area. The 2019 Act does not define or exempt straight-edged blades, yet the 1988 Act’s broader “religious reasons” defence does not specify shape at all. It is presumably the 1988 Act, not the 2019 Act, on which the court accepted the legality of Digwa’s blade until it was drawn offensively. The weapon he carried was a straight, thick, thrusting blade historically associated with Central Asian and Persian military traditions, not the curved cutting blade that Parliament appears to have had in mind when it drafted the 2019 exemption.
Why are they so worried about whether it fit the scholarly definition of a Kirpan, it fit the legal definition ie he was allowed to carry it and that’s all that matters.
>The Crown Prosecution Service said that Digwa chose to carry two ceremonial knives and that „the judge’s finding of fact made clear that he agreed“ with its assessment that **it was a kirpan** that Digwa chose to use.
No one in the public cares if it was a „pesh-kabz“ or a Kirpan, it’s the fact that you can carry a large knife as long as you follow a certain religion which is the issue.
So he was essentially just a guy with a knife on him, as we get fairly commonly?
Should not be able to carry a knife in public in the UK
Religious or not, it should be illegal, and that needs to change
Seems simple to me, ban carrying bladed weapons of any kind. Religion shouldn’t factor into it
The problem isn’t exactly Sikh’s.
The problem is the government has been using racism as a club to hit anyone who is critical of immigration.
Reddit is still burying it’s head in the sand about how unpopular open borders and uncontrolled immigration are. People are not pushing for 50% reduction. They are demanding the removal of illegal migrants. There is no reason ANY boats can make it to the UK.
And it’s not just about immigration. It’s about pride in your own culture and watching it slip away.
It’s about flying the UK flags and getting told that’s illegal when it was fine to spam Palestine flags for years.
It’s about having laws punishing naughty language, while ignoring way worse rhetoric from Muslims concerning Jews.
It’s about telling guests to show respect to the host country. Like imagine going to any other country and start talking about how you need to change your government to make up for your colonial history.
It’s about the state behaving like a doormat and creating a two tier system.
***This whole tragedy is an exact representation of the grievances people feel. The murderer weaponized racism and actually convinced the Police to handcuff the person stabbed. ***
It’s like close your eyes, turn off your brain, and automatically believe the brown person because historically they have been oppressed.
And it’s just one story after another. Not too long ago, they just found out groups were blocking white men from government intern positions.
People are done with white guilt. There is no way you can win elections on a we’re ashamed of our history platform and we need to atone for our sins. So let’s give away our power within our own country.
You guys are basically speed running Restore coming into power.
So Sikh men can carry a knife that they are allowed to use in defense of themselves or others but women can’t even carry pepper spray? Can we make a religion where women can defend themselves?
Their ex-neighbour put out a video purportedly of this boy handling different daggers and guns too.
All these religions that were made up a gazillion years ago have no relevance in today’s societies. I mean all religions.
How is this weapon exemption not in violation of the equalities act. Either we all get to carry a weapon or none of us do.
I’m of the belief Henry Novak did say something racist
Look no person should be allowed to carry any sort of knife is they want to carry a knife as a symbol of faith why can’t it be plastic
It’s not really about the kirpan. Digwa was a killer and he was allowed to carry a blade. If he hadn’t have the secondary knife on him, he could have used the kirpan just as easily. But Henry Nowak had no right to a self-defense weapon.
Out of curiosity, if a Sikh *is* convicted of a violent crime, (I know it’s rare) is he then forbidden from carrying a kirpan? Say he beats up his wife and threatens her life, that sort of thing. When his sentence is up, does he still have the right to wear a blade again?
Because I do think that’s not on.
Maybe allow people to have pepper spray, which is non-lethal, and can save them in an attack. If one group gets the honor system with a deadly weapon, why can’t others have the honor system with a non-deadly one?
I think the left wing media is guilty of ramping up the alleged Sikh hatred narrative.
I don’t hear any of it myself and I work in a massively diverse group of lads in one of the most diverse towns in the UK Bedford.
Seems to me they got an idea for a story and are pushing the narrative for outrage and clicks.
Personally I think the same rules should apply to everyone regarding blades but I’ve not heard anyone slagging off the Sikh lads… Even the guys I know firmly on the right.
This whole thing has been wild to watch I remember when Tommy Robinson was still part of the EDL and they would bang on all the time about how they lived and respected Sikhs because they didn’t want people to call them racists for always hating on Muslims. Now he’s just completely turned around and abandoned all that.
The vast majority of Sikh’s that have met in past and presently know are very pleasant people, Vickrum Digwa seems to have been an exception. Any anger should rightly be against the police for the way treated as he was dying.
Public enquiries cost a fortune. There is no need to have one every time someone is murdered
Some groups of humans (very niche to be fair) practice cannibalism. Does that mean we should allow those people to eat human flesh because it’s part of their belief system? No.
There is no reason for a Sikh or anyone else to carry a knife or any other weapon. Why should it be one rule for some and one rule for another?
Are Americans allowed to carry guns in the UK for religious reasons?