@GFN8882@Adam0313777@WorldSikhOrg Prioritizing skilled immigration is a fair debate. But a fixed 10% cap is arbitrary. Immigration policy should be based on evidence, labour needs, demographics, and infrastructure—not an unsupported formula.
@GFN8882@Adam0313777@WorldSikhOrg There are many problems. Race isn’t one of them. Blaming entire groups has never solved anything—it only creates new divisions. Judge people by their actions, not their ancestry.
@Adam0313777@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg If “non-European people are the problem,” then by that logic Indigenous peoples had every right to say the same when Europeans arrived, took their lands, and became the majority. History doesn’t change based on the ethnicity of the newcomers.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg No—the problem is conflating freedom of religion with a right to bear arms. They are different constitutional principles. The Supreme Court recognized one. Canada has never recognized the other.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 10/10
Bottom line: the kirpan is protected as a religious article, not as a weapon. Canada does not have a constitutional right to bear arms. The Supreme Court understood that distinction. You should too.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 9/10
If you want to debate weapons policy, do that honestly. But do not misstate the kirpan decision. The Court did not say “everyone may carry arms.” It said Sikh religious practice deserves constitutional protection.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 8/10
Supporting lawful religious accommodation is not the same as supporting unrestricted weapon carrying. One protects a minority faith under the Charter. The other would undermine public safety and existing firearms law.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 7/10
Your “my rights too” argument fails because the rights are not the same. Freedom of religion protects a faith-based practice. A claimed right to carry weapons for self-defense is a separate claim, and Canada does not recognize it.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 6/10
The Supreme Court’s kirpan ruling was narrow and context-specific. It balanced freedom of religion against safety concerns. It did not create a general right to carry knives, swords, or firearms in public.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 5/10
So no, recognizing Sikh religious freedom does not mean everyone gets to carry swords or AR-15s. Those are entirely different legal questions governed by different constitutional principles.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 4/10
Canada has no constitutional right to bear arms. Unlike the U.S., there is no Canadian equivalent to the Second Amendment. Parliament may regulate or prohibit weapons in the interest of public safety.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 3/10
If a kirpan is used as a weapon, the Criminal Code still applies. Religious accommodation does not excuse assault, threats, or unlawful use of force. The law treats misuse the same as any other object.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 2/10
A kirpan is not a general self-defense tool. Sikh accommodation does not create a right to carry weapons for protection, intimidation, or convenience. It is a religious practice, not a weapons exemption.
@GFN8882@WorldSikhOrg 1/10
You’re conflating two different legal issues. The Supreme Court of Canada did not protect the kirpan because it is a weapon. It protected it because it is a mandatory article of Sikh faith under freedom of religion.
President Trump has posted this picture on social media of himself as Christ healing the sick. I’ve long given up saying how hard it is to think of any previous US president who behaved like Donald Trump, but comparing himself to Jesus puts him on another level altogether.