Anger as airport stops Sikh with dagger

[sammy shamal]

Check this story out!

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/s/143/143986_anger_as_airport_stops_sikh_with_dagger_.html

When asked by the check in staff at Manchester Airport,
"DO YOU HAVE ANY SHARP OBJECTS ON YOUR PERSON OR IN YOUR HAND LUGGAGE?"
I wonder whether the lady in question answered truthfully to the routine security question?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A ROW erupted today after Manchester Airport security officials refused to allow a Sikh passenger on a flight because she was carrying a four-inch dagger.

It comes after the M.E.N. revealed another woman unwittingly smuggled a craft knife on to a flight from Manchester.

In the latest incident, officers in Terminal 2 refused to let the 41-year-old to board an Air France jet to Paris.

The woman, who was on her way to Delhi to see family, told officers she was wearing the ceremonial kirpan knife under her clothing before she walked through a metal detector.

The kirpan must be worn by baptised Sikhs as a religious symbol, but managers insisted she would not be allowed on her flight because it was considered a weapon.

She returned to check-in, where she was told her luggage had been taken off the plane.

"It was very upsetting," said the woman, from Leeds. "I don't understand why security should worry that somebody like me might stab somebody. I paid £540 for that ticket and I can't go.

"They also said they had already taken my bag off the flight, so it was too late.

Dispensation

"The last time I flew, in March, 2001, I was able to give my kirpan to the aircraft crew and they gave it back to me afterwards. But this time, they insisted they could not do this.

"We are supposed to wear it all the time, but I would be willing to hand it to the crew. I would also consider putting it in my luggage."

Panesar Balbinder, of Sikhs In England, was angry and insisted the government had given Sikhs dispensation to give their kirpan to flight crew for the duration of flights.

"It's a religious symbol, not a weapon. Other airports allow the kirpan to be handed into the crew and given back at the end of a flight."

A spokesman for Manchester Airport explained: "Such items are prohibited and they cannot be carried on the person."

Katie Hulme, from Air France, said: "I'm sorry, but there was no time to get her bag off the aircraft and re-load it. It would then have missed its slot."

A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Knives of all blade lengths are prohibited and passengers are not permitted to take them into restricted zones or onto an aircraft. Such articles may be put in hold baggage that passengers no longer have access to."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Avman]

I have great sympathy for the Sikh religion but, with the greatest of respect, I think there is a need for Sikh religious leaders to mandate an exception to this religious symbol being worn when flying in light of today's serious security issues. There can be NO exceptions to the carrying of potentially dangerous weapons on board a/c. How can you say no to nailclippers and yes to a 4 inch dagger?! I consider Manchester to have acted correctly.

[Turn It Off]

I agree with AVMAN. Absolutely rediculous. What annoys me is the press sound sympathetic to her cause!!!

[skydriller]

If Im not allowed my Leatherman, Why should she be allowed a Dagger? I mean a Dagger IS a weapon!!

Maybe Engineers/Pilots etc. should form a religion where we are required to wear leathermans about their person all the time

SD..

[BenH]

Absolutely. I am a Sikh (though not practising), and though the Kirpan is one of the 5 items all baptised Sikh’s should carry, in this case, the lady concerned should have been more aware of the security situation. There is no doubt the airport officials trusted the woman, but there could always be someone else on board the plane who could forcibly extricate the knife from either the lady or the crew.

[barry lloyd]

A similar thing happened @ EMA last summer. It seems that people just never learn...

[Fly_Right]

Next time she should fly from a Swiss airport. They still allow knives with up to 4" blades in pax hand luggage. (couldn't interfere with the sale of Swiss Army Knives now could they?)

Otherwise...rules is rules...full stop.

[ShamRoc]

I assume all of our Scottish colleagues when travelling in Highland Dress put their schian dubh in their hold baggage. But, what should they do if they have only hand baggage?

[Algy]

Following the 911 attacks it is impossible to hijack an airliner with a 4in blade and the enormous resources spent preventing this possibility would be much better spent on real threats.

Discuss...

[TimS]

Algy,

It is probably impossible (or lets say unlikley) to "take control of an airliner with a 4 inch blade" - and you could argue there are several equal or better weapons available on board - provided the pilots continue to shelter in a properly protected/locked cockpit.

But it may be possible:

1) To influence the crew to divert (i.e "hijack an airliner") by threatening the cabin crew and passengers - and the more suitable weapons on board (including 4 inch Kirpin knives) that are in the control of (or are taken control of by) a group of potential hijackers the more likely they are to be successful

2) To hurt people in the attempt (successful or otherwise)

Why make it easier for them?

Its simple - there are rules - the rules may be wrong or even silly in some cases (in my opinion not in this case) but they are rules that are primarily in our general interests - the rules inconvenience everyone (of whatever religion, sex or creed) - and we would all have an easier time if everyone simply followed them.

TimS

[Vol7]

Following the 911 attacks it is impossible to hijack an airliner with a 4in blade and the enormous resources spent preventing this possibility would be much better spent on real threats.
I totally agree with Tim S
Although unlikey it is all about risk management / avoidance why risk it.
We all know this lady was probably harmless and just practicing her faith but some people out there play on that and wouldn't hesitate to start attacking passengers in order for the Capt to divert to somewhere of their choosing.
Just because the flt deck are safe behind the door does not solve the problem.
Airports and Airlines have a duty to all the passenger to ensure they are also safe from harm

[FlyboyBen]

Shamroc,

In the past when I have travelled with my kilt I haven't bothered to take the Skean Dhu. You can quite easily get away without it as its generally hidden once worn.

In any case you can buy fake skean dhus. Certainly if you hire a kilt they don't normally give you a real one

FBB

[Rollingthunder]

Anger as airport stops Sikh with dagger

Not as much anger if they hadn't stopped them, one hopes.

Religious trappery should never take precedence over the good of society as a whole. And fools......

[greciangod]

1 passenger with a 4in blade might not be able to do much harm but what if there is a group of about 20 with knives. They could do a lot of damage. If you let passengers on with dangerous objects, on religious grounds, then anyone can claim to belong to that religion and not be stopped.

[thehighflyer]

"Next time she should fly from a Swiss airport. They still allow knives with up to 4" blades in pax hand luggage. (couldn't interfere with the sale of Swiss Army Knives now could they?)"
_________________________________________________

Fly_Right, you obviously have not done so yourself! Swiss Airports, just like all other international airports, DO NOT ALLOW blades of any length in hand baggage!

Even Swiss Army knives with blades of less than 1" length are removed and disposed of!

Okay, the irony is that you can still buy them in the Duty Free Shops, located before Security Screening, but they are soon removed before boarding!

[Airbubba]

>>If you let passengers on with dangerous objects, on religious grounds, then anyone can claim to belong to that religion and not be stopped.<<

Well, even the security screeners are allowed to carry knives if they claim the right religion according to this earlier thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=59697

[Joker's Wild]

Tough luck eh. Suck it up and realize the world has changed. You can pound your religious garbage all you want when boarding a flight but let's not forget, religion lies at the foundation of why airline travel has become such a nightmare. :yuk:

[Astra driver]

I may be mistaken but I believe the 911 hijackers used blades that were less than 4" in length and according to trancsripts it took 5 hijackers, some of whom were armed with "box cutters" which only have 1" blades, just minutes to kill 2 flight attendants, a passenger and the two pilots.

I seem to remember that back around 1980 when I still lived in England, the Sikhs were protesting having to wear motor cycle helmets as it meant having to remove their turbans.

[Left Coaster]

I believe that the kirpan issue was challenged in Canada back in the late '90's after a Sikh in Toronto was refused travel when he wouldn't surrender his dagger. He and some religious rights advocates challenged the rule and the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Airline's right of refusal to carry this gentleman unless he turned it over to the crew. Forward looking bunch!

[Danny]

The point raised by Algy is that it is impossible to hijack an a/c with a 4" blade these days. The fact that a determined fanatic could cause a whole lot of damage to pax and cabin crew does not mean that they can hijack the a/c as the crew will remain behind their locked doors and divert the a/c to the nearest suitable airfield.

So, please, in light of that fact why don't those with hairbrained ideas stop using this thread to to express their angst at the fact that some religions require the wearing of a Kiripan and stop trying to compare it to the Scottish tradition of wearing a Ski and Doo [sic]. If some of you are so worried about a 4" blade why are you not even more worried about a bottle of volatile, flammable liquid or the fact that the same bottle can be fashioned into something a bit more dangerous than a 4" blade or a sock filled with some dense and heavy items or whatever?

The point about security is that it should be based on intelligence and we all know that it can be lacking in both senses when it comes to the cosmetic facade that we put up with these days at airports. At least this woman pointed out that she had her Kiripan and MAN security did their job which was to refuse her to carry it on board her person or hand baggage. Everything else is irrelevant whether the religious aspect of it or the fact that she shouldn't have expected to be allowed to carry it on in the first place. Just the MEN whipping up a storm about an issue loosely related to aviation but concentrating more on the human interest aspect of it. I'm moving the debate to the Pax & SLF forum as that is what it is all about.

[zed3]

Sorry , guys .... I see your point of view ...BUT... I seem to remember that these knives were allowed for airport workers at Heathrow (since 9/11) for those of that ilk . I stand (sit) to be corrected .

[redfred]

Sorry but its another case it seems that particular people always harp on about racism and religion when really these people should just use their brains and realise what actually is the need to carry a dagger at all? for religous reasons? sounds like a load of old dogs&^t to me

[FullWings]

So, if I join up with the Branch Davidian Cult, I can take a GE M134 'minigun' with 5,000 rounds on my next flight as a religious weapon of choice? Cool. :E

[bealine]

Years and years ago when I first started my aviation career, I was asked to escort a blind Sikh gentleman to his boarding gate. Naturally, he triggered the bleeper as he entered the archway and, sheepishly, he removed the Kirpan from beneath his turban and handed it over without a word.

(In those dim and distant days, we used to "Red Bag" such items and hand them to the Captain who retained custody until arrival at the destination.)

Whilst waiting to escort the gentleman to the aircraft, one of our female staff members paused, turned and started addressing the gentleman in Punjabi. It turned out he was a very highly respected and well known visiting guru from Amritsar and he expressed his approval of the polite way giving up his Kirpan had been requested and could we be sure he would get it back on arrival because "it has special religious significance and has been in the family for generations!"

When I hear people carping on about respecting their "religion", I always think of this patient old gentleman. Not once did he demand anything or complain on religious grounds (except when I bought him a sandwich " I can't eat meat, but fish is good!" I remember him saying.)

If religious leaders don't find security procedures offensive, then why should their followers?

[Parcelpup]

Bealine, well said!

It seems that the lady could have packed it in her suitcase and avoided all this fuss at the start.

Perhaps just a little common sense is needed?

[boeingbus2002]

Zed3,
There was a big debate about if sikh staff at LHR should be allowed to carry these. For a while it was banned, but recent talks by Sikh representatives with BAA et. al. are trying to get them allowed again.

I think the thing most people worry about is not neccessarily what these folks would do, but if the dagger fell into the wrong hands.

Does anyone know why they don't/can't "Red bag" these items for collection at the arrival point? Also, cant a smaller chain/charm be used to represent this item, at least whilst on duty/travel.

[Animalclub]

The Poms changed the rules regarding motor cycle helmets for sikhs so why can't they change the aviation security rules... they've set the prescedent(sp)!!!

Tongue firmly in cheek .. I think!

[Alpha Leader]

How can you ever take a people seriously that argues (sadly, rather successfully) that whilst motorcycling their head is better protected by cloth wrapped around it than by an approved crash helmet.....

[bealine]

Interestingly enough, at a time when Local Authorities, Businesses and Charities have banned "religious" diplays at Christmas, our Imams of the two mosques here in Crawley specially requested "not to take down Nativity sets on the Muslims' account - the Qu'ran teaches tolerance of other faiths!"

Once again, the leaders are not the objectors - it's the followers!

[salapilot]

When these sort of threads are started, it always fill me with dread, knowing full well that some ignorant clowns will always make extreme and derogatory comments, be it about faith or race, without knowing the reasons why people practice certain faiths and the major significance of such items.

Read carefully where it was highlighted that this woman actually handed her Kirpan in. This has been common practice for over 30 odd years. Most Sikhs, if not all will always say a short pray and put the Kirpan in the suitcase. The other very small minority tend to hand this into security.

Since Sep 11th everyone has been on edge, but some perspective is needed. The Sikhs have been practicing there faith in this country for over 50 years or so, traveling all over the world from this country, without a hint of any trouble at any major Airport...........Some of you need to really wake up and start reading about others races and faiths, especially if you work in this type of industry !

SP

[rsoman]

Kirpans used to be allowed abrad Indian Airlines flights till the 1980s UNTIL a couple of them were hijacked using these weapons! That put an end to it!

Unfortunately dragging religious sentiments and beliefs to get exemptions from common sense rules continue to be fashionable! In a leading Indian state capital, reluctantly the politicians agreed to let the cops the job do their job - force everyone to wear helmets - everyone except Sikhs. Hard to believe a leading government functionary was quoted in the local media as saying "A properly tied turban is equally effective as a helmet!"

Going off track, still it is better than the rule in the nation's capital which allows all WOMEN riders to be exempt from wearing helmets (dont remember whether any one justified the decision stating women's heads are thicker than men's!).