Anger as airport stops Sikh with dagger
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anger as airport stops Sikh with dagger
Check this story out!
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...h_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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne...h_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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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..
Maybe Engineers/Pilots etc. should form a religion where we are required to wear leathermans about their person all the time
SD..
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Surrey
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anger as airport stops Sikh with dagger
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: outstanding in the field
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Otherwise...rules is rules...full stop.
"The INTRODUCER"
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...
Discuss...
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Perm any one from 3 !
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by TimS; 28th Jan 2005 at 11:45.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: about
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anger as airport stops Sikh with dagger
Religious trappery should never take precedence over the good of society as a whole. And fools......
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Exeter
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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!
_________________________________________________
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!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>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/showthr...threadid=59697
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/showthr...threadid=59697
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 60
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Age: 61
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: out there somewhere...
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
aka Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: May 1995
Location: UK
Posts: 4,541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.