CA Kirpan Education Bill Passes 36-0 Full Senate Vote

September 2nd, 2009

September 1, 2009 (Sacramento, CA) - AB 504 - a proposed law that would train law enforcement personnel about Sikhs and kirpans - passed unanimously through the California legislature today. The bill is just one step away from becoming law in California. It now moves on to Governor Schwarzenegger, who will hopefully sign it into law before the end of October. Extensive advocacy efforts led by the Sikh Coalition and local sangat members resulted in bipartisan, unanimous support of this legislation in both houses of the legislature.

Should it become law, this would be the first law specifically pertaining to the kirpan in the United States. The California State legislature, Assemblymember Warren Furutani, and his co-sponsors Assemblemembers Berryhill, Eng, Fong, Galgiani, Gilmore, Ma, Skinner, and Yamada and Senators Liu and Yee, should be commended for their hard work and pioneering spirit in passing this bill.

The proposed law (AB 504) would create and include training about the kirpan in the state curriculum for law enforcement officer training. While several police and sheriff's departments have recognized the need for this type of training and have been conducting it on an ad hoc basis, the bill would standardize the process state-wide. The training would specifically advise officers about "how to recognize and interact with persons carrying a kirpan."

The legislation arose out of a number of Sikhs being arrested for carrying kirpans because police mistakenly believe them to be in violation of concealed weapons laws. Such arrests violate Sikhs' rights and are a waste of taxpayers' money. Our hope is that being educated about the kirpan and its religious significance will decrease the number of wasteful arrests.

Breakthrough in California

The bill was introduced by Assemblymember Warren Furutani who has worked tirelessly with the Sikh Coalition and local Sikh activists to ensure that the bill is a priority for the legislature and for the California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus.

"Given Sikhs' long history in California, as well as the fact that this state has the highest number of Sikhs nationwide, it is entirely appropriate that California take this pioneering step," said Neha Singh, Western Region Director of the Sikh Coalition. "We hope that the education will help reduce the number of Sikhs needlessly being arrested for practicing their faith and focus the energy of law enforcement on actual threats to the public safety."

"AB 504 is an important bill that recognizes the state's responsibility to protect religious freedoms, while ensuring public safety," said Furutani. "The Sikh community should not live in fear of arrest by law enforcement for carrying the kirpan, which is an integral part of their religious faith."

It is thanks to the dedication of California's Sikhs that this bill has gotten this far. During the course of this campaign, over 750 Sikhs emailed elected officials, urging them to pass the bill. In addition, thirty people traveled to Sacramento to give in-person testimonies at legislative committee hearings, including both the Assembly and Senate Public Committees.

Next Steps

The bill will now make its way to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. He will decide whether to sign it into law. For that effort, we will need all California's Sikhs to reach out to the governor's office to ask for his support. We will provide more information on that effort in the coming weeks.

For other questions about AB 504, or to join our lobbying efforts for this bill, please email us at legislative@sikhcoalition.org

Comments

September 10, 2009 - 10:46pm — PCJ2K

So if Gurleen Kaur was a

So if Gurleen Kaur was a Sikh, how come she was not allowed in a medical school under Sikh quota?

How come none of the other Sikh organization speak against this? Aren't Sikhs supposed to speak against injustice?

Only a few posts ago, even you were justifying such discrimination.

September 10, 2009 - 7:28pm — perrysingh

The SGPC is irrelevant

What part of "The SGPC is irrelevant" don't you understand. Again, they are not a bonafide sanctioned religious instution of the Sikhs. They are political in nature only and serve a functional purpose like a club that has vowed to upkeep the Gurudwaras. They are not a religious entity at all. Now, listen carefully, so you can see how misinformed you are about us Sikhs. In 1925, the Indian Government passed the Gurudwara Act and in that law, it states in no uncertain terms "that all people Amritdhari or clean shaven are Sikhs as long as they believe in the 10 Gurus of the Sikhs." Bhai Khan Singh Nabha, the author of the Encyclopedia of the Sikhs states that those people who do not recognize Sehajdhari Sikhs (clean shaven and unbaptised Sikhs) are far, far away from Sikhism themselves. All major political bodies, all major academic bodies, all civilized governments of the world and even foreign courts accept Sehajdhari Sikhs as bonafide Sikhs. The Akal Takht has not spoken and for good reason. They know better. The Damdammi Taksal has not issued an opinion on this matter either. I did ask my mother, who was baptised by one of the old Jathedars of the Dammdami Taksal, Sant Gurbachan Singh Bhindranwale, feels that they do accept un-baptised Sikhs as Sikhs, just not Singhs or members of the Khalsa Panth, but as Sikhs. Do you understand the distinction? What the SGPC says or feels holds no water. A Sikh is a Sikh, baptised or not. We are 25 million strong and that is an established fact.
September 9, 2009 - 7:50pm — perrysingh

you are not listening

The SGPC is not an authority on Sikhism and as a Sikh, I do not adhere to nor do I recognize it's decision. It is, also, entrenched in Indian politics and is not a Guru-sanctioned religious body. The only religious bodies that I, as a Sikh would be bound to or would feel obliged to respect are Guru-Sanctioned bodies, such as, the Dammdami Taksal, which was founded by Guru Gobindh Singh himself; the Sri Akal Takth and it's Jathedar who was sanctioned by Guru Gobindh Singh's Grandfather, Guru Hargobindh Sahibh Ji or any of the other Takths. The SGPC is nothing than a modern day governing body that served it's purpose 100 years ago, but is not any type of body that dictates Sikhs or Sikhi. It is no more valid in regards to our faith and beliefs and in the act of defining us than a corrupt Indian Court is. Hair alone does not make or break a Sikh. If having hair is the standard, then every pot smoking hippie who ever lived is a Sikh. And if having a turban or beard is the standard, then Osama Bin Laden and Mullah Omar of the Taliban are Sikh too. We cannot be stuck on symbolism. Sikhism is much more deep than that. The SGPC can claim what they want to, but it is not so. Sehajdhari Sikhs are a historically accepted group of people in the Sikh religion. Sehajdhari is a term we Singhs gave them meaning "slow in becoming (a member of the Khalsa Panth)". You can be a Sikh and not be a member of the Khalsa. The Khalsa is the elite of the elite. You can certainly be a Sikh and not be a member of the Khalsa. Conversely, a member of the Khalsa is automatically a Sikh. So, again, your points are invalid. The SGPC and the opinion of Indian Courts are invalid. We are 25 million strong, cut, shaved or trimmed. Sat Kartar
September 10, 2009 - 8:04am — PCJ2K

Or SGPC can say that people

Or SGPC can say that people can claim all they want that they are Sikhs, they will not be recorgnized as Sikhs unless they have uncut and untrimmed hair. Thus, they will not allowed to enter Sikh insitutions in Sikh quota.

That's a simple test to see whether or not someone is recognized as a Sikh. Just see if s/he has the same rights as a Sikh is supposed to have in a Sikh or a non-Sikh institution.

Next time you can try asking Damdami Taksal whether or not someone with cut hair is a Sikh or not. Since Damdami Taksal is really fanatic, chances are they will not recognize someone with a cut hair as a Sikh.

However, whether or not someone is recgonized as a Sikh is not the subject here.

The subject here is Sikhs committing discrimination although they enjoy equal rights themselves.

Shouldn't Sikhs learn from this decision that discrimination is bad?

Sikhs should learn from us Californians how to be fair.

Discrimination against Blacks and native Americans is irrelavant when it comes to Sikhs discriminating against non-Sikhs, including former Sikhs with cut/trimmed hair.

I still disagree that a Black person, for example, should just be allowed in a medical school, for example, just for being Black. If a Black person is willing to become a doctor for example and is not competitive enough to enter a medical school, s/he should go to a special school or a special class first to make her/him comptetitive enough to enter a medical school. These special schools and classes should be available to anyone regardless of their race and relgion. However, nobody should be just placed in a medical just for being Black or Sikh because it not only lowers the standard of professionalism, it also keeps more competitive students out of medical schools.

September 9, 2009 - 7:10am — PCJ2K

How could a court case be

How could a court case be irrelavant when SGPC, who even compiled The Sikh Rehat Maryada, is involved in it and verdict was on SGPC's side.

People can claim all they want that they are Sikhs. If SGPC does not accept you as a Sikh, it's all useless, especially when it comes time for equal rights, admission to university.

This is a fact that even though 20-25 million people consider themselves Sikhs, only about 4 million of them have the right to enter in a school under Sikh quota.

This is only for your information that SGPC doesn't consider someone with cut or trimmed hair a Sikh, nor do they have any right.

This in no way means that they should have right to enter university under Sikh quotas. What I am saying is that there should be no quota at all for anybody and Sikhs should learn from us Californians. It's obvious that we, the Californians, understand discrimination is bad and that's the reason why Sikhs are allowed with their kirpan where others are not allowed with a weapon, even with knife as long as a kirpan.

Now why is it that people of religion could never understand that discrimnation is bad. Doesn't their God tell them that discrimination is bad or do they have a man-made God?

As far as the division of Punjab goes, it probably worked in favor of Sikhs. Just think about it. There are probably 170 million Muslims in Pakistan and half of area in Pakistan is in Punjab. So, let's assume that about half of the Pakistans are Punjabis. That means if Punjab had not been split, there would be at least 85 million Muslims in Punjab. Now compare that 85 million Muslims to 4 million Sikhs in the old Punjab and there would probably be as many Hindus as Muslims. Sikhs would never make majority in Punjab. Now that Indian Punjab is only 1-6th of the original Punjab, Sikhs have majority in it.

But I don't see any relationship at all between a state being split and Sikhs being given privilege over others. If the same logic were to be followed then Punjabi Hindus and Punjabi Muslims should have the same privilege.

It's much better to give all underprivileged people opportunity by offering special classes or even special schools. But it's should not be race or religion based.

Today Blacks have equal opportunity and if they are willing to make their life better, they can do so. Those who are willing are doing so as well.

When you unfairly favor one person, you are discriminating against all others. Therefore, favoritism is actually worse than discrimination.

September 9, 2009 - 10:06pm — perrysingh

I do agree that discrimination is bad

I think that things like affirmative action, quotas based on ethnicity and caste are good in certain, acute situations. In India, people of low caste have been pissed on, shit on, raped and treated worse than animals for thousands of years. Religion alone was not enough to break this cycle, so the government stepped in and made it mandatory for a certain number of jobs and positions be filled by people of low caste. There is nothing wrong with this. In a country like India with it's caste system well and alive, these poor people could never get into a respectable job like a teacher, police officer, nurse and so forth. It is social justice. Each situation is different. In America, blacks have yet to recieve their justice. In Palestine, Muslims shoud be given their land and homes back that were stolen from them, but they won't. So Palistineans make sure the Isrealis don't live peacefully and sleep well at night. That is social justice. Native Americans own all the casinos in America and have so much money that banks have special "native american" departments to cater to their needs. That is justice. Do you think is an accident that 80 percent of the jail population is black yet they only make up less than 20 percent of the population? The environments that these blacks are raised in is the net result of their ancestors being deprived of their liberties and freedoms. If you see what White America did to these poor Africans, you would understand that affirmative action doesn't begin to right the wrongs people of European descent did to them. The indignities they suffered are unimaginable. Being bought and sold. Your children being bought and sold like livestock and you not being to do anything about it except watch it. Your wife, who your master chooses for you gets poked every once in awhile with your knowledge by the master. You get to watch your wife give birth to a baby 5 shades lighter than you and her. And...........................this is just a sample of black life in America for which the descendants of these people deserve an even playing field. Life is not fair, and sometimes, we have to push back and try to even the scale whenever it is in our power to do so. You obviously are not familiar with disadvantaged races or people, because otherwise you would not speak against the justice that they seek. Sat Kartar
September 8, 2009 - 11:42pm — perrysingh

Well, I don't know about all that

It is accepted worldwide by all major academic bodies that the number of Sikhs worldwide is somewhere between 20 and 25 million. Any court case involving an Indian Court of Law is irrelevant as it pertains to Sikhism, as it includes bias, local politics and of course corruption and a Government that is hellbent on weakening the Sikh community. These are the same Indian Courts who refuse to prosecute a single member of the Congress Party for their role in the 1984 Delhi Government Organized Pogroms. If a Sikh cuts his hair, he or she is still a Sikh because he or she would not "revert" to any other faith, since most Sikhs are Punjabi and Sikhism is as much part of their culture as it is their faith. They simply do not and will not identify with Hinduism or Islam just because they choose to cut their hair. They still go to Gurudwaras, listen and do their NitNem, and when they marry, they do it according to Sikh rites. A Sikh is anyone who sees themselves as followers of Satguru Nanak. In our history, we have always accepted two types of Sikhs. AmritDhari Sikhs (who form the militant Khalsa) and SehajDhari Sikhs (who believe in Satguru Nanak and all of the Gurus) who we the Singh Sabha movement in the 1880's refered to "slow in becoming". Hair and a turban alone does not make a Sikh. There is much, much more to a Sikh than his beard. Based on this standard, Osama Bin Laden would be considered a Sikh along with Mullah Omar of the Taliban. A Sikh is anyone who believes in the divinity of our Gurus, hair kept or not. The distinction is as simple as this - One can be a Sikh but not a Singh. A Singh is automatically both. Sikhs are either baptised or non-baptised. You are incorrect again. How can you say that blacks don't deserve a hand when it comes to acquiring jobs and slots in Universities? After all of the evil things that white America inflicted on them, it doesn't even come close to righting the wrongs done to them. If it wasn't for affirmative action, Blacks would NEVER get into Police Depts. in the South and White areas and NEVER get into good Universities - only the crappy ones and you know it. After 1947, Sikhs got everything taken from them, slowly but surely to the point the Punjab was reduced to a State that doesn't even show on a map. It used to be four times the size and Sikhs should have had control of those assets. You'll have to pardon me, but do your research before you speak.
September 6, 2009 - 12:43am — perrysingh

Wait a minute now, these numbers dont jive..............

Ok, I get it, sort of. But wait a minute - There are 25 million Sikhs living worldwide, of which only an estimated 1 million of them live abroad. So, if there are 24 million Sikhs living in India, then it would be a fair estimation to say that probably there are 3-4 million living outside of Punjab, which would be realistic, since Sikhs have always lived outside of Punjab. Think of places like Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Bombay where we are heavy. So that leaves us with about 20 million Sikhs left in Punjab, conservatively speaking. That is five times the number that you claim. If there are 50 million people in Punjab, then Sikhs make up almost half of them. Not so disproportionate now, is it? There are more than 4 million Sikhs in the city of Ludhiana alone. Do your research a little better before throwing unfair accusations. And by the way, since Sikhs make up less than 2 percent of the population of India, don't think they have a right to protect their own and themselves in any way they have to? There are plenty of insitutions non-Sikhs can go to. There is nothing wrong when a religious minority takes steps to counter the extreme discrimination they face by the majority. Sikhs face extreme discrimination in India and if it wasn't for Bhangra music and it's newfound popularity in the last decade, things would be much, much worse for us, as it has been since the partition of India. In America they have affirmative action. After all of the brutality black people have suffered at the hands of whites, from the time they brought them over as slaves, chrisitanized them, abused them, raped them, sold their children like livestock in front of their parents, you wouldn't say the blacks don't deserve affirmative action, do you? Of course not. The playing field has to be evened a bit. Sikhs are doing the same. If they don't take care of themselves, the Hindu majority of India most certainly will not. I am sorry, but your example is a really poor and weak one. Do you have anything else you can cite?
September 8, 2009 - 10:48pm — PCJ2K

First of all, according to

First of all, according to SGPC, the one who cuts or even plucks a hair is not a Sikh...

Therefore, 25 million is blown out of proportion as that number includes people who cut their hair... It's estimated that only 15% of 25 million are Sikhs, which is about 4 million and rest are not Sikh according to recent SGPC Versus Gurleen Kaur and et al court case...

If Sikhs are discriminated against by people of other religions, all it means is that pople of all religions are responsibel for such discrimination.

Sikhs were never treated like Blacks. Besides, nobody who is underqualified should be allowed in higher schools just because they Blacks or Sikhs.

All underpriviledged people willing to get ahead should be given opportunity to an oppotunity to get ahead and competitive. When I say ALL, it mean people of all backgrounds regardless of their race and religion. However, nobody underqualified should be allowed in schools for higher education just because they are Blacks and Sikhs for example.

September 5, 2009 - 9:50pm — K.J.SINGH

No Veer Sarvaka Brahmins in Sikhism therefor No discrimination

Veer Sarvaka was an "Evil Cast Conscious Demigod Worshipping Brahman," who could not stand to see any one in power or having influence in India except a brahman, worst yet if that individual did not worship Ganesh or any demigod. Sarvaka was responsible for the murder of Mahatma Gandhi ji , he was a karmi, or a materialist. Gandhi ji was a defenseless elderly and fatherly like person who had love in his heart for every living human being ,regardless of their religious affiliation, He was against partition of India, Sarvaka on the other hand was a godless hateful monster from Maharashtra , whose legacy still lives on to this present day in places such as Maharashtra , Gujarat, Punjab and other parts of India and around the world where demigods are worshipped, and there is the presence of the RSS. Nathuram Godse was a Maharastrian Brahmins, most RSS members are highly educated godless people , many writes mundane articles as Nathuram Godse did, Maharastrian's, Gujarati's and Punjabi's once known for preserving their rich Vedic culture have fallen to the lowest level having being influenced by the covered atheist philosophy of Shankararcharya, and Skaktiesm as taught by Swami Vivekananda, we have seen recently, of the discrimination towards the poor laborers from Bihar by the politicians from Maharastra, a selfish act in the nation of India. Maharastrian brahmins associated with the worship of Ganesh are extremely hateful and deceptive people, they suffer from "skin disease," thats why they discriminate against others. They are blind and are in ignorance. EVERY devout Sikh prays "Sarbat Da Bhalla" They pray for the good of every one. If there are discrimination in Sikhism , it is because of RSS Brahman influence.
September 4, 2009 - 5:49am — rpsgsingh

nice!

sir, we certainely do think the sikhs were good & because of that the bill is being passed, wouldn't you think so?
September 4, 2009 - 8:12am — PCJ2K

What I was trying to say was

What I was trying to say was that if Sikhs feel good about not being discriminated against, now Sikhs should know that discrimination is bad and they should not discriminate against non-Sikhs wherever they have the power to do so, e.g. in Sikh institutions.

If Sikhs have equal rights at non-Sikhs places, it only means that non-Sikhs are good people. It, in no way, is a reflection of Sikhs.

Sikhs' behavior in Sikh-controlled environment is reflection of Sikhs...

September 5, 2009 - 1:51pm — perrysingh

and what exactly do we discriminate against?

And what kind of discrimination goes on in Sikh instiitutions? I am not aware of any.
September 5, 2009 - 10:29pm — PCJ2K

50% of the seats are reserved

50% of the seats are reserved for Sikhs only... There are approximately 50 million even Punjabis and 50% of the seats in Sikh institutions, especially in Medical schools, are reserved for Sikhs only who are only about 4 million in population...
September 3, 2009 - 7:42am — PCJ2K

Isn't California

Isn't California wonderful? Now what are Sikhs going to do to prove that they are as good as people of California?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.