Banning the kirpan would set a dangerous precedent for religious freedom

The video was so achingly painful that I had to turn away.

It depicts the moment 18-year-old university student Henry Nowack was handcuffed by Hampshire police as he lay dying, limp and pale on the ground, painfully moaning “I can’t breathe. I can’t breathe” to the obstinate officers.

His murderer – Vickrum Digwa, a 23-year old Sikh man – had stabbed him multiple times with an 8 inch blade and then phoned police, falsely accusing his fatally wounded victim of racism.

This cynical lie and the behaviour of officers on the scene reignited a furious debate around claims of so-called two-tier policing, the belief that hate incidences are prioritised over other crimes and that certain ethnic groups are given preferential treatment by the authorities.

In the heat of this controversy, politicians across the political spectrum have threatened to ban the “kirpan”, the ceremonial, religious dagger fundamental to the Sikh tradition.

Translating to “sword of mercy”, wearing the Kirpan is one of the five articles of faith in the Sikh tradition and carrying it is a strict religious requirement.

It represents the duty to defend the weak, stand up against injustice and protect the innocent.

Under current legislation it is legal for a practicing Sikh to wear the blade but using it as an offensive weapon is, of course, illegal. And it is important to note that the weapon Digwa used was not, in fact, a kirpan, despite the fact that he falsely claimed that it was.

However shortly after Mr Nowack’s tragic death, politicians threatened to have it banned.

Reform UK Home Affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf told Talk TV: “We would ensure that nobody gets to carry deadly weapons on our streets unless you are law enforcement. I don’t care what religion you are. I don’t care how ceremonial your dagger is.”

Then when asked about it during the Makerfield by-election Question Time, potential Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham obfuscated stating: “there’s a case to look at [existing legislation] again”.

This is wrong.

While it is true that Britain has a serious knife crime problem, this is not because of the kirpan.

Politicians must ask themselves whether the kirpan poses a genuine threat to people in Britain, or if banning the kirpan will stop or reduce knife crime in any material way. Of course, the answer to these questions is no.

But banning the kirpan will certainly make life in Britain harder, less welcoming and less comfortable for the Sikh community.

Do we wish to see Sikhs excluded from British life? Do we want them forbidden from practicing one of the fundamentals of their faith? My view is no.

It is also important to note that the response to Digwa’s murder from the Sikh community has been unanimous, unequivocal condemnation.

Responding to the tragedy. Gurmel Singh, chief executive of the Supreme Sikh Council UK said: “The Sikh community unequivocally condemns the actions of Vickrum Digwa.

“His conduct represents a grave breach of our values and code of conduct, and has brought disrepute to a community

“Wearing the Sikh articles of faith is a sacred responsibility.”

Despite this firm response, politicians across the board have seemingly wavered in their commitment to protect religious freedom.

Ex Reform UK MP and current head of Restore Rupert Lowe took it the furthest.

Capitalizing on the fury in the wake of Mr Nowak’s killing, he said: “I am entirely uninterested in making exemptions for un-British religious practices.

“What would Restore Britain do?

“Halal slaughter, banned. The kirpan, banned, Kosher slaughter, banned. The burqa, banned. All of it, banned.

“This is Britain – we do things our way.”

This is the path of a nation that abandons its liberal ideals and its commitment to religious freedom.

British Jews must remember that the right to practice one’s faith openly is not guaranteed.

And refusing to defend this right for others will surely lead us down a dangerous path.

If we stand by while the kirpan is banned, we open the door to the banning of many other cultural and religious practices deemed controversial by some in wider society. Brit Milah? Kosher slaughter? Zionist education?

Of course the United Kingdom is a Christian country.

But Mr Lowe’s characterization of Britain is not one I recognise.

Ours is a country with a long, healthy tradition of tolerance and love for one’s neighbour, all beautiful Christian values.

It is the country that welcomed 10,000 Jewish children on the Kindertransport fleeing Nazi persecution. The land whose King comforted us in Golders Green during our time of need.

Britain is a place where an Indian man or Nigerian woman could ascend to the highest political position in this country without so much as the batting of an eyelid.

It is also a country where the national dishes include a chicken tikka masala (likely invented by south asian and pakistani migrants) and fish and chips (brought over by sephardi jews).

Fundamentally we are a polite nation that lets people get on with their life and their faith in peace.

Long may this vision of Britain continue.