Dr. John W. Spellman

John W. Spellman, Professor of Asian Studies, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada.

"There is only one source of clean water and clean air and that is our natural environment," said Dr. Penelope Potter, who along with John Spellman, a university professor, led the fight to save Marshfield Woods.

"There is only one source of clean water and clean air and that is our natural environment," said Dr. Penelope Potter, who along with John Spellman, a university professor, led the fight to save Marshfield Woods.

Dr. Spellman, for example, who had testified in another landmark case, that of Pritam Singh v. Workmen's Compensation Board Hospital and Rehabilitation Centre, and was to testify in the definitive "kirpan case", testified with his characteristic lucidity as to the essential tenets of Sikhism. He traced its routes and its distinctive nature as a major world religion and not another cult. He demarcated the religion in contradistinction to Hinduism and Islam.

Dr. Spellman testified that these Sikh symbols [the five k's] manifest a theological statement that is the opposite of Hinduism. He stated that Hindu monks either shave their heads or have unkempt, matted and tangled hair, as symbolic manifestations that their appearance is of no significance, indicating a renunciation of the everyday word (sic) and that the divine is to be found in the dimensions of the spirit. In contrast, testified Dr. Spellman, Sikhism emphasizes that the divine is to be found in the real, contemporary world. Thus, Silos wear their hair in an opposite fashion to Hindu monks, to symbolize and indicate their different religious perspective. In this sense, unshorn hair to the Sikh represents spiritual vitality. As part of this requirement, a male Sikh must wear a turban and not any other form of head covering.

More importantly, Dr. Spellman testified that there could not be compliance with Sikhism or self-respect unless the above requirements were satisfied.
...
In this regard, the testimony of Dr. John Spellman, a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Windsor, was critical. On the purpose of the Kirpan, he stressed that it was "not simply a weapon that could be replaced by another weapon such as a gun".
...
Dr. Spellman testified that the wearer had an obligation to resist the removal:

It is a fundamental belief of all Khalsa Sikhs that they should never allow their kirpan to be removed by force from their person.

Could the kirpan be removed temporarily by the wearer? This was a theological question which the Board did not address in great detail. Dr. Spellman testified that since there are no priests in the Sikh religion it is not possible to obtain prior dispensation for removing the kirpan.
...
As a witness, the Ontario Human Rights Commission summoned Dr. John W. Spellman, now a visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and no stranger to Boards of Inquiry. His testimony was vital in establishing the historical and religious context in which the "Panch Kakar", or 5K's of the Sikhs had evolved. He lucidly explained the concept of the Kirpan in Sikh theology and daily practice - how it represents "law and morality, justice and order and has become an instrument of the "divine itself'. Repeatedly he stressed that Khalsa Sikhs must wear the kirpan, otherwise they would become fallen Sikhs, or patit:

The five K's become central in establishing [Sikh] identity. They become physically, visibly central, but they also become spiritually central, because [ ....] the forms of identification not only remind others of their identity, and in that sense they become a form of inward and outward identification recognition.

As to the size of the Kirpan, Dr. Spellman noted that this was a question of independent choice. Neither the spiritual canons nor the edicts of the Akal Takhat, some of the sources of Sikh practices, had established a precise standard.

However, he stated unequivocally that a miniature replica was not an acceptable representation of the Kirpan. On this note, Dr. Spellman expounded both the practice of administering amrit by the panj pyare and the process of baptism. Before the initiate to the Khalsa is baptised, s/he is questioned as to his/her thorough familiarity with the obligations upon the wearing of the kirpan and the 5K's. This process is the culmination of a catechism similar to that in other religions. Only after the panj pyare (5 beloved Sikhs) are convinced of the individual's knowledge and commitment is s/he baptised.

Of central importance to Dr. Spellman was the fact that during the century of the presence of the Sikhs in Canada, there had only been three or four cases of abuse of the Kirpan:

"If it is evidence for anything, 1 think it is evidence for the extraordinary restraint and self-control that this community has shown in the use of this symbol in the country."

Dr. Spellman further strongly disagreed with the view of some that a Kirpan could be stitched to the gatra so that it could not be removed. This violated the integrity of the Kirpan.

Windsor University professor John Spellman, who has served as an expert witness on Sikhism at human rights hearings, says in the 1430 pages of the "Guru Granth Sahib," the sacred scriptures of the Sikhs, there is only one line in which a guru mentions a turban.

Spellman believes Canada's hardcore conservative Sikhs, whom he believes make up less than 20 per cent of the country's Sikh population, are launching human-rights campaigns over wearing turbans in part to strengthen their position among moderate Sikhs.

...
Windsor University professor John Spellman, who has served as an expert witness on Sikhism for human rights commissions across Canada, said the nation's courts have refused to accept the argument that the turban is an integral part of the Sikh religion, or that it is mandatory for Sikhs to wear it.

"One of the most misinterpreted stories of the year is that Canadian courts have ruled that Sikhs have a legal right to wear a turban," Spellman says."No such right exists, nor has any Canadian court ever made such a ruling."

Although the public and the media incorrectly believe otherwise, Spellman said in an interview that Canadian law has not determined that a Sikh has a fundamental right to wear a turban at all times and places-- including on construction sites, while driving motorcycles or serving as police officers.

Spellman, who travels frequently to India to study Sikhism, said the Federal Court of Canada decision in 1994 on whether an RCMP officer can wear a turban instead of a cap, concluded: "Whether or not the wearing of the turban is mandatory is not free from debate. . . . There is evidence that the alleged religious requirement that Sikhs wear a turban is not as categorical as some assert."

The federal court, the highest court to yet rule on turban usage, rejected the contention by Sikh claimants and the Canadian Human Rights Commission that to not allow the turban for Sikhs would be to discriminate.

The fundamental issue for the federal court, said Spellman, was only whether the RCMP commissioner had the authority to change the traditional RCMP requirement that officers wear hats.The federal court ruled the RCMP commissioner could alter its uniform code.

The B.C. ministry of highways, in its presentation to the B.C. Human Rights Council last month, avoided making a religious argument to bolster its plea for the mandatory use of helmets because it did not want to offend Sikhs by telling them what is true and false about their own religion, said a government source close to the case.

Windsor University professor John Spellman, who has served as an expert witness on Sikhism at human rights hearings, says in the 1430 pages of the "Guru Granth Sahib," the sacred scriptures of the Sikhs, there is only one line in which a guru mentions a turban.

Spellman believes Canada's hardcore conservative Sikhs, whom he believes make up less than 20 per cent of the country's Sikh population, are launching human-rights campaigns over wearing turbans in part to strengthen their position among moderate Sikhs.

...
Windsor University professor John Spellman, who has served as an expert witness on Sikhism for human rights commissions across Canada, said the nation's courts have refused to accept the argument that the turban is an integral part of the Sikh religion, or that it is mandatory for Sikhs to wear it.

"One of the most misinterpreted stories of the year is that Canadian courts have ruled that Sikhs have a legal right to wear a turban," Spellman says."No such right exists, nor has any Canadian court ever made such a ruling."

Although the public and the media incorrectly believe otherwise, Spellman said in an interview that Canadian law has not determined that a Sikh has a fundamental right to wear a turban at all times and places-- including on construction sites, while driving motorcycles or serving as police officers.

Spellman, who travels frequently to India to study Sikhism, said the Federal Court of Canada decision in 1994 on whether an RCMP officer can wear a turban instead of a cap, concluded: "Whether or not the wearing of the turban is mandatory is not free from debate. . . . There is evidence that the alleged religious requirement that Sikhs wear a turban is not as categorical as some assert."

The federal court, the highest court to yet rule on turban usage, rejected the contention by Sikh claimants and the Canadian Human Rights Commission that to not allow the turban for Sikhs would be to discriminate.

The fundamental issue for the federal court, said Spellman, was only whether the RCMP commissioner had the authority to change the traditional RCMP requirement that officers wear hats.The federal court ruled the RCMP commissioner could alter its uniform code.

The B.C. ministry of highways, in its presentation to the B.C. Human Rights Council last month, avoided making a religious argument to bolster its plea for the mandatory use of helmets because it did not want to offend Sikhs by telling them what is true and false about their own religion, said a government source close to the case.

In most of these cases, John Spellman, a Professor of Asian studies at the University of Windsor, served as consultant and expert witness on Sikhism to the human-rights commissions of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.He argued that the ceremonial swords worn by Sikhs are not weapons but emblems of dignity and honour.He said: "The kirpan has a symbolic importance and is not designed or intended to be used as a weapon.You could say the mace is also a weapon used to strike people, but a mace sits near the Speaker in the House of Commons as a symbol of power and authority."7I To the suggestion of the Peel Board trustees that a Sikh student may only wear to school a "symbolic representation of a kirpan" (that does not have a metal blade that could be used as a weapon), Spellman replied: "There is no possibility of a golden, or a plastic, or a paper kirpan."72 The Sikh kirpans, he argued emphatically, must be made only of iron or steel and cannot be changed in any way.In an earlier testimony, he made the following observation in 1987:The turban and the sword are at least equal to the crucifix for Christians....The kirpan worn by Sikhs is a sacred symbol and is no more to be used to attack someone than crucifix...There are practically no cases on record of any Sikh ever having been convicted in Canada of using his kirpan as a weapon.73Spellman certainly did advocacy of the Sikh community for a number of years.But eventually some of his statements became questionable in the light of the fact that the kirpan was indeed misused as a weapon in a few disputes in Canada. For instance, on 26 February 1992 Jatinder Singh, a Granthi at Old Western Road Gurdwara in Toronto, was convicted of misusing his kirpan in a scuffle at the gurdwara.74 Once again, the issue of whether the kirpan worn by Sikhs is a religious symbol or a weapon became alive.

In a similar case in the United States, three kirpan-wearing Sikh children (Rajinder Singh Cheema, 10, Sukhjinder Kaur Cheema, 8 and Jaspreet Singh Cheema, 7) were excluded from school in the middle of January 1994 in Livingston school district in Fresno, California.

Dr. Spellman, for example, who had testified in another landmark case, that of Pritam Singh v. Workmen's Compensation Board Hospital and Rehabilitation Centre, and was to testify in the definitive "kirpan case", testified with his characteristic lucidity as to the essential tenets of Sikhism.He traced its routes and its distinctive nature as a major world religion and not another cult.He demarcated the religion in contradistinction to Hinduism and Islam.

Dr. Spellman testified that these Sikh symbols [the five k's] manifest a theological statement that is the opposite of Hinduism.He stated that Hindu monks either shave their heads or have unkempt, matted and tangled hair, as symbolic manifestations that their appearance is of no significance, indicating a renunciation of the everyday word (sic) and that the divine is to be found in the dimensions of the spirit.In contrast, testified Dr. Spellman, Sikhism emphasizes that the divine is to be found in the real, contemporary world.Thus, Silos wear their hair in an opposite fashion to Hindu monks, to symbolize and indicate their different religious perspective.In this sense, unshorn hair to the Sikh represents spiritual vitality.As part of this requirement, a male Sikh must wear a turban and not any other form of head covering.

More importantly, Dr. Spellman testified that there could not be compliance with Sikhism or self-respect unless the above requirements were satisfied.
...
In this regard, the testimony of Dr. John Spellman, a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Windsor, was critical.On the purpose of the Kirpan, he stressed that it was "not simply a weapon that could be replaced by another weapon such as a gun".
...
Dr. Spellman testified that the wearer had an obligation to resist the removal:

It is a fundamental belief of all Khalsa Sikhs that they should never allow their kirpan to be removed by force from their person.

Could the kirpan be removed temporarily by the wearer?This was a theological question which the Board did not address in great detail.Dr. Spellman testified that since there are no priests in the Sikh religion it is not possible to obtain prior dispensation for removing the kirpan.
...
As a witness, the Ontario Human Rights Commission summoned Dr. John W. Spellman, now a visiting Professor at Harvard Law School and no stranger to Boards of Inquiry.His testimony was vital in establishing the historical and religious context in which the "Panch Kakar", or 5K's of the Sikhs had evolved.He lucidly explained the concept of the Kirpan in Sikh theology and daily practice - how it represents "law and morality, justice and order and has become an instrument of the "divine itself'.Repeatedly he stressed that Khalsa Sikhs must wear the kirpan, otherwise they would become fallen Sikhs, or patit:

The five K's become central in establishing [Sikh] identity.They become physically, visibly central, but they also become spiritually central, because [ ....] the forms of identification not only remind others of their identity, and in that sense they become a form of inward and outward identification recognition.

As to the size of the Kirpan, Dr. Spellman noted that this was a question of independent choice.Neither the spiritual canons nor the edicts of the Akal Takhat, some of the sources of Sikh practices, had established a precise standard.

However, he stated unequivocally that a miniature replica was not an acceptable representation of the Kirpan.On this note, Dr. Spellman expounded both the practice of administering amrit by the panj pyare and the process of baptism.Before the initiate to the Khalsa is baptised, s/he is questioned as to his/her thorough familiarity with the obligations upon the wearing of the kirpan and the 5K's.This process is the culmination of a catechism similar to that in other religions.Only after the panj pyare (5 beloved Sikhs) are convinced of the individual's knowledge and commitment is s/he baptised.

Of central importance to Dr. Spellman was the fact that during the century of the presence of the Sikhs in Canada, there had only been three or four cases of abuse of the Kirpan:

"If it is evidence for anything, 1 think it is evidence for the extraordinary restraint and self-control that this community has shown in the use of this symbol in the country."

Dr. Spellman further strongly disagreed with the view of some that a Kirpan could be stitched to the gatra so that it could not be removed.This violated the integrity of the Kirpan.