The views coming out in the immediate aftermath of the Henry Nowak murder trial are pretty wild. There are plenty of political and media hot takes that are quite something to behold. You can do much worse than read Mic Wright’s analysis of all that reaction, which he provocatively headlines ‘trading dog whistles for klaxons‘. I think he offers a fair analysis of the situation.

It is admirable and significant that Mark Nowak has said he and his family – who have handled themselves in the most dignified way – do not want his son’s death “to be used to create further division, hatred or tension”. Those who claim to take this awful crime seriously, and who insist they are most concerned for the Nowak family at this time, would do well to listen to how the family would like the response to be handled. It is impossible to imagine that calls for ‘pure cold rage’, the hounding of police officers (particularly those who weren’t even involved in the case) and protests that involve attacking police and embracing members of the far right in any way honour the stated wishes of the family. It seems the Nowak family foresaw these kind of thing and wished to head them off.

However, what I particularly wanted to speak about was something related. Some of the discussion has moved on from the murder itself – though it is related – to wider discussions about Sikhism, immigration and integration and the freedom of religion. Most specifically, I wanted to comment on the clip below from an LBC Radio interview conducted by Iain Dale.

I suspect there are many Christians who would, particularly in the aftermath of this murder, be quite open to further restrictions on Sikhs wearing kirpans. I suspect many would find the defence of the practice as a longstanding religious commitment to be unconvincing. After all, knives are knives and we typically don’t want anybody walking around with them. We have just seen the kind of thing that can happen with them. Many Christians would instinctively welcome a tightening up on this.

But take a listen to how the interview unfolds, which I think would be the most common way people will think about the rules around kirpans:

Did you hear how Iain Dale cast it? ‘This is religious gobbledegook… because it’s a bit like Christians defending the practices of the Old Testament… we’re now in 2026, not in 1699’. Defending the kirpan as religious practice, Dale avers, is no different to defending any Christian practice that is rejected by the majority in the modern day. And, to be frank, he’s not wrong, is he?

If Sikhs should get with the programme and ditch their historic symbols and practices because of one rogue actor, Christians are going to have to ditch some of their apparently outmoded theological positions and practices too. If modern mores overrule ancient religion, we might be facing something of a problem for those of us who subscribe to orthodox sexual ethics, complementarianism and the exclusive claims of Christ. Ironically, those most quick to argue for restrictions on Sikhs and an end of so-called ‘two-tier policing’ seem quite keen for no restrictions on and preferential legal treatment for Christians.

But Christians need to be very careful what they wish for. They certainly need to be much more careful what and how they argue. Those quickly jumping to bans on kirpans and the limiting of Sikh religious freedom can see in the above interview precisely how that same kind of restriction will be turned on Christians. If Sikhs must ‘get with the programme’, Christians will also have to do the same when modern majority ethics rubs up against anything in the church that it doesn’t like. If we have been arguing for restrictions on the Sikhs, we will have no leg to stand on when it comes the church. If we have been arguing against so-called ‘two tier policing’ and believe restricting religious freedom on another group is equitable, we will have no leg to stand on when it comes to the church. Christians wanting to make these arguments need to understand just what it is they are arguing for.

We have a broader problem in this country at any rate. I have spoken about it many times before and it stems from the old politicians syllogism outlined in Yes, Minister:

1. We must do something
2. This is something
3. Therefore, we must do this.

This is the process that is followed any time any tragedy or issue ever arises. One rogue incident inevitably leads to call that ‘something must be done’. As soon as those calls are made, politicians quickly leap to points #2 and #3 above. In this case, a Sikh person has murdered somebody with their legally held, historically significant and legitimate kirpan, therefore we should now start talking about banning Sikhs from carrying kirpans.

Just to be clear about the logic at play here, this is equivalent to a professing Christian murdering somebody by stoving their head in with a gigantic King James Bible. Suddenly calls go up that something must be done in the wake of this shocking and appalling crime. So politicians reach for something – the most obvious something – and suggest banning bibles. No Christian should be allowed one because that would stop this ever happening again. Which is, in a manner of speaking, true. No bibles available means nobody will have their head stoved in again with one. Bob’s your uncle, problem solved. Arguments about religious freedom and historic practices will be as naught. They didn’t work for the Sikhs and we don’t want two-tier justice. What is more, if you are arguing for dangerous archaic practices over the evident safety of people today, you do not value people as you ought and are a morally questionable individual.

I’m sure you can see the issue with this logic. This is the same old logic as ‘if it saves even one life…’ no matter how impractical the implications of the measure being proposed might be. Only, it is worse because it is also the death of religious freedom. You may have your religious freedom as long as it doesn’t impose on me in any way whatsoever and doesn’t rub against my own philosophical or religious assumptions. Which is, in fact, not freedom at all.

I do not think that Sikhs should not be branded a danger en masse because of one rogue actor. You would have to show me stats that support an increase in knife crime amongst Sikhs before we should even countenance anything like that. But let’s just say for the sake of argument (and I’m not aware this is true), there is statistical evidence that kirpans are increasing knife crime disproportionately among Sikhs and this event has simply highlighted the stats. Let’s say there is a Sikh knife problem for the sake of argument (again, I’m not aware of any stats suggesting it is so). There are other measures we could take before a blanket ban, such as insisting kirpans must be inaccessible under clothing or that the kirpan blade must be, like many kitchen knives these days, blunted. This would still permit the wearing of an historic religious symbol, maintain religious freedom whilst putting in measures that may help.

Nevertheless, it bears saying again, it is generally not good to bring in heavy legislation on a whole community over one rogue actor. Moreover, in the absence of any evidence of increased knife crime among kirpan-wearing Sikhs, there is no reason to think there is any wider problem here to be resolved. What is more, Christians particularly need to be careful about calling down bans on other people’s religious practices because what is good for the goose will soon be deemed good for the gander. After all, what business – says Iain Dale – have Sikhs or Christians pointing to their religious texts as a basis for anything in 2026?