A majority of the public is likely to have limited sympathy for Sikh men wearing what could be seen as dangerous weapons. Underlying principles can be summed up through the decision of an Italian court when upholding a prosecution for a Sikh wearing a large kirpan: "Attachment to values which violate the laws of the host country is intolerable, even if they are lawful in the country of origin ... public safety is an asset to be protected ... Multi-ethnic society is a necessity, but co-existence among different people requires the identification of a common nucleus, which immigrants and host societies must recognise."
Populist Winston Peters last year went so far as to say that if Sikhs could wear kirpans as part of their customs then what could be said to Maori who wanted to carry traditional weapons or Hindu their tridents, the traditional three-pronged spear.
Whatever one's stance on the wider issue, Mr Peters' comment should be dismissed. The comparison with a taiaha or trident is asinine because of the kirpan's place in the Sikh religion.
To Sikhs it is far more than just a "custom" or a traditional weapon. Sikh tenets require it to be carried. It is a blessing from the Guru and is one of five articles of faith to be worn by initiated Sikhs all the time - the others being uncut hair, a wooden hair comb, an iron bracelet and a cotton tieable undergarment. The kirpan has its roots in a Sikh's duty to defend those in peril.
The kirpan must be worn alongside all the other articles of faith. Just as someone fishing has a good reason to carry a knife or a carpenter a chisel, a Sikh has a compelling religious reason for carrying the kirpan.
National MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, a Sikh, last week lodged a Supplementary Order Paper seeking to change the law so Sikhs can carry kirpans in public and at work. This comes as an addition to the Crimes Amendment Bill, which was signalled by the previous government and changes outdated parts of the Crimes Act.
Labour has, however, knocked back change for now, saying the approach was wrong. Justice Minister Andrew Little has said that, because the Bill dealt with "largely non-controversial issues", the matter should go before a select committee grappling with a "broader, deeper" rewriting of the Act next year.
Labour has previously backed change, and the opposition to the principle would come from New Zealand First and Mr Peters. India, Canada, the United Kingdom and some Australian states have passed laws recognising the right to wear the kirpan.
Although ways should be found to clarify the wearing of the kirpan without undue delay, while satisfying safety concerns, that course makes sense. A proper examination of exactly what is allowed should be undertaken, and the Civil Aviation Authority - in line with some several countries - already allows tiny kirpans (less than 6cm) on board planes.
While the view of the Italian court should underline treatment of immigrants, as well as their behaviour, its conclusions on the kirpan are not necessarily valid. Carrying the kirpan need not violate society's "common nucleus", nor its safety.
Outside core matters, to which everyone must adhere, New Zealand should do its utmost to allow for cultural diversity and religious freedom.
Accommodation has been required from Sikhs, such as the wearing of small kirpans. Although a "symbolic" kirpan would not suffice, between compromise and public understanding a way to clarify kirpan-wearing in public should be able to be found.
