Kip Powick Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 Helmet Law More detail here Globe and Mail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 I believe that they should have the right to ride without a helmet on. On the condition that they sign a waiver stating that they knowingly forfeit the right to medical treatment if they crash. And that they forfeit any insurance claims that arise from any crash that causes injury due to not wearing a helmet. If they don't want to protect themselves according to the Law of the Land, they they assume all liabilities resulting from that decision. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 15, 2008 Share Posted February 15, 2008 More typical crap that will end in appeasement. I for one don't subscribe to mandatory helmet laws (30 years of riding motorcycles, never dumped one and thus never needed a helmet but wore one when the law required it) but if there are to be such LAWS, then they must apply to all with no exemptions. If an exception is made for one group then the LAW must change to make the wearing of helmets optional for all. The Bleeding Heart Liberal attitude (and I don't mean the party in this regard) towards providing certain groups exemption from the rules (laws) as they apply to the general population is simply wrong. Law: A rule of conduct established and enforced by the authority, legislation, or custom of a given community, State, or nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFG Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 .... 30 years of riding motorcycles, never dumped one .... .... you just weren't trying hard enough .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 You could be right but a lot of that time was in the LowerMainland running during the winter on their "very dry" road surfaces ....... so I guess we could chalk it up to LUCK>>>>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Rattler & Deicer, You know, if you read the article, the points raised in favour of an exemption are far stronger than those raised by the Crown in opposing one. In fact it doesn't take too close a reading to get the message that the Crown started with a conclusion and has tried to work its way back, attempting to find rationales to support it employing shoddy science, unproven assumptions and even personal insult along the way. The applicant, on the other hand, seems to have taken the time to document convincing arguements that refute the Crown's position. Ultimately part of our country's identity is based on permitting reasonable accommodations for the observance of differing religious beliefs where possible. This case seems to be a perfect example of one where tolerance of a religious observance will come at a miniscule cost to society as a whole, particularly when cast against the costs to society of permitting the use of motorcycles at all. Sorry gents, but the Court will find for the applicant, and it should. Pete .... In an interview, Mr. Hutchison said the Cayuga turban test became necessary after the Crown declared that an expert it had hired proved that turbans unravel rapidly in 100 km/h winds. The Crown's test had been carried out by a professional engineer who purchased a mannequin head, mounted it on a stick and then placed the assemblage in a wind tunnel. However, Mr. Hutchison was unable to find a documented case anywhere in the world where a Sikh motorcyclist's turban had unravelled. Skeptical, he persuaded the OHRC to authorize its own test. After he confronted the Crown with the dramatically different test result, prosecutors conceded that their engineer had grossly miscalculated the force of the wind he had generated to batter the imitation head, Mr. Hutchison said. In fact, the device had been subjected to a 300 km/h wind. .... While the Crown case initially questioned the sincerity of Mr. Badesha's religious convictions, its main argument is now based on increased costs to the health system, should helmetless Sikh motorcycle riders end up suffering head injuries. Mr. Hutchison and co-counsel Owen Rees disputed this contention yesterday. They pointed to a study they had done that concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year. The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would increase from $151,700,000 to $151,834,685 - a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province's annual health-care budget. Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. "Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost," he said. India and Britain exempt Sikhs from wearing helmets, as do Manitoba and British Columbia, where a human-rights challenge precipitated the exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Since car accidents cause so much cost to the health care ndustry and our taxes we should ban cars, trucks and buses also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Just to ply the other side of the argument - What do you think would happen if it was the law that Sikhs had to ride without a helmet? I'm envisioning a court case where they argue that the government is stating that their lives aren't worth as much as a non-Sikhs and that they want compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 I for one don't subscribe to mandatory helmet laws (30 years of riding motorcycles, never dumped one and thus never needed a helmet but wore one when the law required it) but if there are to be such LAWS, then they must apply to all with no exemptions. If an exception is made for one group then the LAW must change to make the wearing of helmets optional for all. Actually, I know a few in the medical profession and on transplant lists that would be pleased. Following the implementation of mandatory helmet laws (bicycle, motorcycle, etc.), the number of available organ donors dropped... There have been a few attempts in recent years to pass mandatory organ donation in states where helmet use is optional. I don't think any have been successful yet though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Sorry gents, but the Court will find for the applicant, and it should. Pete Mornin' Pete So then you advocate for a state of anarchy? Because everyone can come up with an arguement to override any law then. Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 So then you advocate for a state of anarchy? Because everyone can come up with an arguement to override any law then. Iceman Somehow it seems to me that an awful lot of terrain exists between a reasonable accommodation and a state of anarchy. In any event the applicants are doing precisely what they should do under our system of governance: They are appealing within the system in an attempt to get a law they consider unjust changed. This is exactly how we describe a democracy as working in a civics lesson and pretty much the antithesis of anarchy if you ask me. Perhaps what's most amusing is that there's a constant chorus here of "If immigrants come to Canada they have to adjust and accept our ways and our societal norms." Here we have a case of man doing exactly that, challenging a law from within the system, using facts to support his position that the law should be changed and exposing the lack of a reasonable basis for the law as it currently stands. Normally we'd pat the man on the back for engaging the democratic principle, but it seems that as soon as we slap a turban on his head he becomes an immigrant whiner who's asking for an unreasonable exception instead of just fitting in the way we want him to. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Well said Pete. None of the complainers would be saying one negative word of this guy was a white anglophone fighting the Quebec sign laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Just to ply the other side of the argument - What do you think would happen if it was the law that Sikhs had to ride without a helmet? I'm envisioning a court case where they argue that the government is stating that their lives aren't worth as much as a non-Sikhs and that they want compensation. No disrespect intended but that seems like a singularly ridiculous and inflammatory sort of supposition to posit. Canada has chosen not to have a state religion, there is no law mandating the observance of any religious practice, and any attempt to do so would be unconstitutional. To envision a court case where a particular element of a religious group demands compensation for a law that could never be in the first place has little to do with reality. All it does is propogate an unfair characterization of the motives of the applicants in this case, who just want to be able ride a motorcycle while wearing a turban, nothing more. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 16, 2008 Author Share Posted February 16, 2008 Mr. Hutchison and co-counsel Owen Rees disputed this contention yesterday. They pointed to a study they had done that concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year. The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would increase from $151,700,000 to $151,834,685 - a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province's annual health-care budget. Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. "Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost," he said. I really don't care if someone wants to wear a tutu on a motorcycle but I question the legal-baffle of the article. They pointed to a study they had done What study, how many subjects, over what period of time and how did they arrive at their figures...what was the data base? The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would increase from $151,700,000 to $151,834,685 - a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province's annual health-care budget. How do they arrive at these numbers? How valid are they? The part about "their" study is bare bone but I would assume that is because the media did not report the actual study, when it was done , how many people etc., so I "guess" that we have to accept that it is/was an accepted test/study. If the Press had put out more facts then it might be easier for the reader to understand the arguments. The fact that a turban will not unravel at high speed is pure space filler, has no bearing on the fact that the head becomes an exploding pumpkin, when not in a helmet, if one hits the pavement or anyother unforgiving element. The fact of the matter is...this guy will win because a precedent has already been set in other provinces.......and who really cares?? Think about it...what adverse effect is a guy in a turban riding a "Hog" going to have on your life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Interesting discussion... On the one hand, I can see a reasonable objection to special treatment... an equality issue gone astray. ...and on ther other hand I can see Pete's view of a perfectly reasonable legal challenge to something the plaintif feels is unjust. The law should hold that all are treated equally, in my opinion... No special exemption should be made to a law created to keep people safe, unless, I suppose, the exemption is itself for safety... and once again, faith in, and adherence to the must-do's and thou-shalt's within a religion is a choice... laws need not necessarily bend to accomodate lifestyle choices. I think religion is just another one of many personal choices that can limit us in certain ways. One of the sacrifices of daily life.... big deal.... move along... Next item on the docket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 And from their point of view: http://www.sikhmarg.com/english/sikh-turban.html In spite of the historical evidence, in recent years, the Sikhs have been subjected to various unpleasant laws relating to the ‘Turban’ in other countries outside India where the laws clashed with their religious requirement. One such law is to wear a steel helmet while riding on motorcycles or when working in the construction or mining sectors, etc. In most of the countries Sikhs have been forced to spend a lot of their time and money in establishing that their Turban is an integral part of their dress and that a Turban is their only headgear and one of their significant identities. However, it is satisfying to realize that some enlightened governments do respect the religious and cultural difference and that they have responded positively to the demands of the Sikhs. The Government of Malaysia allowed the Sikhs to wear a Turban instead of a crash helmet in the year 1973: "Since the Constitution respects religions of other races, we cannot force Sikhs with turbans to wear crash helmets. Sikhs who wear Turbans need not wear crash helmets when they ride Motor Cycles or Scooters". Likewise, the Governments of Singapore and that of Australia showed fairness and exempted the Sikhs from wearing crash helmets. They have been allowed to wear Turban as their only headgear. In accordance with the Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A exempts "any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet. Similarly, the highest Court of the United Kingdom, the House of Lords, has ruled that Sikh drivers and conductors of public vehicles are not to be compelled to wear caps. Also in Canada in 1986 Sikhs in Metro Toronto Police were permitted to wear Turbans while on duty, and since 1990 Turbaned Sikhs may join The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke dope in Canada? ... or Malaysia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Are Rastafarians allowed to smoke dope in Canada? ... or Malaysia? Well, Mitch, once they catch on that we will allow folks to opt out of laws based on their religion, they may well be allowed to. If they will be allowed in Canada I guess there will be a lot of converts to their religion. This may help those who decide to make the change: http://www.hudsonent.com/feature.php?f=Top...%A0%A6%A9%A7%9E Of course this then brings up those who, in their religion, are allowed to have more than one wife.... Guess we will soon see that law amended also. I see Ontario is already dealing with that issue. Only one wife gets benefits: province Social Services Minister upset by polygamist claim Natalie Alcoba, National Post Published: Saturday, February 09, 2008 Ontario's Minister of Community and Social Services said she is "perturbed" to hear claims that men with multiple wives are taking advantage of welfare and social benefits in Ontario. According to a published report, an official from the Canadian Society of Muslims estimated that "several hundred" GTA husbands in polygamous marriages are receiving benefits for their many wives.Mumtaz Ali referred to a passage in the Ontario Family Law Act that recognizes spouses in a polygamous marriage, provided it was celebrated in a country that recognizes the union as valid. But provincial officials said yesterday the Family Law Act was designed to create equality among spouses when a marriage ends, and serves to also protect people who married into a legal polygamous relationship in another country, then moved to Ontario. Polygamy in Canada is still illegal, the officials said. "Not knowing the law is not an excuse," said Madeleine Meilleur, Minister of Community and Social Services, which funds the social assistance program called Ontario Works. "They should know that in Canada there is no polygamy and that only one wife is covered. I'm sure that if they are receiving more money it is because they are not reporting properly the situation of the other wife. They may be reporting them as children." It is unclear from Mr. Ali's comments if the Muslim men are illegally claiming benefits for more than one wife, either as a spouse or a dependant, or if the additional wives are claiming as individuals, which is permissible. Under Islamic law, a Muslim man is allowed to have mulitple spouses. John Tory, leader of the Ontario PC opposition, said the government needs to clarify how the Ontario Works Act and the Family Law Act apply. "I think there would be a lot of people who would surprised there was legal recognition, even though the recognition was to protect the spouses, they would be surprised we recognized those [polygamous] marriages," he said, noting that does not mean it has to change. "But I think there should be some exercise in making sure the public understands what the law says, and that the government clearly says this is their intention." Both city and provincial officials insist that in Ontario, social benefits can be claimed for only one spouse. "Nothing is stopping the other people who live in the same dwelling from applying as individuals, and if they meet the requirements they may be eligible for social assistance, but you definitely cannot tick off that you have more than one spouse because it's not recognized, it's not legal in Ontario," said Julia Sakas, communications assistant to Ms. Meilleur. "It's actually quite a stringent application process because we want to make sure the money goes to the people who need it and are eligible for it, and not going to people who are trying to defraud the system." She said the government works to limit welfare fraud as much as possible, and takes allegations of it very seriously. nalcoba@nationalpost.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 IMHO, anyone should be free to do as they please until their desires affect my freedoms. A non-helmet-wearing person will undoubtedly one day crash their motorcycle and will thus make a large demand on my wallet. This will affect my freedom and therefore deciding the "fairness" of the helmet law is actually deciding the balance point between my freedom and this guy's freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Seeker, in reality, if their life is terminated early because of not wearing a helmet, their overall impact on the health system and the resulting cost may well be less that what a long lived fit person would cost over their 80+ year life span. So perhaps we should encourage those (all Canadians, all ethnic groups), who don't want to wear a safety helmet, to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 I really don't care if someone wants to wear a tutu on a motorcycle but I question the legal-baffle of the article. What study, how many subjects, over what period of time and how did they arrive at their figures...what was the data base? How do they arrive at these numbers? How valid are they? The part about "their" study is bare bone but I would assume that is because the media did not report the actual study, when it was done , how many people etc., so I "guess" that we have to accept that it is/was an accepted test/study. If the Press had put out more facts then it might be easier for the reader to understand the arguments. The fact that a turban will not unravel at high speed is pure space filler, has no bearing on the fact that the head becomes an exploding pumpkin, when not in a helmet, if one hits the pavement or anyother unforgiving element. The fact of the matter is...this guy will win because a precedent has already been set in other provinces.......and who really cares?? Think about it...what adverse effect is a guy in a turban riding a "Hog" going to have on your life? Kip, Some good questions, one not so good. The not so good one would be: Who really cares? Obviously the applicants do as it affects their ability to follow their religious observances. Not such a big deal for you perhaps, but I'd like to think we could respect that it is a big deal for the person who is devout and affected. If it's turbans today, tomorrow it may be something more important to you, and where will you be if the rest of the country says "Aaah, it just affects retired airline pilots in Ontario ... who really cares?" Regarding the study, do you see the Crown pointing to any studies they've done to support their position and contradict the numbers put forward by the applicants? If the Crown has solid facts to support the need for a ban on Sikh's wearing turbans while riding motorcycles don't you think they should be required to provide them? So far it would seem that the research the Crown has relied upon has proven to be far less reliable than that provided by the applicants. For that matter, how would you approach a similar issue if it affected you? If the law provided for a blanket ban on scuba diving for pilots would you perhaps choose to research the incidence of actual injuries occuring to pilots after scuba diving as means of arguing against such a ban? Wouldn't it be reasonable to cite you research as a part of publicizing your opposition to the ban? The freedom of our society is built on the concept of implicit permission. Everything is permitted except which has been explicitly restricted or banned by the state. Where the state exercises its authority in restricting or banning things it has to be able to prove that such restriction or ban is necessary for the maintainence of public safety and civil society. All the applicants here are doing is demanding that the government provide accountability for a restriction that they believe to have been made arbitrarily and which affects their freedom of religious expression. Even if the specifics are bit unusual I can't think of anything more fundamental to our "Canadian Way of Life". And, while we're at it, what about this element of questioning the sincerity of the applicant's religious convictions? What relevance could that have possibly had to the need for a restriction against wearing a turban while riding a motorcycle? Even if the particular gentleman's religious beliefs were in question (which it seems is not the case) the issue would still exist for devout Sikh motorcycle riders wouldn't it? Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic Ace Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Years ago people rode motorcycles without helmuts. Years ago people rode bikes without helmuts. Professional hockey players - no helmuts. Women were not allowed to vote. I could go on and on. My point - I like to think as a "culture" and society we have made progress in our way of life. These "changes" made in the past were for the most part for the betterment of all of us. Why are we continually required to waste court time and tax money rehashing the same roads we've already covered for special intrerest groups. Been there done that. We have much bigger problems to deal with in our courts. Anyone else noticing an increase in "collateral" damage to innocent bystanders who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when organized crime or gangs decide to have it out or perform a "hit". It would be very refreshing to read something from the special interest groups that would benefit us all instead of the ongoing challenge of the ways of the society to which they fled. I'd like to read about our immigrants working "with us" to tackle our real problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 17, 2008 Author Share Posted February 17, 2008 Kip, Some good questions, one not so good. The not so good one would be: Who really cares? Uhhh Pete..The problem with this form of media...what I meant was "who of us that see the broohaha in the Press about this story really care about the outcome?" The entire issue is not important to me, may be important to those that are affected, the Hog riding Sikh, and his profound religious beliefs, and perhaps those that see the outcome of this issue as "the thin edge of the wedge" but I really don't care that a person, based on their religious beliefs, wants to expose himself to the possibility of deadly blunt force trauma. If it's turbans today, tomorrow it may be something more important to you, and where will you be if the rest of the country says "Aaah, it just affects retired airline pilots in Ontario ... who really cares?" C'mon Pete...apples and oranges in that statement, I see no relationship, no matter what you attempt to conjure up, with respect to Human Rights/Religious Beliefs and retired airline pilots in Ontario......if you are trolling, I'm not biting. For that matter, how would you approach a similar issue if it affected you? If the law provided for a blanket ban on scuba diving for pilots would you perhaps choose to research the incidence of actual injuries occuring to pilots after scuba diving as means of arguing against such a ban? Wouldn't it be reasonable to cite you research as a part of publicizing your opposition to the ban? Pete, if in the scenario you describe above, if I was the one opposing the ban on Scuba diving for pilots I would have hard statistics I could trot out, not something the Press could report as " 90% of the pilots surveyed", or "4/5s of the Scuba divers stated "....etc etc. You missed the point. The legal beagles may have "their study" but there is no factual data from which a reader can form an opinion. As I stated, the Press probably didn't want to take away from the "spice" of the story to publish any factual data. In your scenario how much credibility would you put to my argument if I said "90% of the pilots in our study have never suffered adverse effects of scuba diving" and failed to add that my test group consisted of only 5 pilots?? All the applicants here are doing is demanding that the government provide accountability for a restriction that they believe to have been made arbitrarily and which affects their freedom of religious expression. "Arbitrarily"??? Really..?.so in your opinion, no real thought was put into enacting this law...they just tossed it out there based on a whim?? You must know that is not true, statistical data shows that wearing helmets saves lives. I guess the real question is just how far do we let religious beliefs, from any group, dictate how much we can bend the law. The latest issue is the Premier stating that it is time to eliminate the Lords Prayer from the Provincial Governments start of the days proceedings because it does not encompass the multi-culture melting pot we have in Ontario. He wants a new prayer that would reflect this Provinces multiculturism. Hmmmmm over 2 Billion persons recited that prayer, which has been around since the days of Christ, on Easter in 2007, but now it is not good enough to be the Ontarios Provincial Legislatures lead-in prayer. I can hardly wait for the "new" prayer. Seems if you start screaming "religious freedom" in Canada you can just about get anything you want. A quote from one of the real First Nations occupants .. "Canada...love it, or leave it". Have a nice weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 If the law provided for a blanket ban on scuba diving for pilots To envision a court case where a particular element of a (religious) group demands compensation for a law that could never be in the first place has little to do with reality. Hmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 All the applicants here are doing is demanding that the government provide accountability for a restriction that they believe to have been made arbitrarily and which affects their freedom of religious expression. Even if the specifics are bit unusual I can't think of anything more fundamental to our "Canadian Way of Life". And to reiterate..... How far would this arguement have gone if it had been a middle aged white retired pilot putting forth the arguement backed up by reams of statistical research? Iceman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.