Mitch Cronin Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 BoomerPete<snip> "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?" </snip> ?? Now it may be a small point, but this is not about a "ban on Sikh's wearing turbans" while doing anything... it's about challenging a universally applied law... BoomerPete<snip>"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."</snip> I disagree that it affects their freedom of religious expression... It affects their ability to ride a motorcycle while wearing that particular religious expression, that's all... If this man was challenging the helmet law period (I mean, not just for Sikh's with turbans), then I'd say all power to him! If he can show convincing evidence that helmets don't do as we've always been told, and the law is a dud, then by all means, let's consider it... But that's not the case is it? He want's a special exemption because he chooses to wear a turban... If the law finds in his favour, it had better be applied equally to all... ie.- nobody needs to wear a crash helmet. Otherwise it will definitely be discriminatory! ... in my opinion. Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Mitch, I think you make a good point; this is an activity that he chooses to do. Nobody is forcing the guy to ride the motorcycle. He chooses to involve himself in an activity that carries certain requirements - don't like it - well he can wear the turban and take the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 Mitch, I think you make a good point; this is an activity that he chooses to do. Nobody is forcing the guy to ride the motorcycle. He chooses to involve himself in an activity that carries certain requirements - don't like it - well he can wear the turban and take the bus. He chooses to involve himself in an activity that carries certain requirements - don't like it - well he can wear the turban and take the bus. I can follow that reasoning and agree. But now we need to consider the whole question of exemptions to certain laws / regulations due to religious beliefs. In most Provinces (if not all) on certain construction sites, it is mandatory to wear a safety helmet, this requirement has been waived by some jurisdictions so as to remove the requirement of Sheiks to wear the safety gear. Perhaps just but. Then there are those who wear a welding helmet (ARC Welding) for eye and splatter protection, what about in the military in a combat zone..... are Sheiks exempt from wearing the protective head gear or ? I continue to disagree with allowing exceptions to law / regulations based on religion but some (Building trade exemption) seem to make sense as that allows a Sheik to work in the trade. How should we deal with those? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Sheik-Sikh; helmut-helmet...whatever.... The difference between a babe-in-arms and a Sikh is that one wears the diaper on its butt and the other elsewhere. There is a similarity, however---they're both full of "poop". I heard that on the Comedy channel----Larry, the Cable Guy---no more than 20 minutes ago. Why did the audience laugh? I believe that there are a hell of a lot of people in Canada who are beginning to share one common theme---enough is enough!! The "melting pot" is intended to create a commonality and promoting the segregation of peoples based upon their chosen religious garb is definitely not consistent with "commonality". Lord! Is it that long ago that society derided the requirement of Nazi Germany that all Jews identify themselves to society by wearing the Star of David emblazoned on their sleeve? Now---a different religion demands that it's devotion to such public display be "accomodated" by revisions of laws which were enacted without regard to any one group's committment to "identification by attire". I readily acknowledge that there are many modern adherents to the religion. Their devotion does NOT require the Kirpan or Kesa which are associated with the orthodox or "conservative" elements of the religion. They are, however, derided by their co-religionists for their willingness to assimilate. Orthodox adherents are not dissimilar from militant Muslims and advocate violence against "non-believers". The traditional Sikh adopts the Khanda which is the main symbol of the religion which represents not brotherhood but rather four weapons including the Kirpan. Posters on this site support the efforts of the military in Afghanistan intended to defeat the Taliban who have "perverted" religious beliefs to justify their own brand of oppression and the subjugation of peoples. Why is it so difficult to understand that the insistence upon accomodation of a religious symbol such as the Kesa is simply the thin edge of the wedge? And we're bending over to accomodate their insistence on wearing a 6 inch blade to our public schools!! In a recent case in Peel, a number of attempts at accomodation were made including "stitching" of the sheath to ensure the Kirpan could not readily be drawn. The accomodatioon was rejected by the Sikh objectors because it was inconsistent with their religious beliefs. And that is how intolerance is bred. Count me among the newly intolerant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Sorry, I can not agree with your position. The melting pot you describe is the US and not Canada. Unless we change to a melting pot, we need to consider other modes but we also need to determine what is legit and what is simply change because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newgirl Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Why not sell ready wrapped turbans that won't unroll. You can simply attach the turban over the helmet. Once you arrive at your destination detach the turban , take off the helmet and put the turban back on. Even the die hard equestrian riders are seeing the value of a helmet with a good chin strap. I just don't understand the fuss being made for mandatory helmets in the first place. Most riders suit up in leathers and boots. Why not protect your head too? Geez that could be a nice little business for me- Newgirls's Helmet Turbans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The "melting pot" is intended to create a commonality and promoting the segregation of peoples based upon their chosen religious garb is definitely not consistent with "commonality". We are not a "melting pot", you are confusing us with our neighbours to the south. We are a "multi-cultural society". Big diference. Turbans or anything else is like the dress code at a golf course - you must wear a collared shirt and no denim, soft spikes only. If you chose to wear a sleaveless t-shirt and blue jeans - good on ya, just don't expect to golf at my golf course. If you want to ride a motorcycle - dress code is a helmet, don't want to wear one? No problem - don't ride. Don't like the rules here - get them legally changed or go somewhere where what you want to do is legal. Go to Arizona - no helmets required there - you can wear a "doo-rag" a "turban" a baseball cap or just let your noggin shine in the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 We are not a "melting pot", you are confusing us with our neighbours to the south. Well, Mo, actually I'm not. Take a look at Saturday's Globe, the story about the "grief" the Premier has taken over the new holiday. The Hon.McGuinty described the "new" Canadian society as a "melting pot". I read "The Vertical Mosaic" (required reading in Soc.101) but appreciate that the US is no longer much of a "melting pot" and Canada is not a quiltwork of interlocking cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 18, 2008 Author Share Posted February 18, 2008 In this case the helmet did not help...but if it was only a turban...... Headache? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 The Hon.McGuinty described the "new" Canadian society as a "melting pot". Oh well -- I'm sorry. I didn't realize that Mr. Mcguinty had changed our culture to one of a melting pot. I will try to keep up from now on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Well what do you know, the courts did not allow the exemption. Judge rules against Sikh challenge of helmet law Last Updated: Thursday, March 6, 2008 | 10:57 AM ET Comments18Recommend44CBC News A judge in Brampton, Ont., rejected a human rights challenge to an Ontario law on Thursday, ruling that motorcyclists must wear helmets while riding on the highway because safety concerns outweigh the rights of religious minorities. Ontario court of justice Judge James Blacklock ruled against a challenge to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act that had been launched by Baljinder Badesha, a devout Sikh who was fined $110 in 2005 for wearing a turban while riding a motorcycle. Badesha refused to pay the fine, arguing that the law was discriminatory because it violated his religious rights. The Ontario Human Rights Commission had supported his position, saying the issue was about religious accommodation. Blacklock said "no accommodation appears possible" under the law because there is no question that helmets reduce the risk of head injuries suffered by motorcyclists in crashes. He said allowing Badesha, along with other Sikh motorcyclists, to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet would put "undue hardship" on the province to maintain safety standards. The ruling is contrary to other rulings on the same issue in B.C., Manitoba, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and India. Exemptions were made in those jurisdictions for Sikh motorcyclists, allowing devout Sikhs to wear turbans instead of helmets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 These types of cases are not much more than fodder for some law firm to get a case heard in the Supreme Court. It will drag on for years. Notwithstanding, every motorcycle rider should be required to wear a helmet. And leathers. Why has some enterprising individual not come up with a design that is turban-friendly? Seriously! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IFG Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 .... every motorcycle rider should be required to wear a helmet. And leathers .... Compulsory leathers? Guess you've never used a 'bike for daily transportation . Road rash is not generally as catastrophic as head injury. If perfect safety in transportation is the goal, don't ride bikes at all. They're dangerous. They're also fun to ride and economical (easy to park downtown, too). Don't you think there's some sort of trade-off point where one must protect against frequent lethal injuries, but can still enjoy some thrills without being dragooned into complete impracticability? If you're going to mandate leathers, hell, go all the way and require a protective frame around the rider, airbags to protect him from the frame, and a couple more wheels to prevent falling over - it's called a car (Come to think of it, why isn't that guy wearing a lid? 'e'll 'urt 'is 'ead doing that ) Cheers, IFG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Point taken IFG. I don't ride so you have to take my opinion for what it's worth But I do think the helm-an or turb-et would be a very successful idea! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newgirl Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 Moon Check my post dated 17 Feb about 6 ahead of yours. You got the money, I got the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 I have one issue with the whole thing and it does not revolve around religion or what you wear on your head. Our healthcare system is a socialist system. Our taxes pay for it. if the costs to operate that system increase we ALL pay for it. More injuries more money required. Simply stated but true. In states like California where helmets are optional the cost is bared either by the individual or his insurer. If he chooses to ride a bike he is a higher risk to his health insurer and pays higher premiums. There is no real effect to me if he sufferes trauma by road rash. There lies the real rub and what we need to be careful of. If we are going to compare ourselves to "other places" then we should compare apples to apples. I personally think the helmet law shoud stand with no exemptions. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mo32a Posted March 7, 2008 Share Posted March 7, 2008 The turban is not required as part of the religion, all that is required is that the hair remain covered. A helmet does that. If that doesn't suit - get a doo rag, lots of bikers wear them already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.