BC Getting Tough on Helmet Laws

[eastcoast_gsx]

Are you arguing with me about the text of the constitution? that is pretty pointless because you can read it yourself.

No I am not. But if they are making the case under freedom of religion, why cannot I make my case under some other guise? Say freedom of expression, (or say that the flying spaghetti monster hates helmets)

I am not actually arguing if it would be legally possible today, I am merely stating that it should NOT be possible to exempt a particular group of people from laws that apply to everyone else, that is all.

What give their imaginary friend(s) any more substance then the voices in my own head

[OpenGambit]

nothing is really stopping you from making the case under a different right...

all you have to do is ride without a helmet, get a ticket and fight it in court.


as for Sikhs, I enjoy riding, it doesn't cost me anything to do it other than money. I am glad they can also enjoy it too without giving up a religious belief, and it doesn't bother me at all that I have to wear a helmet.

[EngineerJoe]

So we are not all equal under the law?

Actually, you are. You're welcome (and legally allowed) to practice the Sikh faith and wear a turban at all times (riding or not).

[eastcoast_gsx]

So I have to give up my beliefs to be allowed the same consideration... got it.

Pathetic.

Like I said, I agree they should be able to fight and win... but the win should be for all or none.

"Your whoever, this law infringes... and in my case it infringes like this.... it should be struck down for all"...

Pretty f'in basic.

[caboose483]

as for Sikhs, I enjoy riding, it doesn't cost me anything to do it other than money. I am glad they can also enjoy it too without giving up a religious belief, and it doesn't bother me at all that I have to wear a helmet.

Counter point.

It has been well established that many Sikhs wear a smaller "low profile" turban when certain situations or activities warrant it. Sikh fighter pilots and cricket players come to mind. IIRC there is no actual text stating that nothing can be worn over their turban. I believe Jay-D made such points a few years ago in response to the potential Sikh exemption here in Ontario. If that's true then their compaign in BC is nothing but attention-seeking-grandstanding.

Actually, you are. You're welcome (and legally allowed) to practice the Sikh faith and wear a turban at all times (riding or not).

So Ontario helmet laws conflict with my potential desire to become a Sikh. Therefore they infringe upon my right to freedom of religion.

[Jayv]

I hear where Eastie is coming from.

It has/should be one rule for all.

If sikh's do not have to wear helmets by law, then so should the rest of the general public not have to abide by the helmet laws.

Michigan just changed their laws, if people are retarded enough to ride without a lid then let them do so.

[eastcoast_gsx]

if people are retarded enough to ride without a lid then let them do so.

This ^ lol...

[ABadjusterrider_5]

I happen to like wearing a helmet. Given the option I think I would still wear one. It provides protection against bugs, rain, flying debris, cigerettes chucked out the window, and cuts down wind noise. Granted it can suck on hot days, but whatever. Better a helmet than coloring books for the rest of my life.

[OpenGambit]

Counter point.

It has been well established that many Sikhs wear a smaller "low profile" turban when certain situations or activities warrant it. Sikh fighter pilots and cricket players come to mind. IIRC there is no actual text stating that nothing can be worn over their turban. I believe Jay-D made such points a few years ago in response to the potential Sikh exemption here in Ontario. If that's true then their compaign in BC is nothing but attention-seeking-grandstanding.

I am not sure what you are really countering?

the point i am making is that
(a) charter of rights and freedoms prevents discrimination on the basis of religion
(b) Anyone can challenge a law based on the Charter, section 15 or not
(c) Sikhs in BC won that right, good on them, that really has nothing to do with me
(d) I am free to also challenge that law on the same, or some other basis if i wish
(e) whether their claim is legitmate or not is really not material to me, I am not in the business of trying to take things away from other people, especially when it doesn't cost me anything for them to have it.

To me, turning this into some kind of Sikh discussion in the first place was really just an exercise in complaining, maybe we need some real problems.

[caboose483]

I am not sure what you are really countering?

the point i am making is that
(a) charter of rights and freedoms prevents discrimination on the basis of religion

I'm countering this. It's not discrimination. Helmet laws do not infringe upon their right to freedom of religion in any way.

There is no guidance as to how big a turban should be or whether or not anything can be worn on top of it.

[CruisnGrrl]

a friend of mine is against helmet laws, he brother's life was saved by a helmet (he t-boned a car when dirt biking). if he hadn't worn a helmet he would have been dead, instead he's brain damaged to the point of being mentally a 5 year old.

i'm not sure death is prefered in that situation...

[Flywheel]

A helmet exemption is chump-change accommodation. Look at what the MSSB costs us.

"To me, turning this into some kind of Sikh discussion in the first place was really just an exercise in complaining, maybe we need some real problems."

But we have real problems: cops continuously lying under oath in court--with zero penalties.

[eastcoast_gsx]

To me, turning this into some kind of Sikh discussion in the first place was really just an exercise in complaining, maybe we need some real problems.

I don't have too many real problems, so I rely on this drivel nonsense to occupy my internet time.

You do seem to have a serious hangup with me don't you... always waiting to jump right in with your smartie pants comments. Sometimes you must wonder if you are being baited no... anyway, carry on Matlock.

[OpenGambit]

I'm countering this. It's not discrimination. Helmet laws do not infringe upon their right to freedom of religion in any way.

There is no guidance as to how big a turban should be or whether or not anything can be worn on top of it.

Well, the Crown can appeal the decision if it really wants to, but I suspect they don't really care that much.

I am not in the business of telling other people what their religon requires. I don't think that the law, or legislators should be drawing a line in the sand about whats a religious tenet and whats not, especially when religon and culture are mixed together ( we don't try to tell catholics that their stance against contraception isn't in the bible - see the moral rights debate )

But I will say that both courts in BC and ON disagree with you. Both decisions agreed that there was infringment, it came down to balance and one went one way and one went the other.

[OpenGambit]

I don't have too many real problems, so I rely on this drivel nonsense to occupy my internet time.

You do seem to have a serious hangup with me don't you... always waiting to jump right in with your smartie pants comments. Sometimes you must wonder if you are being baited no... anyway, carry on Matlock.

I don't discriminate with my posts. Anyone can see that.

[eastcoast_gsx]

I don't discriminate with my posts. Anyone can see that.

I'll give you that for sure.

(it does add to the interest)

[EngineerJoe]

I am not sure what you are really countering?

the point i am making is that
(a) charter of rights and freedoms prevents discrimination on the basis of religion

When arguing I always try to see both points (just wasting everybody's time if I don't, right?)...

So I can certainly see where you are coming from BUT... With the bolded statement above, would non-Sikhs be discriminated against if the law required only them (only non-Sikhs) to wear a helmet?

I suppose if that's the way the new law was interpreted, once Sikhs were exempt on the basis of their religious beliefs I could present my case to the supreme court and argue that my non-faith is my faith. Why should I be discriminated against simply because I have a different belief. But I think you've been saying that all along.

[kellen]

lol @ canadians who refer to our "constitution"

[kellen]

killing people is part of my religion. these bs canadian murder laws infringe upon my freedom

Well, the Crown can appeal the decision if it really wants to, but I suspect they don't really care that much.

I am not in the business of telling other people what their religon requires. I don't think that the law, or legislators should be drawing a line in the sand about whats a religious tenet and whats not, especially when religon and culture are mixed together ( we don't try to tell catholics that their stance against contraception isn't in the bible - see the moral rights debate )

But I will say that both courts in BC and ON disagree with you. Both decisions agreed that there was infringment, it came down to balance and one went one way and one went the other.

Sent from my SGH-I896 using Tapatalk 2

[OpenGambit]

When arguing I always try to see both points (just wasting everybody's time if I don't, right?)...

So I can certainly see where you are coming from BUT... With the bolded statement above, would non-Sikhs be discriminated against if the law required only them (only non-Sikhs) to wear a helmet?

I suppose if that's the way the new law was interpreted, once Sikhs were exempt on the basis of their religious beliefs I could present my case to the supreme court and argue that my non-faith is my faith. Why should I be discriminated against simply because I have a different belief. But I think you've been saying that all along.

and I said that you are free to do that. As stated above, all you have to do is not wear a helmet, get a ticket, go to court and argue you should be given the same exemption.