What happened to the turban/helmet thread?

[inreb]

I won't post examples, but I will describe. People were using the letters 'ph' to replace the letter 'f', so that they could bypass the filters. Several posts had mangled 4-letter words (mis-spelt or with letters purposely out of order) in almost every sentence. People were using nicknames for cultural groups that generally are not used in polite company. Think of the names that an inveterate bigot would use on a daily basis and those were used in that thread.

These posts weren't borderline, they were well OVER the line.

yaahh, yull git taht in reel life....luod an kleer

[Draiter]

**deleted**

[inreb]

**DELETED**

I dont think its all about "free speech". OK, you're sitting at the kitchen table nursing an overhang. Buddy comes over spewing venom over whatever. You dont want to hear it so you show him the door. Kinda like that. Freedom of speech? How about freedom from listening to crap?

[ddusseld]

You really have no idea about either Rob or free speech or where you are posting.

This is a forum that is owned by people who are free to set whatever boundaries that they feel are appropriate.

Free speech in Canada is not without it's own boundaries as the supreme court of Canada has demonstrated many times. Check out the hate speech laws.

I really don't know how you can compare a bigot being called a bigot with that bigot using racial epithets.

How does it feel to lose your left nut?

**DELETED**

[scarface]

i think the issue could be resolved pretty easily.

let them pass a law saying he can ride without a helmet. then let the insurance companies adjust their rates for people that don't want to wear helmets.

once those people feel the pocket getting lighter, they would have to decide if it's worth jeopardizing their safety so that they can enjoy their most often recreational past time.

Just like with most religions, words can be interpretted many ways, and this guy is using that to his advantage just cause he doesn't want to wear a helmet.

riding is a priveledge, not a right.

[Lightcycle]

LOL!

*poof*

hehehe!

[SLIM]

^^^ BUWUWHWHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Nice muscles there, Rob. LOL!


Okay, so seriously now - I just realized that Mr. Badesha was ticketed in September 2005. I understand that it can take a substantial amount of time for an offense to go to trial, but I am curious to know why this is the first it's being mentioned?!?!?! It's not like absolutely no one knew about it from the get-go.

Kinda surprising that the grapevine didn't pick this one up sooner, afterall, this is a pretty serious charge. (shrug)

[inreb]

i think the issue could be resolved pretty easily.

let them pass a law saying he can ride without a helmet. then let the insurance companies adjust their rates for people that don't want to wear helmets.

once those people feel the pocket getting lighter, they would have to decide if it's worth jeopardizing their safety so that they can enjoy their most often recreational past time.

Just like with most religions, words can be interpretted many ways, and this guy is using that to his advantage just cause he doesn't want to wear a helmet.

riding is a priveledge, not a right.

Oh Oh, troubles a brewin'! Been seeing a lot of "privilage, not a right" comments. Maybe if somebody could define "privilage" and "right" my brain wouldnt be on fire right now. If I met all the standard requirements to drive, who's going to deny me the right to drive? Or, if I meet all the criteria, the privilage to drive is granted? Splitting hairs? Worth discussing?

[SLIM]

i think the issue could be resolved pretty easily.

let them pass a law saying he can ride without a helmet. then let the insurance companies adjust their rates for people that don't want to wear helmets.

once those people feel the pocket getting lighter, they would have to decide if it's worth jeopardizing their safety so that they can enjoy their most often recreational past time.

Just like with most religions, words can be interpretted many ways, and this guy is using that to his advantage just cause he doesn't want to wear a helmet.

riding is a priveledge, not a right.

I like the idea, but it's just like seatbelts in cars - you need to be caught. There's been PLENTY of drives and rides i've had where there wasn't a Police office in sight for the duration.

[Rob MacLennan]

Okay, so seriously now - I just realized that Mr. Badesha was ticketed in September 2005. I understand that it can take a substantial amount of time for an offense to go to trial, but I am curious to know why this is the first it's being mentioned?!?!?! It's not like absolutely no one knew about it from the get-go.

Kinda surprising that the grapevine didn't pick this one up sooner, afterall, this is a pretty serious charge. (shrug)

People are charged for riding without a helmet, or using an unqualified helmet, quite frequently. It wouldn't twig anything until it got bumped up to a higher court, unless the person charged tried to raise it as an issue with the media.

[billy_awesome]

I really don't want to open this debate once again.

Mod's can delete this if they like, I understand why.

But I wish people would listen to my explanation and understand my rationality.

Canada = free health care

This has nothing to do with religion, I wish people could leave it at the door.

Does anyone know how much it costs for brain surgery? Broken skulls? Reconstructive facial surgery?

Cost of an average helmet = $250 AVERAGE

[Rob MacLennan]

This point was raised in the (unfortunately) deleted thread. It was highlighted as one of the rationales behind helmet laws.

[The Road Warrior]

**deleted**

[The Road Warrior]

**deleted**

[leedufour]

It's too bad that with over 300+ posts the subject never turned to something useful like how the situation could be used to help repeal the mandatory helmet law!
Lee.

[Gnu]

It's too bad that with over 300+ posts the subject never turned to something useful like how the situation could be used to help repeal the mandatory helmet law!
Lee.

I'd be OK with him riding with only his turban BUT only if it applied to everyone, meaning that each rider decides if they want to wear a helmet or not. Unfortunately I believe the way the law is written in BC where they can just wear their turbans is that you have to be a Sikh to do this and not just some ordinary Joe.

[inreb]

I'd be OK with him riding with only his turban BUT only if it applied to everyone, meaning that each rider decides if they want to wear a helmet or not. Unfortunately I believe the way the law is written in BC where they can just wear their turbans is that you have to be a Sikh to do this and not just some ordinary Joe.

Who you calling an ordinary Joe! Thats discrimminitory! I wont stand for this! You will be hearing from the Human Rights Commission. I am deeply offended.

[leedufour]

I'd be OK with him riding with only his turban BUT only if it applied to everyone, meaning that each rider decides if they want to wear a helmet or not. Unfortunately I believe the way the law is written in BC where they can just wear their turbans is that you have to be a Sikh to do this and not just some ordinary Joe.

Yeah yeah I read all the posts!
It got everyone exactly nowhere!
The posts never started considering the possibility of opening up the idea of looking into the potential of raising the question as to whether or not we should start thinking about engaging in a discussion on the issue of why we don't ever discuss...he!he!
Lee.

[rukus]

something useful like how the situation could be used to help repeal the mandatory helmet law!

you would have to repeal universal healthcare first.

[leedufour]

M'kay what would step two be!