What happened to the turban/helmet thread?

[johnp]

............ you have to be a Sikh to do this and not just some ordinary Joe.

Can't I just say I am a Sikh? And then wrap a bandana around my head with a label that says "Turban."

I'm a member of a very obscure sect, no?

[inreb]

This whole helmet/turban thing went right over my head I thought the main issue was in regards to catering to special interests. There are 2 reasons why the gentleman in question can't ride his bike. 1 is the helmet law, 2 is the turban requirement mandated by his religion. He has 2 choices. Try to change the helmet law or try to change the turban requirement. Religious dictates are only symbols that dont serve a function. Laws are put in place for the protection of society, they perform a function. Where should the bending take place? Why does the law of the land have to change to accommodate an individual not originally from this land? Has this gentleman shown that he even made an attempt to raise this issue with his spiritual leaders? I bet not, because there is no bending there. Its a shame that its come to this, but where does it stop? Or does it ever stop? Do we just roll over? What next?

[Rob MacLennan]

This whole helmet/turban thing went right over my head I thought the main issue was in regards to catering to special interests. There are 2 reasons why the gentleman in question can't ride his bike. 1 is the helmet law, 2 is the turban requirement mandated by his religion. He has 2 choices. Try to change the helmet law or try to change the turban requirement. Religious dictates are only symbols that dont serve a function. Laws are put in place for the protection of society, they perform a function. Where should the bending take place? Why does the law of the land have to change to accommodate an individual not originally from this land? Has this gentleman shown that he even made an attempt to raise this issue with his spiritual leaders? I bet not, because there is no bending there. Its a shame that its come to this, but where does it stop? Or does it ever stop? Do we just roll over? What next?

As I said in the deleted thread, it comes down to reasonable accomodation. Is it reasonable to change a requirement that only regards appearance? Certainly. Is it reasonable to alter a requirement that is set due to safety? No.

[ddusseld]

Inreb makes a good point. Following the reasonable accommodation scenario why shouldn't the religion change its rules? It is seemingly just for appearance....

To me reasonable accommodation is one of those things that seems well reasonable. The problem with this is that religions(all of them) simply are not reasonable. It is the classic give an inch and they will take a mile.

As I said in the deleted thread, it comes down to reasonable accomodation. Is it reasonable to change a requirement that only regards appearance? Certainly. Is it reasonable to alter a requirement that is set due to safety? No.

[eastcoast_gsx]

For me the issue is that laws should not be religion specific.

If the law is wrong, then change it, but change it for all, if they determine that it is unreasonable to change it for all, then leave it as is and have it govern everybody.

[Rob MacLennan]

Inreb makes a good point. Following the reasonable accommodation scenario why shouldn't the religion change its rules? It is seemingly just for appearance....

To me reasonable accommodation is one of those things that seems well reasonable. The problem with this is that religions(all of them) simply are not reasonable. It is the classic give an inch and they will take a mile.

That's not the religion, it's the individual. This isn't something that has been put forward by a governing body of the religion. A reasonable religious person would set aside his desires, in favour of adhering to the tenets of his religion.

[baked]

how about anyone that doesn't wear a helmet can wear a donor i.d tattoo so if there is any chance of brain trauma no matter how small i.e if you aren't the same mentally, can't care for yourself the plug gets pulled no questions asked and the healthy organs get farmed out to people that can use them and have a respect for them..

In car accidents if a person is thrown from a vehicle from not wearing a seatbelt. Most of the time first on scene will deal with the people still buckled in because they have a better survival rate same could be said for helmets.

[inreb]

That's not the religion, it's the individual. This isn't something that has been put forward by a governing body of the religion. A reasonable religious person would set aside his desires, in favour of adhering to the tenets of his religion.

So, a reasonable Sikh should forego the pleasures and or practicality of motorcycling? Surely a compromise can be reached. Are we not rational human beings?

[Rob MacLennan]

So, a reasonable Sikh should forego the pleasures and or practicality of motorcycling? Surely a compromise can be reached. Are we not rational human beings?

If it's a choice between the religion that he espouses, that requires him to wear specific garb, and the law, that requires him to wear safety equipment in order to take part in a recreational activity, then the logical and reasonable choice is to not take part in the recreational activity.

[ddusseld]

Or he attempts to change his religion to allow the non use of a turban while motorcycling. Kind of the same thing he is trying to do with the law..

If it's a choice between the religion that he espouses, that requires him to wear specific garb, and the law, that requires him to wear safety equipment in order to take part in a recreational activity, then the logical and reasonable choice is to not take part in the recreational activity.

[inreb]

If it's a choice between the religion that he espouses, that requires him to wear specific garb, and the law, that requires him to wear safety equipment in order to take part in a recreational activity, then the logical and reasonable choice is to not take part in the recreational activity.

Ya, but......... EDIT: I get the point, jus' funnin'....

[Rob MacLennan]

Or he attempts to change his religion to allow the non use of a turban while motorcycling. Kind of the same thing he is trying to do with the law..

Religions evolve and schism. They don't change overnight. If you don't fulfil the requirements of the religion, then you don't follow the religion. The odds of changing a religion are slim to none. Better off to form your own sect if you want change.

If you want change for purely selfish reasons, rather than because of interpretation of doctrine, then you aren't a true follower at any rate.

As I've said so many times before, it's a matter of reasonable accommodation and in this case it isn't reasonable.

[johnp]

The real problem is the govt. for taking him seriously. World is full of wackos and selfish people who think the universe revolves around them. Nothing particularly unusual about that.

What is sad is when your own govt. takes these weirdos seriously.

[Rob MacLennan]

The real problem is the govt. for taking him seriously. World is full of wackos and selfish people who think the universe revolves around them. Nothing particularly unusual about that.

What is sad is when your own govt. takes these weirdos seriously.

I see nothing wrong with taking the motion seriously. That's how we make legal determinations and there was a previous finding by a tribunal to uphold his claim. I simply feel that his claim should not prevail.

I do have a problem with tribunals thinking that they have the duty to make law though. I don't like the concept, nor do I like the way that they behave.

[eastcoast_gsx]

On the reasonable accomidation train of though....

In regards to what type of activity that our laws allows (props up). What sounds more reasonable.

My request as a non-believer, to not wear the lid because of the fact that I have thought about the question, weighed the pros and cons, came to my conclusion, without any outside forces acting upon my decision (aka no deity), and have decided that to me, as a contributing member of this society, I think that I have earned the right to wear or not wear a helmet based on my own analysis.

OR:

His request as a Sikh to not wear the lid based upon his belief that his supernatural superior tells him that he is to wear a turban (something to do with hair growth, not sure, why, but that doesn't really matter to this) and therefore cannot wear a helmet even though our laws says he must.

Of the above, what seems more "Reasonable"?

Maybe he is using Religion to strike down an unreasonable law, but I will never see the justification in laws governing all types of people (believers and non-believers) to grant a group of these people any more freedoms then another.

In Canada, and all its Provinces, the set of rules that we live by, should apply to each and every person of this country in the same fashion, and they should all come from putting people and comunity FIRST, over all other types of inputs.

[leedufour]

On the reasonable accomidation train of though....

In regards to what type of activity that our laws allows (props up). What sounds more reasonable.

My request as a non-believer, to not wear the lid because of the fact that I have thought about the question, weighed the pros and cons, came to my conclusion, without any outside forces acting upon my decision (aka no deity), and have decided that to me, as a contributing member of this society, I think that I have earned the right to wear or not wear a helmet based on my own analysis.

OR:

His request as a Sikh to not wear the lid based upon his belief that his supernatural superior tells him that he is to wear a turban (something to do with hair growth, not sure, why, but that doesn't really matter to this) and therefore cannot wear a helmet even though our laws says he must.

Of the above, what seems more "Reasonable"?

Maybe he is using Religion to strike down an unreasonable law, but I will never see the justification in laws governing all types of people (believers and non-believers) to grant a group of these people any more freedoms then another.

In Canada, and all its Provinces, the set of rules that we live by, should apply to each and every person of this country in the same fashion, and they should all come from putting people and comunity FIRST, over all other types of inputs.

I agree or understand your point.
I'm lifting this from PULSE24 and paraphrasing.
Dogs, animals in general, are not allowed to be in certain public areas (were food is served generally) but someone at some point had to battle for an exemption!
The Blind and others with special needs.
I'm too young to remember the attention this attracted but I'm sure there were people opposed.
I wonder how many people would argue this decision today.Exemptions have been made in the past and they will continue to be made in the future and funny thing, they will most likely all be based on disability, race, age, religion, sex..

I say the door is now open and hopefully someone smarter than me will take a crack at having the law at least reviewed and at best repealed!
Lee.

[eastcoast_gsx]

The Blind and others with special needs.

Once again the comparision comes out between religion and disability... hmmm......

[leedufour]

This would be interesting...
On a 28 degree day, downtown with a high poor air quality index and stuck in traffic, measure the temperature a rider in a full face helmet is being subjected to (in the helmet).
If the helmet temps are overly high and dangerous, OFF WITH THE HELMETS!
These hot days give cars an exemption to the idling law (3min). People couldn't comeback saying we don't have to ride on these days so no exemption.
Just one idea and hopefully others can come up with more!!!
Lee.

[Rob MacLennan]

I agree or understand your point.
I'm lifting this from PULSE24 and paraphrasing.
Dogs, animals in general, are not allowed to be in certain public areas (were food is served generally) but someone at some point had to battle for an exemption!
The Blind and others with special needs.
I'm too young to remember the attention this attracted but I'm sure there were people opposed.
I wonder how many people would argue this decision today.Exemptions have been made in the past and they will continue to be made in the future and funny thing, they will most likely all be based on disability, race, age, religion, sex..

I say the door is now open and hopefully someone smarter than me will take a crack at having the law at least reviewed and at best repealed!
Lee.

The helmet law isn't going away anytime soon. Those who turn their efforts toward that end are wasting their time. Of course it's their's to waste, but there are many other issues that truly deserve their efforts.

A religion is a choice. Riding a motorcycle is a choice. Neither is necessary to continued life. Being blind is not a choice. The comparison falls flat, right there.

[canuckerjay]

Okay, first, I'm in support of the mods deleting the old thread. I'm also okay with the mods banning numerous people over it. If you're a racist/discriminatory pig that defames a group of millions over ethnic factors as opposed to the logic analysis related to the current issue, you have every right to espouse such disgusting slime -- in private. This forum is available to the public eye, and no one has the right to use limited free speech to rape others of their right to be free from discrimination on the basis of race or religion.

This country is great because of its acceptance of various religion and ethnic values. There's not a lot of places in North America this accepting. It's a good thing. Shame that a few try to wreck it. . .

As far as the case goes, I'm personally against granting this gentleman an exemption. It has been done elsewhere, where the case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. But I'm wondering if the Court took a mistep . . .

See, I interact with a number of sikh gentlemen, one of which served in the Indian Air Force. I asked him what a soldier would do -- do they get to choose whether or not to wear a helmet?

His answer was absolutly not -- From what he tells me, all pilots are required to wear a helmet. Many sikhs simply choose to forego the turban as a matter of the job requirement. However, the ultra-orthodox will use a more 'slim' hair covering under the helmet, that is not as big a the traditional turban. It's the same kind of covering that you'd see many Sikh cricket players wear under their helmets on the field.

There's the answer. Isn't that the compromise between freedom of religion and public safety in a socialist society? I wonder if the OHRC is aware? Was the Supreme Court aware when the BC case came before it?