Sihks must wear helmets in Ontario | Page 4 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Sihks must wear helmets in Ontario

Forum Sponsor
vociferous said:
you do have that right to ride a motorcycle... on your own property.

if you want to use public roads, you abide by the rules that have been set out by the trustees of those roads.


This^^^

I think people are confusing rights and freedoms with privileges. Using any vehicle on public roads is in no way a right; it's a privilege, and as such is subject to rules and regulations and people to enforce both. I believe the argument for Sikhs to be exempt from this law is not so much about riding being a right as it is about them being discriminated against due to this law. In most cases, safety (personal and public) trumps religious freedom. If this wasn't the case, sharia law would be fine here, and there would be a whole lot more "smiting thy neighbour". In Ontario, where very few ride year round, can you really prove that riding is a necessity? Is the law depriving people of a livelihood? Don't really think so.
Click to expand...
 
Gsus said:
vociferous said:
you do have that right to ride a motorcycle... on your own property.

if you want to use public roads, you abide by the rules that have been set out by the trustees of those roads.


This^^^

I think people are confusing rights and freedoms with privileges.
Click to expand...

Because it's very confusing. I'm still not happy with my grasp of that. How can driving, like any other public activity, not be a right? As long as one has met and continues to meet the pre-set requirements associated with that activity nobody or body of power can interfere with your desire to participate. If nobody can stop you from doing it then that sounds more like a right, but all the legal braintards insisist it's a granted privilege.
Click to expand...
 
Damn. Reading this thread, i would suggest people start wearing a helmet incase they injure themselves on their keyboards.
 
JFD said:
Damn. Reading this thread, i would suggest people start wearing a helmet incase they injure themselves on their keyboards.
Click to expand...

Wear a helmet on your manhood, you could get that itch that never goes away or bumps that keep coming back.
 
I'm a little fuzzy on just what is a "right".
Is there some legal definition?

People seem to think that simply declaring they have a right to do something makes it so.
Seems to me all a right is, is any activity permitted by law.
Or more simply, anything you can get away with doing.

I can have the right to free speech, but if a cop clubs me for it, and no court will support my grievance, what 'right' is there?

And it seems a 'priviledge' is only a right that can be taken away by the same authorities that grant it in the first place.
 
jolomatic said:
I'm a little fuzzy on just what is a "right".
Is there some legal definition?

People seem to think that simply declaring they have a right to do something makes it so.
Seems to me all a right is, is any activity permitted by law.
Or more simply, anything you can get away with doing.

I can have the right to free speech, but if a cop clubs me for it, and no court will support my grievance, what 'right' is there?

And it seems a 'priviledge' is only a right that can be taken away by the same authorities that grant it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the Constitution, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and probably a few other bits and pieces of legislation that guarantee certain "rights". Pretty sure motorcycles aren't covered under any of these documents, but I'm just an auto worker, not a lawyer...
 
Gsus said:
Well, it seems that we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms from the Constitution, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and probably a few other bits and pieces of legislation that guarantee certain "rights". Pretty sure motorcycles aren't covered under any of these documents, but I'm just an auto worker, not a lawyer...
Click to expand...

Those things come from up high. Our betters. Are we children? Having privileges handed out by parents? You shouldn't need to be a lawyer to have an innate sense of right and wrong. If it's factual that no one can deny you participation in a given activity why let our betters declare it a privilege? Why the power grab? I want to stand on my lawn naked. That's not a right. Donning pants, standing on my front lawn is now my right not a granted privilege.
 
You have a right to life and no one should be allowed to take it away from you.

....though imo, the exception should be that if someone tries to take your life away from you, they forfeit the above right.
 
inreb said:
Those things come from up high. Our betters. Are we children? Having privileges handed out by parents? You shouldn't need to be a lawyer to have an innate sense of right and wrong. If it's factual that no one can deny you participation in a given activity why let our betters declare it a privilege? Why the power grab? I want to stand on my lawn naked. That's not a right. Donning pants, standing on my front lawn is now my right not a granted privilege.
Click to expand...

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement; that is, rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory.[SUP][1][/SUP] Rights are of essential importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology.
Rights are often considered fundamental to civilization, being regarded as established pillars of society and culture,[SUP][2][/SUP] and the history of social conflicts can be found in the history of each right and its development. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "rights structure the form of governments, the content of laws, and the shape of morality as it is currently perceived."[SUP][1][/SUP]

Gotta love Wikipedia.
Ice to cool my Gin and Tonic is more "fundamental to civilization" than my motorcycle, but Ice is not my right, as society and culture will not crumble without it.
Note: the ice thing is sarcastic, so take it as it was intended before getting up in arms about the priorities I place on frosty beverages vs my bike.
 
Based on that definition, no one has the right to drive a motorcycle on the public roads; they are permitted to use the public roads after passing a test that gives the government assurance they have the skills and knowledge to do so. Society gives governments certain powers to carry out the wishes of the majority in a democratic society. Examples of such wishes are laws -- established by decree and enforced by courts. Driving is a privilege granted to those few who passed the test (which includes proof of understanding of the laws governing the use of the public roads), and which can be taken away at any time. Rights cannot be given and taken at will because they are fundamental, according to that definition. The Sikh community was looking for special treatment, based on their religion, to circumvent rules established as part of the privilege of driving on public roads. The government intervened because they are the guardians of law and therefore in the position to evaluate and rule on such circumvention. They ruled against. In no case was anyone's rights violated.
 
Last edited:
^^^Thank you^^^, you just saved me trying to put that into my next post.
 
Tripletrouble said:
+1 on this.
I do not consider it a privilege to use a vehicle of my choice.I believe that I do have a right to ride a motorcycle. I do not exist merely to serve a government. Surely it is supposed to be the other way around!
Click to expand...

umm...you are on "crown" land...you own nothing! it is very much a privilege !
 
robmack said:
Based on that definition, no one has the right to drive a motorcycle on the public roads; they are permitted to use the public roads after passing a test that gives the government assurance they have the skills and knowledge to do so.
Click to expand...

How do you get "no one has the right to drive a motorcycle on public roads" from the definition above? The first line says in part a right is a legal entitlement. Everybody has the right to drive on public roads as long as legal requirements are met. You cannot be denied. Hardly a definition of privilege.
 
The legal definition of right is different that the colloquial definition to which you refer.
Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement;
Click to expand...
Motorcycle driving does not fall into any of these principles. Rights are much more basic and fundamental in nature. You are not entitled to drive a motorcycle because you are human. You are, as is all mankind, entitled to inalienable rights (as the mericans say in their constitution) of an ethical and moral nature.
 
robmack said:
The legal definition of right is different that the colloquial definition to which you refer.

Motorcycle driving does not fall into any of these principles. Rights are much more basic and fundamental in nature. You are not entitled to drive a motorcycle because you are human. You are, as is all mankind, entitled to inalienable rights (as the mericans say in their constitution) of an ethical and moral nature.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh.....its a word thing, why didn't somebody just say so? I been harping on this for years. I guess when you live where the rubber hits the ground you'll get that. Eh. I'm gonna look up "colloquial" to see if it checks out. Either way I'll be working "colloquial" into a post sooner rather than later. Watch this space. Well not this space per se, but co-locally.
 
^Okaley Dokely colloquial checks out.
 
sid_for_speed said:
umm...you are on "crown" land...you own nothing! it is very much a privilege !
Click to expand...
Ummm... under the Crown Lands Act of 1989 provincial highways are specifically excluded from being crown land.
 
Last edited:
robmack said:
Based on that definition, no one has the right to drive a motorcycle on the public roads; they are permitted to use the public roads after passing a test that gives the government assurance they have the skills and knowledge to do so. Society gives governments certain powers to carry out the wishes of the majority in a democratic society. Examples of such wishes are laws -- established by decree and enforced by courts. Driving is a privilege granted to those few who passed the test (which includes proof of understanding of the laws governing the use of the public roads), and which can be taken away at any time. Rights cannot be given and taken at will because they are fundamental, according to that definition. The Sikh community was looking for special treatment, based on their religion, to circumvent rules established as part of the privilege of driving on public roads. The government intervened because they are the guardians of law and therefore in the position to evaluate and rule on such circumvention. They ruled against. In no case was anyone's rights violated.
Click to expand...



I disagree with this and so do the courts. The issue is not whether a right has been violated, but whether that violation is justified. The Ontario Court has ruled that it is justified, based on safety and the public burden argument; however, that could change with an appeal to a higher Court. To me, the freedom argument has never been very well argued or understood, and therefore never properly considered.
 
This post was supposed to be a "reply with quote" the quote being that in a free society people should have the choice not to wear a lid. (I botched it somehow)

This is not a free society. We pay taxes. When those without helmets pay their own medical bills then it's their choice.

Here's the question I always have. If your religion insists you wear a turban and a helmet is required to ride then wouldn't choosing not to ride be a strong showing of your dedication towards that religion?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom