01Racing

............and I will say no more!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/sto...h.html?ref=rss

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

Uh oh. Man, we're having an intersting month in this section

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

Don't pop the Cristal just yet! There is such a thing as an appeal.

Black91n/a

Yes, but as far as I'm aware there is no "have your cake and eat it too" clause in the charter.

Bass

What I find interesting is that the guy in this case, and I would imagine the other cases as well, used the fact that his religion bans him from covering up his turban. That's fine...I don't have a problem with that. But I would love to see where his religion requires him to use a motorcycle.
I wonder what constitutes a 'religion'? Could create my own and use it to supersede a number of laws? It's a huge can of worms!

01Racing

I didnt mean to re-open the whole debate again, just to show that the case went to trial and a judgement was made........the right judgement in my opinion. I'm sure by the time all is said and done and the lawyers finish with it (and make all their money) it would have been cheaper for all of us to just let him splat himself on the pavement and pay his medical bills!

StarScreaM2k1

Your an idiot...

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

If you are going to take the time to insult someone, at least get it right!

It's YOU'RE an idiot.


lol

Syritis

iTrader: (2)

maybe someday they'll make DOT approved turbans, that or we should have sihk banned from riding motor bikes.

StarScreaM2k1

Awww i cant edit my posts...but on the other hand Thanks spellchecker Hey mind if i send you a few assignments or something?

7_rocket

iTrader: (6)

Here comes another debate

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

I'd be surprised if this isn't appealed, given the contradictory rulings elsewhere (BC, Manitoba). Regardless of where you stand on it, it's likely to generate some more lawyer's fees on it's way to the Supreme Court...

Black91n/a

Unfortunately yes, although precidence in another jurisdiction doesn't count, does it?

To me it seems totally back asswards to "fix" a supposed descrimination by writing one into law. If I get a ticket for no helmet here in BC, can I claim religious descrimination because I'm not Sikh and don't wear a turban? How is that law constitutional when it has descrimination based on religion and turban in it?

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

Actually, I'm pretty sure it does - in that the jurisdiction is Canada, and the question relates to whether Ontario's motorcycle helmet law (and everywhere else I presume, outside of Manitoba and BC), infringe on Charter guarantees of freedom of religion. I don't know, however, whether any court ruling was ever made in BC & Manitoba on whether helmet laws infringed on Sikh freedom to practice their religion - it's possible those provinces just decided to make an exception, rather than being compelled to by a court decision. In which case, the Ontario decision would be the first precedent.

The ruling would have to be appealed to Ontario's appeal court before it could be appealed to the Supreme Court, if either party (the province or the motorcyclist) was unsatisfied with the outcome there - that's assuming the defendant in this case wants, and can afford to pursue the matter further.

orion84gsl

iTrader: (5)

Also, if your going to take the time to insult someone, take another minute and elaborate on WHY he is an idiot. Last I checked protecting your noodle WAS common sense.

Also, a question I wanted to post in the other thread but it got a little long-winded. How exactly is a turban supposed to stay on at 120+ KM/H???? Velcro maybe? And as stated many times, the motorcycle is not a right, therefore no one is exactly twisting his arm to make him ride it. You choose to ride, therefore you choose to obey the laws governing that. If part of his case is that B.C, Manitoba, India, etc, allow Sihks to ride without a helmet, well pack your **** and move there then. You can't infringe on religious rights if you don't have to take part in an activity. That's why it's called a priveledge. It's the same as organized racing. You choose to partake in stated activity and to do so under the rules of whichever organization that activity falls under. Try showing up to a sanctioned race and saying "I'm not wearing a helmet, it's against my religion." See how far down the track you get with that one. Everyone here drives a car and good luck changing the seatbelt law if it doesn't match up with your religious beliefs. You don't like the rules, take the damn bus.

Bass

I'm willing to bet that someone's going to challenge the right vs. privilege status of driving on public roads. Now there's a major can of worms.

orion84gsl

iTrader: (5)

I'd love to see that. In fact I would pay to see that. Not alot so don't anyone go jumping the gun here, lol. Considering that lives are at risk if you do it improperly or break the law, it can't possibly be a right. You do not HAVE to drive to get to work, or eat, or have shelter, to have clothing. It is not essential to life therefore it is not a right. You have the right as a citizen to try to get a licence and providing you are fit to operate a vehicle and able to pass your test and obey the laws you have the right to keep that licence. But you **** up, then no one wants you on OUR(Canadian citizens as a whole) roads. We pay our taxes to keep the roads in the condition they are in, as shabby as some may be, so that we may exercise our priveledge to drive. I do not want people ******* things up for the rest of us, my insurance is already high enough because people before me broke laws or got into accidents and became statistics.

Bass

[quote=orion84gsl;7960630] Considering that lives are at risk if you do it improperly or break the law, it can't possibly be a right. /quote]

Here's some more food for thought along this line: It's a citizen's right to procreate, no matter how fucked up they are as a person. Sure, there are checks and balances in place (mostly of the reactive rather than proactive variety). Child rearing is merely training future citizens who will have different approaches to activities such as driving, working, and adhering to the law; all of which have consequences that affect us all.

Clearly, lives are at risk with regards to parenting styles (my wife works for CAS - I continue to hear horror stories). Yet it remains a right and not a privilege without any such training, tests etc...as driving requires.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

originally posted by BassI'm pretty sure the Supreme Court has in fact effectively deemed that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that governments have reasonable freedom to regulate and restrict it in the interest of safety and the common good. They have even ruled, in regards to 24hr suspensions and vehicle impoundment for impaired driving, that public safety supersedes the accused's right to due process (ie, a penalty is applied before the accused has opportunity for representation or trial). That doesn't mean that they might not see freedom of religious practice as a distinct issue in relation to motoring, but it is instructive as to how the Court views driving generally - it's not an inalienable right.

As an aside, I believe that is the issue at the heart of whether Ontario's new "anti-racing" law will stand up to court challenge (I certainly hope not, or the dumb idea may spread). Ontario's Liberal government seems to be hoping/assuming that if challenged, appeals courts will side with the government's right to regulate driving behaviors in the interest of public safety, and that the legislation allowing cars to be towed on the spot for 50km over or behavior deemed by an officer to be stunting/racing, or simply "suspecting" that such may occur or has occurred, will be upheld. This despite the fact it patently deprives the accused of due process rights, including habeas corpus, if stories that have been told are true, that people have been charged and vehicles seized just on the suspicion that "racing" has occured. In this, I certainly wish them ill-luck. Besides intruding dangerously on rights to personal liberty grounded in 800 years of English common law, a key difference between impaired driving and other road-going offences is that the accused "racer" is presumably fully capable of modifying their behavior immediately, whereas a drunk/drugged driver is not.

Back on topic (sort of)...
originally posted by orion84gslI don't know, but that's sort of his problem, if he's allowed to wear it in the first place
More seriously, they presumably do stay on, since the person in this Ontario case was fined for riding without a helmet, and in Manitoba and BC Sikh's may ride with turbans in lieu of a helmet already. It might be worth mentioning that turban-wearing Sikh's fought in both world wars, eschewing tin helmets in favour of their turbans - I don't know if they had higher head injury/fatality rates or not, mind you. I would suspect a great risk in the event of an accident would be that whatever minimal protection the turban might provide would be eliminated by having it come off in an impact.

orion84gsl

iTrader: (5)

You make a good point. It is true that there are people out that are fucked up because of their parents, because of their parents, because of their parents, etc, etc. These people kill, steal, and basically disobey every law there is. Not all of them, and not all at once of course, but you get the idea. But that's why there is CAS. They find out your a fucked up parent, they take your kids from you to protect them, and in the long run, protect society. If it's serious enough they also make you take parenting courses before they will return your children. This is a reactive, instead of preventative measure, but not too long ago, no one got to say a thing about how parents raised their kids. This part is the same as driving. You are given a chance to prove you can do it right. You mess up and get caught, you are no longer allowed to drive, or raise your children, legally anyway.

There's also that privacy right thing. You can't control people's sex lives. The government can't stand over your shoulder and watch how you raise your kids. Plus keep in mind the government speaks for the majority of us. If a bill came into parliament to enact a law forcing parents to have some sort of training before having children then we as a country would be able to say whether or not we think we need that. I myself have yet to hear of anything like this. So far I believe more people come out "OK" than totally fucked.

Also if you've seen enough futuristic sci-fi movies, you'll notice a trend of a controlled birth/parenting theme. I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happens sometime down the line seeing as it wasn't all that long ago that CAS didn't even exist, now theres a government department to handle things like poor parenting, though not to the extent of the movies.... yet. But it's not far fetched, just a long, long ways down the chain of societal evolution. There are schools now that take away candy if your child has too much in their lunch, which is something I ate an abundance of when I was in school without a word from the faculty, so we are getting there slowly. Also sometimes, it's really not the parents fault a kid is messed up. My mom raised my sister and I pretty much the same way, the difference is I consider it my job in life to work my *** off for the things I want. My sister on the other hand, expects things handed to her. I really have no idea how that happened, but her and I are on two very different ends of that particular spectrum.

Driving is a priveledge because we as a country want it that way. Like I said, I pay my taxes and I don't want some ******* out on the roads that doesn't want to obey the rules, and I'm sure most would agree with me. If the laws truly are stupid/pointless or contradictory to the charter of rights and freedoms, fine change them. But make it fair. One person doesn't have to wear a helmet, then no one has to. There is no picking and choosing when making laws. It's either across the board or not at all. Well at least that's the way it SHOULD be. However those laws really are there for the greater good of all of us. In this case, I'm ok with a handful of people unhappy about a law that keeps every other motorcyclist wearing a helmet. It's already too easy to lose your life, that's why I say obey the law or take the bus.

Also something I don't think has been explicity mentioned, when you apply for a licence of any kind, you automatically acknowledge that you know, understand, and are willing and able to comply with the rules and regulations in place for that particular licence. You do not get to go get your licence and then bitch after the fact. When this guy took his tests he fully knew that a helmet was required by law. He didn't say **** until he was caught breaking that law. Makes one wonder. Where the hell were his religious beliefs when he applied?

I think that's the end of my rant. Sorry for completely changing the direction of this thread. Please update this if anything happens with in regards to an appeal. Though I am happy that it got shot down on the first try, I'd like to know what happens in the end.

Black91n/a

I'm no expert, but a turban is not a hat, it's a large piece of cloth that's wrapped around the head along with their long hair, and is wrapped fairly snugly, so it's not going to come off, and if it does anything it will unfurl, not just fall off.

I can completely understand why they might want to challenge this, and why they may feel that it's not fair, because their religion and the law are in conflict on the issue, and they cannot do something that most Canadians are able to do. The thing is that the law and the charter of rights and freedoms are about EQUALITY, not fairness. Life's not fair, no laws can make it fair, it's just not going to happen, and trying to do so is called communism, and even then things aren't equal ("some are equal but some are more equal than others" - Orwell). The fact is that it's the religion that's causing the conflict, not the law, the law applies equally to all people, so as I see it there's no problem, and any remedy will just make things worse, as it's writing descrimination into law, which is never right and can never be justified IMHO.

Bass

The government is responsible for creating and enacting law. Those laws are always subject to what the majority (vocal majority at least) of society at that time believe to be necessary for various reasons. If you look back through the law books, you'll see that various laws have been subject to evolution of legislation. Right now, I'm part of my negotiating team for our upcoming contract negotiations for OSSTF. As a result, I'm knee deep into interpretations of the Education Act which has been subject to recent changes. Those changes have written within them language such as this shall supersede any previous...and so on: meaning that yeah...the law said that it's this way...and now...it's gonna be that way instead. While it's true that the Supreme Court has the 'final say' on issues, it is society at large that can effectively change law that would deem said Supreme Court rulings null and void. Law is constantly changing/ evolving.

Your 'rant' is right on target. You haven't changed direction of this thread at all. It's a huge issue and the religious argument with regards to this particular case is just an example of how law is truly in flux and why.

The fact that this gentleman has waited until after he received his license is the usual path that people have to follow in order to make change. Quite often, change starts within. Usually, you have to be a part of the game before you can start arguing the rules.

Valdez

iTrader: (1)

Like this guy?
http://pages.prodigy.com/lemus/taxi.htm

orion84gsl

iTrader: (5)

Is that a joke or something? Sounds rather retarded. I also have a hard time believing NASCAR officials would let someone behave that way on a track because New York wants them to. Either way, when he smacks a wall, he'll find out how much that turban is really going to protect him. Thanks for the back up Bass, I'm glad I'm not alone with my thoughts.