ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

I completely agree with rx7Racerca's assessment of the issue. But just want to add a couple of points.

I agree that motorcycling is not a necessity and should be subject to "protect from self" laws as you put it. But what about the many other activities that we participate in that are not necessities that cost the system. I'll stick to the healthcare system since it seems most appropriate. What about the skydiver, bungee jumper or amateur automotive racer that injures himself? Why do we choose to allow these activities despite the fact that they too can have healthcare cost repurcussions. It seems justified to me that a person ought to be able participate in religious observance while riding a motorcycle if others can jump out of a plane just for the fun of it.

01Racing

I dont think too many people jump out of airplanes without parachutes and helmets, and when we race cars we wear thing like firesuits, helmets,gloves etc to MINIMIZE the risk of injury and costs to the healthcare system. It is real easy to shout racism because someone refuses to conform to a law. If you choose to do an activity or take a job, you know ahead of time whats involved. To apply for the job knowing your beliefs wont let you wear the uniform, hard hat, helmet or WHATEVER is just not right. I guarantee if I went to another country and tried this ****, I would be deported or thrown in jail. This whole post is about pushing the limits of our liberal society, regardless of costs to the MASSES for an individuals sake. We have kids shooting and stabbing kids in schools because the school can no longer discipline them. This is why criminals have more rights than their victims. You can hide behind the "racism" moniker all you want, but this has nothing to do with racism at all.

classicauto

iTrader: (3)

Good point Charn.

I think the comparison to extreme sports or other risky ventures is valid, but take into accoutn that even those sports contain saftey measures to minimize the likelyhood of tragedy.

Even when wearing helmet on a bike you can STILL become injured severely or killed. The helmet law is there to minimize those instances. If you wanted to jump out of a plane with NO backup chute, then that would be a similar call to this no helmet on a bike choice, at least in my mind.

EDIT: Because even though you're taking the risk of the activity, the laws in place which "protect you from yourself" are still beneficial, and still apply to other forms of risky activities. If my religion dictates I shouldn't double knot the rope on feet while bungee jumping because of whatever reason, you're taking the risk the activity poses further then what the "protect from self" laws would normallt allow despite the fact that its dangerous to begin with.

Black91n/a

I would disagree that those genocides were the result of a eugenicist view or anything like that. It was bred out of racism, hatred and a lust for power and control, not a desire to improve the human race.

I'm all for freedoms, I'm no racist, but things like this annoy me. For instance I think it's REDICULOUS that kids are now allowed to bring weapons to school because they're "ceremonial" (that'll coming back to bite them sooner or later). It's not like there's a ceremony at school that requires them to bring a weapon, and what's wrong with a non-functional decorative piece?

At some point the needs of society as a whole needs to come first.

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

Out here in BC you see guys driving motorcycles all the time with Turbans and no helmets. This seems to be an accepted practice on our streets, be it written that way or not. As they have gotten the proverbial "free pass" on the law out here, I'd imagine this guy in Ontario has a pretty good chance of winning based on precedent alone.

Putting Freedom of Religion and Racism aside - the main issue discussed about it I hear is that is someone not wearing a helmet has an accident, chances are their injuries will be such that their medical expenses will be hugely greater than the rider wearing a helmet. This is a cost that is assumed by the Canadian Taxpayers, and payed again by Canadian car insurance policy holders. Personally if you decide to ride without a helmet (or without a seatbelt in a car for that matter) fine, but your insurance (medical and automotive) should reflect that choice.

But I see an opportunity here to make millions...

If you came up with a helmet design that could fit OVER a Turban, then there would be no "excuse" to wear it! Suddenly your product would be hugely in demand everywhere. Now, who's cot some connections with a helmet manufacturer...... lol

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

I agree that issues like this tend to bring out closet racism; however, I don't agree that is the only thing being expressed here, though that may be at least part of why some find this case objectionable. It's also a matter of simply being offended when reasonable laws are challenged for dubious reasons - which ultimately erodes faith in the justice system. The person (I'm assuming it's an individual, not a group action) challenging the law, if successful, invites further challenges. I would actually like to find out more about the basis of this challenge - so far, all I know is hearsay that on the face of it makes it seem this is a nonsense case... but a person can still fear the courts might be swayed.

So the fear is not just of accommodating a probably tiny number of Sikhs who might want to ride motorcycles, but that there is no end to the ways laws will have to bend and be changed to accommodate endless individual beliefs and practices - and thus make the law less and less something we can all agree on and more a law of whatever individual preference and belief say it should be. So the perception is that laws that are a (widely believed) reasonable compromise between individual and societal good can be overturned merely because an individual doesn't want to live with a consequence of his or her beliefs or choices. And that as a consequence the law becomes less common and endlessly subjective.

I think this is the larger issue, that there is a perception that the legal system has come to ignore consequences of individual's choices and place too much emphasis on protecting the accused's rights. People see what they believe to be the scales of justice being tilted too far in favour of protecting the accused or the individual at the expense of broader society. Reaching back to my sociology undergrad degree days, when I did a lot of study and research in the area of Canadian history and society, one of the things that tends to define us as Canadians is having a very strong sense of fair play and just outcomes. So we tend to react strongly when we see what we think to be violations of those principles - even though, unlike our American cousins, we're less likely to act on our feelings - sometimes that's good, sometimes not.

As far as other risky activities go - as someone active in motorsports for close to a decade, I've never heard of serious injuries except motorcycle racers (same reason they have high injury rates/km driven on the streets - very limited safety gear/protection in the event of an accident), except on TV at the F1 and NASCAR exteme levels of the sport - the safety requirements of most tracks and sanctioning bodies mandate high levels of protection for participants, so participants already have to invest considerable time and expense in avoiding injury. I think the burden placed on society or healthcare is actually pretty low there.

Skydiving is probably less clear - there have been a half dozen or so fatalities in the Calgary area alone over the last 15 years or so, which is pretty high for the relatively small number jumping out of planes. On the other hand, other than broken legs or arms from hard landings, few accidents in skydiving leave someone alive but incapacitated, so maybe that's why it hasn't been restricted - it's just too small to be bothered with (which when push comes to shove, probably would apply to turban-wearing-Sikhs-on-motorcyles - how often would such a person be caught and actually charged by an officer?)

As an avid hiker and living close to the Rockies, I'm aware the discussion comes up from time to time about whether people who need to be rescued from the backcountry or rockclimbing should have to pay for their rescues, but of course it's not often outright stupidity that leads to the trouble (which are the cases that tend to revive the discussion), but sometimes just bad timing or happenstance, just like can happen with accidents in town.

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

It would be even more cost effective if those activities were completely banned. So there is obviously a weighing of the costs versus the undue hardship a person or segment may suffer. It is simply the same balancing act that needs to be applied in this case. I think that less than 1 percent of Canadians are Sikh, with less than half of those actually wearing turbans and even fewer actually riding motorcycles. So we are not talking about a huge group of potential emergency room attendees. That said the flip side is that if there is not that many Sikh's expereincing the hardship it will be harder to establish the said hardship. But I think you should note that there is an exemption in place in BC already. But the Sikh community is larger in that Province.

I did not call anyone in particular racist but if the shoe fits.

So what are you suggesting? That all those that follow any faith should never apply for those jobs? Aren't you a manager of a Mazda dealership? What kind of message is that? Did you know that some faiths don't allow for females to come in physical contact with males other than their spouse? This would mean a potential saleperson under your supervision would not be able to shake hands with a customer. Are you telling this person to not apply for a job with your dealership? If this was the case you would find yourself before the Human Rights Commission quite quickly. Do you hold similar views regarding other groups that may require accomodations like the phsyically or mentally impaired? Should they also avoid applying for work that may require accomodations?

Is that what you are suggesting should happen to this fellow Canadian? You seem to be coming from a perspective that this part of the globe is yours. You do know that there were people here prior to your families arrival? ( I am assuming you are not aboriginal.) You are aware that the aboriginals had rules/code for this land prior to any non-aboriginal arrival? It is hypocrytical to suggest that those that immigrated after your descendants are less Canadian and therefore deserve no accomodations.

What in the world does a guy that does not wish to wear a helmet due to religious observance have to do with the shooting and stabbings in a our community?

I am not hiding behind anything. I stated my opinion openly.


lol, unfortunately I don't think the Sikh harley riding community is large enough to support such a venture.

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

Maybe not in in Woodbridge, but out here it sure is! lol And for every Sikh Harley rider I see, there are 10 Sikh crotch-rocket riders!


I gotta say I think the racism angle in this thread has been a bit blown out of proportion.

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

You're probably right but I found some of the comments offensive so I responded.

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

Fair enough.

The way I see it is this: Nobody is saying that a person (Sikh in this example) can't practice their religion. You have a right as a citizen of Canada to do so without prejudice. But the other side of the coin is this: As a Citizen of Canada you have responsibilities as well; to abide by the laws set forth in the country. You don't need to agree with them - just abide by them or suffer the consequences. These responsibilities are as inherent as your rights, and the two go hand in hand. Living in Canada, the Sikh individual has to make a choice: What is more important to them, their religion or their desire to ride a motorcycle. If their desire to ride is more important, then they have to wear a helmet. If their religion is more important than they don't ride because of the Turban.

This is not racist or their freedom of religion being crushed - it is an individual choice.

But depending on how it is expressed and enforced, racism and freedom of religion are not far from the surface.

Black91n/a

For me, what I read into the original comment is that when a SAFETY concern is in conflict with a RELIGIOUS concern that the safety one should win out in the end. If a job requires that you're clean shaven to wear a respirator so that you don't die of the chamical fumes (I've worked in such a place), but your religion requires that you have a beard, then what? What if you need to wear a protective suit of some sort (also a requirement at said job) but you're a woman in a religion that forbids pants, then what?

I all my experience in industrial settings, people are accomodated as much as possible (for instance you can get forced air hoods instead of respirators), but sometimes it's not possible to accomodate something (like the dress thing).

I was told the story of a group of contractors that were working at one of my jobs within the last 10 years. They refused to follow the safety rules and they were allowed to get away with it. Guess what? They're all either dead or very ill now from the toxins that the safety rules were there to protect them from.

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

I whole-heartedly agree with you but I think it is this person's right to make the request. I think the request in this case is via the Ontario Human Right's Commission. Once it has been decided and all appeals exhausted I think he has to make the choice that you have suggested. But I think it is wrong to say that this person is not entitled to put forward their argument. And I also disagree with not trusting our Ontario Human Rights Commission to make the right decision on the issue. They will have alot more information before them than we have and I am sure they will hear and consider all the arguments canvassed in this thread. I just don't understand the knee-jerk reaction that refers to this person as an alien entity imposing on "us" Canadians. My point is that he is one of us too and deserves his day in court.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

I see from Nick86 that, as I suspected, Sikhs in the lower mainland, which is certainly the largest such community in Canada, are effectively, if not in BC law, getting a pass on the helmet law if riding with a turban. As Lawyer's Spirit notes, the argument can go either way on whether that indicates a blanket exemption, or that the small number involved whose individual freedom is restricted, may not merit an exemption, similar to other dangerous activities.

I'm not pointing to anyone and saying they're a racist. However, I totally stand by my argument that eugenics arguments on "improving the breed" are totally related to many, if not most of the horrendous genocides of the past century - and they are dangerous precisely because they explicitly, and publicly,underpinned and supported genocidal programs like the ****'s "Final Solution". There is little, if any agreement on what would constitute better humans, even if we ignore racial and cultural charactistics: eg., characteristics like aggression, ego, and risk-taking on one hand can be negative, in tending towards conflict, violence, and self-destruction, but on the other can be desirable and necessary traits for survival and prosperity.

Beyond that lack of an objective and unified vision of what a better human might be, and in part because it, the overwhelming problem with eugenics is that it fits very nicely with racism, hatred, and the lust for power and control. Because "improving the breed" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder, eugenics is entirely malleable, and consistently subverted to exactly the ugly causes you cited. It may not be racism and hatred and lust for power, but as I said, it's perilously close and intertwined. I didn't throw it out there to label yourself or anyone else, but precisely because eugenics is a well intended notion that nonetheless seems to invariably become corrupted - it's not standing on a slippery slope, it's more like walking on the edge of the sword; dangerous, and the slightlest deviation and you can fall off.

Take an example from Canada - in Alberta (I don't know about elsewhere in Canada), from the 1930's to the early 70's, individuals committed or detained in mental institutions could be sterilized against their will. Now, I suppose there's a plausibly legitimate argument that persons who can't look after themselves should be prevented from having children they can't care for. However, the explicit and primary reason for the law and program was to prevent those deemed "unfit" from reproducing. Compounding that problem is that all manner of people were committed for reasons that would never stand up to legal or medical or psychiatric practice and understanding today - depression, stress, breakdowns, or simply having misunderstood medical conditions. As a result, thousands of people were forcibly sterilized.

As far as Sikh children carrying kirpans to school - it's been allowed for approaching 20 years now. The knives are small, and dull (because they're symbolic, not for real use, just like swords people can buy to decorate their homes). I'm not aware of any incidents where a Sikh kirpan has been used to harm or threaten another child - although it wouldn't surprise me - somewhere, sometime, a kid will be stupid and undisciplined - pretty much daily, actually. Which would be no different than any other kid who brings a jackknife or other knife to school, which happens all the time, but those knives may actually be sharp and dangerous, and the teacher doesn't know about them. As a former high school teacher, I can say it much more offended my sensibilities that it was impossible to expel a student (of the white trash ethnic group!), with a history of troublesome behavior, who brought a knife to school, and threatened another student with it, despite the fact the offender was over 16, and the state therefore no longer legally owed him an education. But a bureaucrat in the ministry decided that the threat of legal action by the parents meant we should re-admit the little hellion after a few weeks. That does serve as an example of how lack of personal accountability, and spurious legal action,or the threat thereof, erodes people's faith in the system.

brent clement

Call me simple, but as intelligent and poetic as many of these arguments are, I don't understand the debate.
I can get a ticket for riding a motorcycle wearing a helmet that's not dot approved, never mind not wearing one at all. If they can get a turban dot approved for use on a motorcycle all the power to them. Until then as said by others before me, wear a helmet or don't ride.
I don't see this as racist in any way shape or form, it's simply common sense. My point right from the start was that no one should have the right to ignore the law due to there religion. Maybe I wasn't clear.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that we're all immigrants here and that this country depends on immigration. My family's probably only been in Canada for a few centuries at best, natives were here how long? 7000+yrs depending who you believe. Not to mention almost all of us are of mixed heritage.
Now I've gone and done it as well, most of this is completely off topic. However it does make for some interesting conversation.

HEVNSNT

iTrader: (3)

I've read through the whole thread but refrained from posting until now. I have to agree with Charn for the most part.

Racism is hate. I don't think there's any racism involved here but more lack of respect and/or understanding of other religions.

7_rocket

iTrader: (6)

Always causing **** charn

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

If that is what you call having an opinion, so be it. Oh and Dom how in gods name did you get umpteen thousand posts by only post whoring?

01Racing

Wow can I ever tell that you are a lawyer! You take a simple statement and blow it completely out of porportion! Now you include personal things such as my job etc. It so happens that the dealership is a literal united nations so to speak, and I know you wont believe it, but I have women who work here too! So I guess that makes me a racist, right wing, hmmm what did I miss, oh you havent thrown pedophile out yet but Im sure you will find a way to get that too. The majority of posts here seem to be on the same wavelength.......we are just really frusterated with a system that spends more time on BS claims etc than issues that can right true injustices, lock real criminals away for real terms and not spend million of dollars of ALL OF OUR MONEY on stupid issues that should never never make it to any court or commission. PEACE OUT!

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

You brought up a topic, made what I percieve to be ignorant insensitive remarks and are now backing away from answering anything I said. I wouldn't have known you run a dealership were it not for the countless times you've mentioned it on a public forum. So don't give me the crap that I have broken some confidence or made something personal. The only thing blown out of proportion was your reaction to a person exercising their rights as a Canadian. And even in your parting post you manage to offend a person's religious ideology by calling their claim "stupid issues that should never never make it to any court or commission". I recall you being against the recent 50km over the limit lose your ride legislation. I guess it is only challenges to legislation that are important to you that actually matter.

Black91n/a

True, but then again how many horrendous crimes have been committed in the name of religion? How about wars? It's not even a problem of the distant past or of far away places either. Just because something can be perverted into something terrible doesn't make it terrible in and of itself. Now I'm not saying it's the best idea ever or anything, and I wouldn't call myself a eugenecist, but it's not necessarily an evil concept, that's all I'm saying.

Feds

If he was such a strong sikh, he'd just skip the bike altogether.

Since Al cross posted, I'll do the same:

I belong to the church of the fonz, and a tall pompador is in my religious beliefs, therefore, no helmets, and the government should stop wind and cold, as touques and stiff breezes ensure I will not be spending eternity in Arnolds with Pinky Tuscadaro!

Finally, according to Wikkipeedeea,

"The fundamental belief of Sikhism is that God exists, not merely as an idea or concept, but as a Real Entity."

So, have The Honourable Jim Bradley send an official letter, stamped with the seal of The Government of Ontario, to God, and get his opinion on the whole helmet issue. If God wants His followers to wear turbans and not helmets, who are we to contradict him?

I mean, God probably has TONNES of crash test reasearch on the subject, since He has been around since at least the begining of time. Once our elected officials have reviewed God's data, and the data of helmet manufacturers, insurance companys, and independant research labs, the can make an informed decision on the subject, and write appropriate laws.

01Racing

[QUOTE=Lawyer's Spirit;7874922]You brought up a topic, made what I percieve to be ignorant insensitive remarks and are now backing away from answering anything I said. I wouldn't have known you run a dealership were it not for the countless times you've mentioned it on a public forum. So don't give me the crap that I have broken some confidence or made something personal. The only thing blown out of proportion was your reaction to a person exercising their rights as a Canadian. And even in your parting post you manage to offend a person's religious ideology by calling their claim "stupid issues that should never never make it to any court or commission". I recall you being against the recent 50km over the limit lose your ride legislation. I guess it is only challenges to legislation that are important to you that actually matter.[/QUO

I gues your entitled to your opinion, but im not entitled to mine. You are offending my ideology, so I guess I should go to the human rights commission.

1.3Ldreamcar

iTrader: (1)

haha well said +1

Then again if he is just an idiot wanting to be an idiot, then let him, its his life.

Nick86

iTrader: (1)

That's fine if he ends up as a smear on the highway by himself... But what about when he has a relatively small accident, hits his head and ends up as a vegetable? A guy in a helmet would stand up and walk away. The guy with no helmet will spend the next 40 years being kept alive by machines and will need all kinds of special medical attention. That's what we will all be paying for through higher taxes and higher insurance rates.

I guess my whole problem is that I fail to see how this is in any way a human rights issue. He has every freedom in the world to practice his religion in any way he want to - nobody has denied him that. Riding a motorcycle is a privilege that he earned by passing a test, paying a fee and agreeing to certain terms and conditions. As soon as you sign your license you agree to abide by the rules of the road - including wearing a helmet . If not wearing a helmet means you can't legally ride a bike, then you have a choice: Ride a bike and bend the religion's rules or don't ride and adhere to your religion. Nobody is making him ride a motorcycle, it is his choice! So why is it then we feel his religious freedoms are being trampled on? The law is there to protect people from situation that a person might be forced into without his or her choice - but this is not one of those situations. Lets not mix up Human Rights with Human Wants.

I really don't want to or intend to minimize someone's faith or beliefs - but one of the core principals of religion is that you have to live your life a certain way, which invariably means that you will have to give certain things up and avoid others to remain true to the religion's word. EVERY religion is based on this principal. Why is it so hard then to accept that riding a motorcycle in Canada might be one of those things you have to avoid?

gkarmadi

iTrader: (20)

^^^ I agreed with this guy 100%. The next thing we know the muslim's will request the gov to stop selling pork in the grocery market, since its against their belief to eat it. The Hindu's then will ask to stop beef production....since cow is one of their god figure.