misterstyx69

iTrader: (142)

I have a comment.If these People(ones who don't want to wear a helmet),don't want to Wear a helmet,I think they should Pay for it..Dearly.in their Insurance premiums..Afterall,what happens when they Get "hurt"?(if they are lucky just to GET hurt,not Killed.)..the Injured is going to be Going to a Hospital,where they are Covered by OHIP..now,If the Canadian Government wants to Burden OHIP with the Task of paying for the Medical Bills,all because they found it OK to let a Motorcyclist Drive,or Ride,without a Helmet,then I am Truly Going to wonder just Who The Hell is Running the Country..It's not about Religion,is it about Safety,and the Lives of Motorists..They made Cars in Canada to Incorporate the Daytime running lights..riding without a helmet?..Jeepers!..what the heck is next?..it is OK to run Bald tires because I am a TREE-HUGGER,and I believe that they are Raping Rubber trees.,therefore since the trees are becoming less available,it is better to Run the Tires until they actually Pop off at speed!..I tell ya,Canadian politicians are going to schools that say,"leave Brain at door,before entering"...Pretty sad.

JIMMY54

iTrader: (2)

Religion is a belief. (I am religious)

Safety is a carefully studied practise.

Apples and Oranges is the easiest way to put it.

Ofcoarse you can always fight for change, but in an "accident" you cannot rely on beliefs to keep you alive. Religion must adapt and change with time especially when it puts your life at risk. I understand myself when religion was documented, they did not lay out everything for us. They gave us a foundation live by, we stll must use our best judgement.

Take a second to think of those people that have experienced near fatal accidents, and a helmet saved their life. What would happen to a Sikh found in the same situation. I am sure that Sikh's have concidered what could happen to them, I would like to hear what their thoughts are on an accidents.

You can fight this law, but are you fighting it for the right reasons? This is one law that IN MY OPINION, I wouldn't change completely. An ammendment would be best suited, but some sort of safety device to come to a compromise.

I could understand a safety device that would incorporate the turban be a solution, but they do need some form of safety. Does that break any religious laws? That I don't know.

Unless they sign away their life, just like at the track, where no-body is responsable for you or your belongings. But that is crazy!!

In closing, I myself find it very dangerous to navigate a motorcycle in toronto, with the drivers that share our roads. To ride a motorcycle un-protected is extremely dangerous and I wouldn't attempt this myself. No-body is invincible.

01Racing

Number one rule for my next post: NO LAWYERS! I was reading another post and it turns out he got his bike license in BC wear they have amended the law for Sikhs. So I guess by the time everything washes out here and we spend millions Ontario will do the same. Just think by the time everything is said and done each person in Canada will have our own laws to live by. Because I am Jewish I think I should start to wear a keepah. And because it is my right to wear one, I will go after the CASC so I dont have to wear a helmet when I race cars, because my keepah must always face god and not be hindered. My keepah and god will protect me! Who is with me...............

IAN

iTrader: (3)

I say you want to live in canada follow the laws. Simple. If it was my choice to live in a specific country I would abide by their laws as well.

theory

iTrader: (5)

I've been following this thread as well. I don't know exact laws or religious beliefs, these are just my thoughts...

I don't think there should necessarily be a change to suit ones wants, in my mind to ride a motocycle is a priviledge, with that priviledge comes responsibilty to do so safely for you and others around you. If one wishes to not wear a helmut thats their choice of course, but they should just pay the fines if they want to as mentioned earlier, if I want to speed I will pay for it since I don't see them upping the speed limit anytime soon. People have mentioned numbers and taxes and percentages. That's fine, but what about the person that may have got into an accident with someone who didn't have to wear a helmut and they had died or become a veggie in some bed. Is there a price and value on the emotional trauma that MAY cause someone as well? It may not afflict some of us as much as others, but I'm sure it would for some people. Just another thought on the matter. I just can't see as many positives this carries vs the negaives or the good of everyone.

Thanks, flame suit on stand-by.

Black91n/a

This reminds me, I remember watching Jeremy Clarkson's Motorworld when they went to India. Apparently they've got (or at least had) absolutely ATROCIOUS motoring safety records, and it was explained that at least part of the reason was that they are fatalists. So if god wants you to get over this mountain pass alive then it will happen, if it is your destiny to die then that will happen and what you do doesn't matter, so they all drive like absolute maniacs. Now this may have been for Hindus, I don't remember exactly, but still, that could explain a lot about this request.

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

Below is a quote I used in a paper I wrote a few years ago: (can't remember the exact source)

The principle of equality does not mean absolute equality, but recognizes relative equality, namely different treatment proportionate to concrete individual circumstances. Different treatment must not be given arbitrarily; it requires reasonableness, or must be in conformity with justice, as in treatment of minorities, different treatment of the sexes regarding public conveniences, etc. In these cases, the differentiation is aimed at the protection of those concerned, and it is not detrimental and therefore not against their will.

I read that Karl Benz invented the “bone crusher” motorcycle in 1885. Captain Kesur Singh was one of the first Sikh soldiers who arrived in Canada in 1897 following Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. My point being that Sikhs have been in Canada almost as long at the motorcycle has existed. This is not a new phenomenon; therefore I disagree with referring to the issue as being one brought up by a new arrival to Canada that should blindly follow Canadian laws. In fact the motorcycle helmet laws failed to consider the circumstance of Canadian Sikhs when it was enacted and it has taken this long for someone to raise the issue.

I think we should recognize that if a person, Sikh or not, fails to wear a seatbelt in a car or wear a helmet on a bike, their potential injuries are still funded by our healthcare system.

I just wish some of you will stop referring to this Canadian as an alien. He is Canadian just like you and I.

7_rocket

iTrader: (6)

01Racing

Hey, I thought I said NO Lawyers! lol

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

I didn't respond to you but it sounds like you really want me to.

rx7racerca

iTrader: (1)

That assessment would probably more apply to Hindu belief and practice. For example, I've heard similar social theories advanced to explain the relative lack of motivation amongst Hindus in India to assist and uplift those who are downtrodden and ill-used; so doing might interfere with their "karmic destiny", and as individuals who are we to do that? That's part of why Mother Theresa's work with the poor in Calcutta was so revolutionary. And, I might add, all the preceding is subjective assessment - so let's not have anyone else getting upset here!

A certain fatalism, I might add, is certainly not unique to Hinduism - it is found to a greater or lesser degree in many religions and cultures - and I'm sure we're all familiar with individuals of no particular religious or cultural affiliation who are plenty fatalistic.

It's already been said, but (now way back in the thread), Black91na compared eugenics to religion, which has also been used to justify wars and attrocities. This is true enough - although a study of history will tend to show that religion was typically the cover for such actions (same goes today for that matter), with the real reasons being the basics of greed, lust for power, hatred, and ethnic differences. Religion just provides the clothes, in societies that have significant religious adherence, that covers up the naked ugliness that is the true root of it. Take the Crusades for example. The guise of "Christianity retaking the holy lands" really was just a way to direct the minds and bodies of a rapidly expanding European population, with increasing numbers of landless poor and landless minor nobles, towards a conflict outside their own borders, rather than becoming exercising their restlessness and discontent on their own oppressive rulers - many of whom could not be considered even vaguely Christian except in name.

The key difference, as I see it, is when has eugenics thinking ever not lead to attrocities pretty much as soon as governments or individuals took it upon themselves to try and implement it? While improving the breed sounds like a great notion, as I said before, no objective measure of what that really constitutes exists, so it invariably then becomes means of justifying the elimination of persons or traits we don't like. I specifically chose the example of the traits of ego, aggression, and risk-taking earlier, both because they very likely are characteristics of the individual launching the helmet complaint, and generally it's easy to see how they also relate to wars and violence. But they are also key traits exhibited by great political leaders, successful business people, and so on. I think it unlikely anyone could find a human characteristic, physical or mental, that even at it's extremes, doesn't have both good and bad examples associated.

Back to the helmet case, I do agree the individual in question has the right to challenge the helmet law - after all, such predates even the Magna Carta that explicitly spelled out individual rights in English law, even going back to the right of citizens of Rome anywhere in the Empire to appeal their cases directly to the Emperor. This is a right of all citizens and legal residents of our country, and it is a good thing, a great freedom, and part of why this country is an excellent place to live and why people stay here freely, and aspire to come here. I still think this to be a relatively frivolous exercise of the right - I'm inclined to side with those who think his choice lies between fully adhering to his religious practice, and bearing the potential, and rather minor consequence of the occasional helmet ticket, or simply choosing another mode of transportation. There's also the third choice some have suggested, develop (or find someone to do so) a DOT-approved helmet that can be worn over a turban, but I think that might be difficult, though probably not insurmountable challenge.

I think for most of us who don't like this case, the objection probably does spring from what is perceived as frivolousness - namely, that the person doesn't have to ride a motorcycle, and therefore doesn't have to wear a helmet. They have instead appear to have chosen to find a conflict between the law and their religion, rather than resolving it themselves from choices that are readily available. And typical of a lot of Canadians, I tend to not like people rocking the boat

Feds

My one last thought:

Since when does someone have the right to ride a motorcycle?

If a helmet law infringes on this person, or any other person's rights, it follows that riding a motorcycle is a right, and should be guaranteed by our government.

In which case, Messrs Harper and McGuinty, I would like one of these with my tax refund this year (Lord knows, I've already paid for it!)

Black91n/a

I stand by my argument that it's un-constitutional to have built in descrimination in the law in the form of targeted exceptions and that it is in no way equal. Equal is an absolute, there is no degree of equality, it either is, or it isn't. When you speak of relative equality, that's just targeted inequality.

Now I agree that there should be some room in the application of the law to take differing circumstances into consideration, but I do not believe that it is in our best interests to change the law itself to make these exceptions without consideration of the individual case.

BINGO!

doridori-rx7

iTrader: (3)

How 'Canadian' can a person be if they demand that the 'Canadian' laws be changed to suit THEIR needs? Fundamental laws like carrying around a weapon and ignoring safety regulations.. ( I personally don't give a crap about the 'actual' helmet law being changed) I take exception to the fact that these demands are on going and single out a group for special treatment, not because they need wheel chair access or need directional crossing tone's because they are blind, but because They are so insecure in their own belief system that they can't obey the laws of a country they were brought up in or came to.
I dunno but as someone who is a devout Bushido-ist I should be able to walk around with my katana and Wakazashi since they are both fundamental and at the core of my belief system.. however I doubt that's going to happen, why because a) I live within the laws of the country b) my belief system doesn't reward whiny cry babies like the sihk religion does apparently.

as a note on social anthropology for a lawyer next time he tries to use this whole' you are immigrants too' argument.. EVERYONE is an immigrant; East indian's didn't just appear there, your ancestors came from the caucus mountains, south asia area and africa.

It's a moot point to throw that in mine or anyone else's face.. there are NO 'non immigrants' anywhere in the world, it's a matter of who was here/there first to lay down a set of social and moral laws first.. and make them stick. In this case it happened to be the English ( and some french) law makers that won the day. So, as we are ALL immigrants.. we ALL live by the same laws. To require special treatment within those laws makes you one of two things, a subset that has a requirement that falls into the basic needs ( food, shelter, clothing, job..). or a subgroup that has no desire to live within the 'Canadian' structure, except where it suits THEIR needs but demands freedoms and rights beyond what 'canadains' live by and with. You want to suck and blow at the same time and demand that 'we, canadians' bow to those demands.. religion does not deserve special treatment, there are no more 'hallowed days' off, everyone works within the same toolset to accomplish there religious needs. However you sihks.. well it's just impossible to do that.. " wah wah, we need special treatment.." .. No you don't!!!!

gkarmadi

iTrader: (20)

Do we have a turban-shikh among us??? I would like to ask question to them.

Do you have to wear your turban 24/7 without exception??
(meaning do you have to wear it during your shower, sleep, hair cut etc etc etc)

IF AND ONLY IF (since i dont know), removing your turban during shower, sleep etc etc not against the shikh customs/ religion/ belief, then removing it to put on a helmet should not be any different.

Its not like the ministry of transportation stating that after your receive your license then you cant wear a turban anymore...

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

Firstly, thanks for making this thread actually worthy of participation.

I just want to respond to the above paragraph.

I should state that I am not orthodox Sikh and cannot therefore speak from experience of wearing a turban. But I can advise you of what I know as a result of having a Grandfather that did wear a turban as well as my research on my faith over the years.

In Sikhism there were some defining moments as in any faith/religion. One of those moments was at a harvest festival in 1699 when the 10th Guru asked the congregation for a person to volunteer him/herself as a sacrifice in the name of the faith. Once a volunteer emerged he took the volunteer behind a screen and returned with a bloody sword and requested another volunteer. This occurred until there were 5 apparent sacrifices conducted. The Guru then revealed that the blood on his sword was not that of the sacrifices but of a goat. He brought back the 5 volunteers in front of the congregation in a distinct set of clothing that included the turban. These 5 volunteers were deemed the 5 beloved puritans and the 1st baptized Sikhs. They then in turn baptized the Guru as well as many thousands in the congregation.

Previously considered a symbol of royalty and dignity, the turban has been a part of the baptized Sikh’s clothing ever since. Guru Gobind Singh transformed this cultural symbol into a religious requirement so that the Khalsa(baptized Sikh) would always have high self-esteem. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair but wear caps or keep matted hair. The turban cannot be covered by any other head gear or replaced by a cap or hat. The turban is mandatory for Sikh men and optional for Sikh women.

To see a baptized Sikh without their Turban is as rare as seeing a person in their undergarments. I can count on my hand the number of times I saw my Grandfather without his Turban. I always found myself staring at him as it was such a rarity.

I hope you can see it is not a frivolous request from a baptized Sikh person’s perspective and it is exactly these beliefs that the Charter is intended to protect. It clearly doesn’t matter to most of us what we wear on our noggins but that should not prevent you or I from understanding that others may feel differently.

Nothing is absolute.

I agree that your last paragraph captures the sentiments of most that have written in this thread. But you can also clearly see that there are also people like doridori-rx7 that are simply unwilling to accept Canadians in any form other than their own.

It is probably time to shut this thread down as there is definitely nowhere but down from doridori-rx7’s comments.

Black91n/a

Like I said before, religion is a CHOICE, and they choose to practice one that conflicts with other things, such as the ability to wear a helmet, so how is this the helmet law's fault? How does this make it so that the helmet law singles them out? It's only "descriminatory" because of the choices that those affected have made. We make choices every day, and we all need to be ready to accept the concequences of those decisions, large or small, it's part of being a responsible, mature adult.

I've yet to hear ANYTHING that would make me believe that they're being descriminated against by this particular law.

Feds

Since no one is biting on whether or not riding a motorcycle is a right in the first place, which ultimately has the power to render this whole debate moot, I would like to step in and advocate for the helmet wearing motorcycle lobby.

Allowing people not to wear helmets based on religious beliefs will do me, and the majority of motorcycle riders, considerable financial harm.

I am required by law in Ontario to have insurance to ride my motorcycle. The cost of this coverage is based on statistical data concerning the likelihood of a crash, and the monies an insurance company will pay out as a result of said same crash.

It is necessary to note at this point that a fatal motorcycle collision may cost the insurer as much or more than a non fatal collision, as a death benefit would likely be paid out.

If the law were modified to allow a portion of the population to ride without helmets based on their religious beliefs, the amount of money paid out by the insurance companies would increase. This is due to the fact that a helmet is a safety device, and riding without one would cause the frequency and severity (or cost to insurers) of accidents to increase.

Since it would be a clear charter violation to deny insurance to, or increase premiums for a rider based on his or her religion, it is clear that the increased payouts would cause my premiums, and the premiums of all helmet wearing riders, to increase.

It has been said that this change has already been made to British Columbia traffic legislation, however, it is important to note that BC has public insurance, and thus insurance cost is distributed over a larger base, and premiums do not include a profit margin, as they do in Ontario's private system.

In Ontario, a disproportionate burden will be placed on the majority of riders. I will hazard an opinion that the number of riders who will be forced to give up riding due to increased insurance premiums will surpass the number of riders who can not ride due to conflicts between helmet laws and traditional dress. If laws are shifting to benefit the minority at the expense of the majority, then we are truly moving away from democratic principals.

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

I don't think it really matters what you or I believe. If they want to make the challenge to the legislation it is their right to do so. A court will make a ruling and everyone will abide by it. I have told you what the factors are that the court will consider and why. If you don't like it exercise your rights and contact your MP. Simply stating on a forum that you disagree is not going to change anything. If you or others feel so strongly organize yourselves and do something about it. I have yet to even say my opinion on the topic but I acknowledge that the challenger is perfectly within his rights and will probably succeed.

ScrappyDoo

iTrader: (7)

Just reproduced what I wrote earlier. which provides some statistics but I don't think they portray as dire a circumstance as you predict: