That would suggest that they are discriminating, based on religion. Catch-22.
|
|
|
The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.
- Thread starter Motorcycle Mike
- Start date
That would suggest that they are discriminating, based on religion. Catch-22.
That's the thing about religion; it's always up to interpretation. It all depends on which sect is in ascendancy. For example with Wahhabis gaining so much power recently, in Islam, the idea of women going fully covered is becoming more the norm. The Koran states only that people should be 'modest' in dress.
I wouldn't call one of the signs of Khalsa a 'fashion statement'
You don't have to call it that, but it is just that. Why do you think there's so many varying colours and styles of turbans?
Mine is a more of European style, it's smaller and more aerodynamic. I have friends that have the boat style with the point in the front and some that have the taller ones.
thinking that shows your lack of intelligence... besides still need you around for breeding purposes otherwise in a few generations won't be any left...
I see what you did there. Common error. You have mistaken religion as a race
no just responding to your altering and generalizing my post.
besides the kkk members swear by the King James bible sooo it is religion based..
but they already discriminate based on gender
invictus43
Well-known member
That's cuz girlz can't drive..
invictus43
Well-known member
non-sequitur..
we pay lower insurance because we're not dumb enough to do stuff like say "here, hold my beer".
oilycreek
Banned
Contrary to any law, the insurance companies can make wearing a helmet a requirement for insurance, and if someone is injured or killed their not wearing a helmet their insurance is void.
well said....
That doesn't mean our social system lets them die in the ditch. They will get medical attention and someone will pay for it. If the rider is broke guess who the someone is.
And that has been disputed. If it came down against women, in the cost analysis, you can bet that it would have been eliminated by now. These things are typically only changed when a special interest group gets involved. No special interest group is going to push to have something changed, that is currently to their benefit. Make it a negative and watch out!
I can confirm gender is no longer a factor in determining rates for vehicle insurance. Ladies lose out on this one as their rates increased substantially more than the decrease for males. Another case of careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
Gender may still be used for other insurance products.
Vehicle insurance coverage is established and regulated by the Provincal Government. Insurance companies may lobby the government to maintain helmet use as a requirement but, ultimately it is the Provincial Government that determines and establishes the criteria.
More so it will be the Human Rights Commission and the courts that will determine the outcome.
If they deem mandatory helmet use to be an unwarranted intrusion on a Sikh's right to practice his religion, then that ruling will invalidate any HTA helmet regulation as applied to Sikh riders. That ruling will also tie the hands of insurance companies, as any insurance rating policy that penalizes a Sikh for doing so would also be deemed to be an unwarranted intrusion to a Sikh's right to practice the tenets of their religion, and would thus be disallowed.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
So if it came to pass that Sikhs were allowed to ride sans helmet, would the same latitude be granted to turban wearing Muslims?
If more inequalities were granted in other aspects of law based on religion, couldn't I simply convert to said religions to take advantage of these inequalities? I know it is incredibly easy to convert to Islam: "La ilah illa Allah, Muhammad rasoolu Allah"; but am not sure how difficult it is to become Sikh.
As such, I think any relaxation of the rules for one group could end up becoming a relaxation of the rules for all -- after all, conversion is easy. So Sikhs might be the saviours to the anti-helmet proponents at the end of the day.
One other question though... I have watched a few videos on how to tie a turban, and while they are tied tight, they are still just tied on and perhaps pinned. At speed, isn't there a significant risk of the turban becoming unravelled -- possibly becoming entangled in the wheel/sprockets or coming off entirely and posing a risk to whoever is behind this rider?
Sure, if granted to Sihks I'm sure the same exemption would also apply to turban-wearing Muslims. However, I'm not so sure that converting to Islam would be a reasonably-attractive option to someone who does not want to wear a motorcycle helmet. If the goal is freedom, how does being forced to wear a turban when riding (and at all other times too if you claim to be an observant Muslim or Sikh convert) become an acceptable alternative to being forced to wear a helmet only when riding?
The Sikh at the center of the Ontario challenge apparently rented the Cayuga track and did his own testing at high speeds in the presence of Ontario Human Rights Commission officials. The turban apparently did not unwrap.
You make a fantastic point on that. A lad from Newfoundland last summer thought it was a great idea to put his towel around his neck while 4-wheeling back from the lake. It got entwinded in the rear axel of the atv and killed him.
I question that statment but I don't have the knowledge or proof to back it up, but I still question it.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
People have taken a religion for convenience for many reasons, that doesn't make them always adhere to the religion.
I nearly converted to Islam once because I was planning to marry a Muslim woman in Indonesia. In Indonesia, you must be Muslim to marry a Muslim. I didn't go through with it, but I have many friends that found themselves in similar circumstances. Uttering those words implies that you are a Muslim, but it is up to you how much of a Muslim you become (if at all).
So if these exceptions were granted, and I wanted to ride without a helmet, I would simply convert (in name only) to islam or sikhism and wear a small patka or turban only when riding. Who are the courts to say how I practice my religion?
I'd wear a Moroccan turban, like this: http://www.shop-morocco.com/ekmps/shops/oleada/images/turban-m.jpg
Last edited:
The courts are precisely in a position to say if you are or are not a bonafide practitioner of a given religion when it comes to determining if you fall under a religious exemption to a given law. If a cop sees you trot up to your bike bareheaded donning said "turban" only for the ride, or removing said "turban" at the end of a ride, you're going to have a hard time convincing a court that your "turban" is a bonafide expression of faith.
|
|
|
|
|