The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.

turbodish said:
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.
Click to expand...

But what is a bonafide practitioner of a given religion? Can't a 'bonefide' Sikh decide when and where he wants to wear his turban? If he doesn't want to wear it in his house, for example, does that mean he is not a Sikh?
 
turbodish said:
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.
Click to expand...
This right here is my fundamental disagreement with this situation.

Our laws should not discriminate based on religion.
They should also not reverse discrimnate.

If it is deemed that helmet laws interfere with religious freedom (and I do believe there is a very compelling argument that they do) then the law should be repealed for everyone.
It should not be amended to exempt one particular group.

One set of laws for all Canadians is the only fair and right way to do it.
 
turbodish said:
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.
Click to expand...

What were the results of his impact testing?
 
turbodish said:
Fortunately there was no impact testing, whether planned or spontaneous.

The speed test at Cayuga was done to challenge and disprove the Crown's assertion that "turbans unravel at high speeds and cause accidents".
Click to expand...

Having grown up around a significant number of Sikhs, I would have never made such a claim. The only real point, where protective gear is concerned, is whether the 'replacement' meets the same standard. That was the point of my comment.

The moment that someone creates a turban that can pass even DOT FMVSS 218, they should be able to wear them while riding motorcycles.
 
I don't care about the rider, but what happens if his turban unwinds and ends up across someone's windshield on the 401?

I remember being on a sikh tv show a few years back and asking this question, at that time I was happy to see the issue end...Now I see it's back again.

Oh and I'm Sikh, most of the guys that I have ridden with who are Sikh and practice the faith usually just let their hair down and into their jacket. Then they tie a bandana and just fix it at the end location.

Once again, one moron ruining it for the rest of us...
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Having grown up around a significant number of Sikhs, I would have never made such a claim. The only real point, where protective gear is concerned, is whether the 'replacement' meets the same standard. That was the point of my comment.

The moment that someone creates a turban that can pass even DOT FMVSS 218, they should be able to wear them while riding motorcycles.
Click to expand...

Agree'd with Rob!

As each turban is a variable there is no control over the quality of tieing and its ability to sustain itself at various speeds.
 
Diesel said:
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
Click to expand...

this one looks nicer...

00407833.zoom.a.jpg
 
Diesel said:
But what is a bonafide practitioner of a given religion? Can't a 'bonefide' Sikh decide when and where he wants to wear his turban? If he doesn't want to wear it in his house, for example, does that mean he is not a Sikh?
Click to expand...

How many people would ride their motorcycles inside their house, and even if they did, the HTA doesn't apply in the house, does it?

Many religious dress codes are generally mandatory only when out in public or when in the presence of those other than close family. That would cover someone riding a motorcycle on a public street or highway. If you don't wear a turban in general when out in public, I really doubt that a court would accept that you can wear a helmet because you must wear a turban only when riding a motorcycle.
 
turbodish said:
How many people would ride their motorcycles inside their house, and even if they did, the HTA doesn't apply in the house, does it?

Many religious dress codes are generally mandatory only when out in public or when in the presence of those other than close family. That would cover someone riding a motorcycle on a public street or highway. If you don't wear a turban in general when out in public, I really doubt that a court would accept that you can wear a helmet because you must wear a turban only when riding a motorcycle.
Click to expand...

So for a minor traffic ticket the police/prosecution is going to follow someone around to see if they normally wear a turban or not?
 
Diesel said:
So for a minor traffic ticket the police/prosecution is going to follow someone around to see if they normally wear a turban or not?
Click to expand...

A cop in another city might not, but your hometown cops might if they have any doubts about the authenticity of your claimed religious need to wear a turban. They're the ones most likely to see you most often, on or off the bike. It wouldn't take very long for them to determine that you wear a "turban" only out of convenience when riding the bike, would it?

Any exemption to a helmet law would be like a seatbelt exemption. The cop may or may not take your word for it at roadside, but if there is any doubt you'll probably get charged. Helmet use with permitted exceptions would be a strict liability law where the Crown need demonstrate only that you did in fact ride without a helmet. Then it will be up to you to demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that you do in fact fall under a bonafide religious exemption.

You may need to demonstrate membership and participation in a local shrine or mosque, perhaps have a recognized community elder vouch for you. The Crown could rebut with evidence that you wear a "turban" only as a matter of convenience when riding a motorcycle and not as a matter of consistent religious observation when out in public.

The court could then certainly rule on whether your "beliefs" are religious in nature, and whether or not they are sincerely held. Canadian case law already contains examples where persons claiming specific religious privilege or exemption had to demonstrate to a court that they were in fact bonafide and observant members of the applicable religion.

You can bet that if such a helmet exemption is eventually granted, that there will be mechanisms in place to prevent abuse by opportunistic "converts". You can also bet that Crowns and police would be aggressive in working to detect and combat any abuse of the exemption.
 
turbodish said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does the helmet ban intrude on his right to practice his religion? It only intrudes on his perceived right to ride a motorcycle. I didn't think anyone had the right to ride a motorcycle.

BTW Sikh women don't wear turbans so Sikhs can ride motorcycles, just not the turban wearers.

By law, one must also wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. That to me is a bigger issue because the economic / environmental / health issues are more easily argued. The practicality of a motorcycle is easily negated for 95+% of the riders. Motorcycles are toys.
 
Alien_Soldier said:
I don't care about the rider, but what happens if his turban unwinds and ends up across someone's windshield on the 401?

I remember being on a sikh tv show a few years back and asking this question, at that time I was happy to see the issue end...Now I see it's back again.

Oh and I'm Sikh, most of the guys that I have ridden with who are Sikh and practice the faith usually just let their hair down and into their jacket. Then they tie a bandana and just fix it at the end location.

Once again, one moron ruining it for the rest of us...
Click to expand...

Thank you and your riding buddies for being part of the solution instead of part of the problem.
 
nobbie48 said:
How does the helmet ban intrude on his right to practice his religion? It only intrudes on his perceived right to ride a motorcycle. I didn't think anyone had the right to ride a motorcycle.

BTW Sikh women don't wear turbans so Sikhs can ride motorcycles, just not the turban wearers.
Click to expand...
There is also no "right" to employment or accommodation, but under the Charter you cannot be denied employment or accommodation because of your creed, whether visibly apparent or otherwise.

The question is not whether a given activity is a "right" or not, but whether a given law or practice regulating that activity interferes with religious practice or not, and whether or not such interference is deemed by the courts to be sufficiently justifiable or not.

nobbie48 said:
By law, one must also wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. That to me is a bigger issue because the economic / environmental / health issues are more easily argued. The practicality of a motorcycle is easily negated for 95+% of the riders. Motorcycles are toys.
Click to expand...
By law only those under age 18 must wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. The HTA section on bicycle helmets also provides an opening for further exemptions without limitation:
(3) The Minister may make regulations,
(c) exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this section and prescribing conditions for exemptions. 1993, c. 18, s. 1; 2009, c. 5, s. 36 (3).
Click to expand...
There is a similar exemption clause in the HTA section pertaining to use of helmets on power-assisted bicycles. Implementing a similar exemption for motorcycle helmet use is easily done if there is a political will to do so or court ruling demanding it.

The motorcycles are "toys" argument means little. Some would argue that bicycles are also toys, albeit useful toys, for the same reasons that motorcycles are. Like motorcycles, they provide limited utility given the shortness of our "nice weather" riding season. They provide even more limited utility given typical commuting and inter-city/town distances in even just Southern Ontario.

Going back to the helmet exemption requested for turban-wearing Sikhs, BC and Manitoba already grant such an exemption. It would be interesting to see the effects of their helmet exemptions on accident rates (seems like there should be be none), injury and fatality rates (?), and cost of medical care for affected crash victims (?).

That sort of data would help take emotion, dogma, and xenophobia out of the argument.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that a court of law will deny this claim. If it goes through a Human Rights Tribunal, then they will be successful. The Tribunals are not known for applying simple logic.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I suspect that a court of law will deny this claim. If it goes through a Human Rights Tribunal, then they will be successful. The Tribunals are not known for applying simple logic.
Click to expand...

I am surprised you think that in light of decisions in other parts of Canada.
 
OpenGambit said:
I am surprised you think that in light of decisions in other parts of Canada.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that? Dhillon v. British Columbia was decided in a human rights tribunal, not a court of law. As far as I'm concerned, human rights tribunals need to go away. There's no need for a parallel system and their decisions frequently are in contradiction with both law and common sense.
 
I would bet this turban would protect your head against impact.

Nihang_Singh_with_Big_Turban.jpg


:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom