The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.

[OpenGambit]

Forum Sponsor

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.

Well. The members of the tribunals are generally accomplished, legally educated indivduals and I don't see where you get the idea that they don't apply the law or common sense. Tribunals are recognized as a legitimate and necessary part of our legal system and Courts will defer to the expertise of tribunals except in rare cases.

In this case, there really is no debate or confusion about the law. The helmet law is an interference with his freedom of religion, and yes the province also has a interest in public safety. (both of these are findings of fact made by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice according to my information.)

The only question is whether this interference is justifiable in our free and democractic society. This is something where reasonable people can disagree. Both positions are supported by the law and legitimate interest. This is about society drawing a line, its not about "common sense".

 

[FullMotoJacket]

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.

If riding is a privilege when you're arguing excessive speeding, and you must follow the speed limit laws or you don't ride, then riding a motorcycle is a privilege as well, and you must follow the mandatory helmet laws or you don't ride. You can't have it both ways........wait, you like arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Carry on.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

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.

his turban did not unwrap, but are all turbans wrapped to the same standards like helmets have certain manufacturing standards?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Well. The members of the tribunals are generally accomplished, legally educated indivduals and I don't see where you get the idea that they don't apply the law or common sense. Tribunals are recognized as a legitimate and necessary part of our legal system and Courts will defer to the expertise of tribunals except in rare cases.

In this case, there really is no debate or confusion about the law. The helmet law is an interference with his freedom of religion, and yes the province also has a interest in public safety. (both of these are findings of fact made by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice according to my information.)

The only question is whether this interference is justifiable in our free and democractic society. This is something where reasonable people can disagree. Both positions are supported by the law and legitimate interest. This is about society drawing a line, its not about "common sense".

Where do I get that idea? Why, by reading their decisions, of course. How about an example. Possession of a liquor license requires that controlled substances not be consumed on site. You're not even permitted to smoke cigarettes in a bar, in this Province. A bar owner puts out someone who is smoking weed, as he values his livelihood. Weed smoker has a prescription for the weed. Tribunal finds that weed smoker's rights were violated and makes bar owner pay thousands of dollars to weed smoker.

That is complete and total ********, but that's the way the tribunal decided. That's just one of many such idiotic findings.

'Reasonable accommodation' should not include matters of public safety as such 'accommodation' is not 'reasonable.'

 

[turbodish]

'Reasonable accommodation' should not include matters of public safety as such 'accommodation' is not 'reasonable.'

Agreed but.... define "public safety".

It's not as if the Sikh in question is requesting accommodation to permit the mounting of a full-size unsheathed kirpan pointing forward off the front of his motorcycle. That would certainly endanger "public safety" as it pertains to the general public also on the roads and who may find themselves in the path of that kind of "accommodation", and as such would certainly be unreasonable.

The accommodation requested is simply a helmet exemption for turban wearers. The only persons potentially endangered by such an accommodation are the riders seeking such an accommodation, and "public safety" of others is not compromised in the least by that accommodation.

The question that remains is what is considered "reasonable".

 

[turbodish]

his turban did not unwrap, but are all turbans wrapped to the same standards like helmets have certain manufacturing standards?

Who knows? His experiment was a rebuttal to the Crown's assertion that turbans WILL unwrap at speed. He was able to clearly disprove that assertion.

Again, the exemption is already in place in Manitoba and British Columbia. What is the actual real-life experience there among Sikh riders who forego helmets in favour of a turban? Do their turbans stay put? Do they unwrap? What is their experience when it comes to crash outcomes among turban wearers. There is data available to be looked at if anyone is interested enough to go look.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Agreed but.... define "public safety".

It's not as if the Sikh in question is requesting accommodation to permit the mounting of a full-size unsheathed kirpan pointing forward off the front of his motorcycle. That would certainly endanger "public safety" as it pertains to the general public also on the roads and who may find themselves in the path of that kind of "accommodation", and as such would certainly be unreasonable.

The accommodation requested is simply a helmet exemption for turban wearers. The only persons potentially endangered by such an accommodation are the riders seeking such an accommodation, and "public safety" of others is not compromised in the least by that accommodation.

The question that remains is what is considered "reasonable".

And, in Canada, the term 'public safety' can also apply to rules governing the behaviour of the individual. It has been deemed a requirement that motorcycle riders must wear a helmet, that conforms to a rather short list of acceptable standards.

 

[turbodish]

And, in Canada, the term 'public safety' can also apply to rules governing the behaviour of the individual.

Yet Canada, as defined by Manitoba and British Columbia, have allowed an exemption despite having similar rules pertaining to public safety.

It has been deemed a requirement that motorcycle riders must wear a helmet, that conforms to a rather short list of acceptable standards.

Requirements change over time in response to changing societal standards. Refer to Manitoba and BC.

If this requirement changes, who is substantially affected other than perhaps the minuscule male Sikh rider portion of the Canadian population that is represented by the petitioners?

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Yet Canada, as defined by Manitoba and British Columbia, have allowed an exemption despite having similar rules pertaining to public safety.


Requirements change over time in response to changing societal standards. Refer to Manitoba and BC.

If this requirement changes, who is substantially affected other than perhaps the minuscule male Sikh rider portion of the Canadian population that is represented by the petitioners?

My statements, especially those pertaining to the difference between courts of of law and human rights tribunals, still stand.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

Who knows? His experiment was a rebuttal to the Crown's assertion that turbans WILL unwrap at speed. He was able to clearly disprove that assertion.

Again, the exemption is already in place in Manitoba and British Columbia. What is the actual real-life experience there among Sikh riders who forego helmets in favour of a turban? Do their turbans stay put? Do they unwrap? What is their experience when it comes to crash outcomes among turban wearers. There is data available to be looked at if anyone is interested enough to go look.

he proved his turban wrapped at that time would not unravel.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

When are you girls not gonna be dumb enough to be able to park a car in less than 2mins?

when guys stop insisting 5" is 8"... no wonder we have distance issues...

 

[oilycreek]

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.

all they have to do is ship them to facility, and up the facility rate so it's un affordable. I can't see any company insuring a helmetless rider.

 

[jay-d]

If or when this law passes.. if I choose to ride without a helmet and wear just my turban.. I will be known as.. SUPER SQUID!

I wonder if I will be shunned at meets.

 

[oilycreek]

If or when this law passes.. if I choose to ride without a helmet and wear just my turban.. I will be known as.. SUPER SQUID!

I wonder if I will be shunned at meets.

You are now, so nothing will change.

 

[Dr.Manhattan]

so insurance companies won't be able to ask what the person's religion is and then charge those people accordingly?

LOL.... take a second, and just imagine how apeshit they would go after hearing that from an insurance company. Not only would they want that eliminated, but they would sue for something just as stupid like emotion anguish.

 

[OpenGambit]

'Reasonable accommodation' should not include matters of public safety as such 'accommodation' is not 'reasonable.'

This isn't about absolutes. In light of findings in other provinces that the impact on public safety as a whole to be minimal and the fact that the risk is borne by the rider himself, public safety isn't that good of a reason.

public safety isn't a trump card you play whenever you want to infringe on indivdual rights. Thats why we don't strip search everyone that walks in an airport.

Banning face coverings were also banned on "public safety" grounds.

Fighting for the limits of our indivdual rights is an activity that should be encouraged in a free and democractic society. The process is just as important as the result. The fact that you disagree doesn't make everyone else an idiot. But that being said, You are still free to think that way.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

This isn't about absolutes. In light of findings in other provinces that the impact on public safety as a whole to be minimal and the fact that the risk is borne by the rider himself, public safety isn't that good of a reason.

public safety isn't a trump card you play whenever you want to infringe on indivdual rights. Thats why we don't strip search everyone that walks in an airport.

Banning face coverings were also banned on "public safety" grounds.

Fighting for the limits of our indivdual rights is an activity that should be encouraged in a free and democractic society. The process is just as important as the result. The fact that you disagree doesn't make everyone else an idiot. But that being said, You are still free to think that way.

In Canada, our personal rights may abridged where the benefit to society is clear and overriding. I have no problem with face coverings, though I see them as being a cultural affectation rather than a religious requirement, having read the Koran on the issue. Where face coverings should not be permitted, is in things like government photo ID. Such coverings make the ID effectively worthless, for identification purposes. They should also not be permitted when entering and leaving areas of high security.

If the only issue regarding helmet use on motorcycles was the safety of others, then that law would never have been passed.

 

[OpenGambit]

In Canada, our personal rights may abridged where the benefit to society is clear and overriding. I have no problem with face coverings, though I see them as being a cultural affectation rather than a religious requirement, having read the Koran on the issue. Where face coverings should not be permitted, is in things like government photo ID. Such coverings make the ID effectively worthless, for identification purposes. They should also not be permitted when entering and leaving areas of high security.

If the only issue regarding helmet use on motorcycles was the safety of others, then that law would never have been passed.

Clear and overridng? thats not section 1 of the Charter...

I have no intention of debating the face covering issue, the point is that public safety doesn't override personal reglious freedom in all cases. We can agree that public safety was a large part of the argument against face coverings, rightly or wrongly.

Personally, this is more like the right of Jehovah's witnesses not to accept blood transfusions, I think the costs that are borne by society for this activities is similar to the ones for a person not wearing a helmet (medical costs + impact on dependents/familes). (Hell, smoking does all of those things and thats not even a religious issue and we put up with it)

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Clear and overridng? thats not section 1 of the Charter...

I have no intention of debating the face covering issue, the point is that public safety doesn't override personal reglious freedom in all cases. We can agree that public safety was a large part of the argument against face coverings, rightly or wrongly.

Personally, this is more like the right of Jehovah's witnesses not to accept blood transfusions, I think the costs that are borne by society for this activities is similar to the ones for a person not wearing a helmet (medical costs + impact on dependents/familes). (Hell, smoking does all of those things and thats not even a religious issue and we put up with it)

No, that's not what it says in Section 1. It's what case law has said about The Charter.

If the helmet law has validity for anyone, based on the criteria you stated, then it has validity for EVERYONE. That is equity, under law.

 

[nobbie48]

Clear and overridng? thats not section 1 of the Charter...

I have no intention of debating the face covering issue, the point is that public safety doesn't override personal reglious freedom in all cases. We can agree that public safety was a large part of the argument against face coverings, rightly or wrongly.

Personally, this is more like the right of Jehovah's witnesses not to accept blood transfusions, I think the costs that are borne by society for this activities is similar to the ones for a person not wearing a helmet (medical costs + impact on dependents/familes). (Hell, smoking does all of those things and thats not even a religious issue and we put up with it)

The blood transfusion choice only affects the individual and I don't know if life / health inurance allows for the refusal in their rates. If a normally treatable condition becomes a fatality there is a payout cost not totally unlike the helmet / turban issue. A guy dies at age 40 because he would take blood and his family gets a million dollars life insurance vs a 40 YO guy with a turban crashes and the insurance company pays a million dollars to keep him in diapers.

The smoking just got a little less hazy IIRC with the government OKing the right to sue the tobacco companies.

Face coverings: Would a retina scan concept be offensive?

BTW several Christian denominations don't accept having their pictures taken, Amish for one.

Forum Sponsor