Amish/Mennonite is a bit of a different story. If the person is an adherent, then you don't need a driver's license for a horse and buggy. If said person wants to use a car, then the religious issue isn't a religious issue.
|
|
|
The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.
- Thread starter Motorcycle Mike
- Start date
OpenGambit
Banned
That isn't the legal test - Section one analysis is based on
1. Pressing and substantial objective
2. Proportionality - Rational connection, Minimal Impairment, Proportionality.
If you want to pull out case law and legal tests, you should at least give the complete one.
I didn't list any criteria, I simply gave examples of similar activities and pointed out the findings in other jurisdictions that suggest that the public safety impact is negligible.
BTW the face covering law applies to "everyone" too. but does it really? I don't see how the fact that the law applies to everyone has any impact on the determination of whether an indivdual's rights have been infringed by such a law.
OpenGambit
Banned
Umm, going up a few posts, I referred to findings of the human rights tribunal in BC ( that might not have been clear enough) that the risk was borne by just the rider, making it indivdual. Thats why the analogy is made.
The insurance issue is completely different, the Charter applies to the government (generally) only. The fact that they might face a higher insurance rate isn't really relevant to whether a law is a justifiable limit to a person's rights in a free and democractic society.
Agreed. The BC tribunal went to great lengths to assess risk to self, risk to others, and potential financial costs to society if the exemption was granted.
The tribunal found that risk to persons would be borne only by the petitioners and no additional risk to persons would be imparted to others. It also found that the potential financial hit to society would be minimal if the accommodation was granted.
Full text including all rationale is at http://www.sikhcoalition.org/LegalCanada1.asp
Then it sounds like we can just do away with helmet laws completely, doesn't it?
jolomatic
Well-known member
This is what makes me crazy!
If there cost and risk are so 'marginal' then why should the rest of us be forced to wear a helmet?
If one's religion is a good enough reason to make an exemption to a law, then the law has little enough justification to exist, that it should be struck down all together.
To put it another way:
If there is not enough justification for the law to exist even when it offends someone's religion, then there is not enough justification for the law to exist at all. (IMHO)
OpenGambit
Banned
Only if you consider a religious belief to be on the same level as a personal preference. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms however, does not.
Thats why seatbelt laws don't have a constitutional problem.
Well, no necessarily. Part of the calculation of "undue hardship" included the potential financial and societal hit from additional fatalities or serious injuries that might result if Sikhs were granted a helmet exemption.
Ontario already exempts certain persons from seatbelt use because of size, body shape, or disability. That too raises the potential for increased medical costs to society arising from collision, but the risk of such is limited due to the small number of such exemptions granted. Because such seatbelt exemptions are available to a small number of Ontario drivers, does that mean we should extend the same to all drivers?
The helmet exemption for Sikhs falls into a similar sphere of threat to the public purse, that is, minuscule.
Given the relatively minuscule number of male Sikhs who actually ride and who might take advantage of an exemption, the marginal increase in financial and societal hit is minimal and as such the accommodation to allow for Sikh religious belief would not cause undue hardship on society as a whole.
If the helmet exemption was granted to all comers without regard for religious need, the hardship imposed on society would become more than just marginal, and it would come without any plausible justification.
The BC tribunal's decision was based in part on projections of possible changes to Sikh injury and fatality rates, along with cost projections on potential medical costs incurred as a result of those fatalities. That tribunal decision was handed down 12 years ago. There should be reasonable baseline data available by now on the effects of that tribunal's decision.
In the Ontario application, the court was given an estimate that allowing observant Sikhs to ride with turban and not helmet would result in an increase in head injury treatment costs of about 0.00005% to the annual Ontario health care budget. That's pretty much insignificant.
Did you read the summary of decision? It would seem that religion is meaningless, in this context, where the tribunal is concerned. As a result motorcycle helmets infringe upon basic freedoms, not just freedom of religion.
I reiterate my statement regarding human rights tribunals.
You're equating a mechanical inability to a desire not to do something. There is no congruence. Motorcyclists are a rather tiny subset of road users. If helmets do not constitute an undue hardship to the medical system, then neither do the remainder of riders.
OpenGambit
Banned
No I read the entire decision and the analysis is clearly in the context of the the additional riders that would be riding without a helmet if the religious exemption was granted.
The decision includes detailed analysis about additional injury rates if the exemption was granted. It is by no means a blanket statement on the cost to society of helmetless riding. Nor does it support the idea that religion is meaningless.
OpenGambit
Banned
You're equating a religious belief to a desire not to do something. That may be your opinion but it would not be supported by the law of the land.
A deeply-held religious belief cannot be compared to a simple "desire" to not do something. One is obligatory, the other is a "want".
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
Just because someone has been brain-washed since birth doesn't make a religious belief obligatory. Eating and ******** are obligatory, nothing religious is. Religion is a want, not a need.
Ok, but under our Charter of Rights it is a protected "want" with special status.
Motorcycle Mike
Well-known member
Which is silly, as I was getting at before, as I can easily 'change my beliefs' to anything I want and live the charade - I could even go quite far living the charade if it got me special privileges.
Obligatory? Hardly. The answer to both posts is that religion is a choice, to follow certain precepts. Sometimes that can conflict with things you want to do and, as I've said previously, the religious adherent, who won't 'suffer' for his religion, isn't much of a believer.
OpenGambit
Banned
Again, whatever your views on religion or religious individuals, the law of the land protects religious beliefs and does not consider religion to be a choice. The fact that you give religious beliefs no weight when considering charter application has no legal basis in Canada.
Yet, not all male Sikhs wear a turban. It appears the obligation is a choice or optional? So, is it an obligation or a want?
|
|
|
|
|