The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.

OpenGambit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Nor does the fact that you consider virtually any "accommodation" to be "reasonable." If helmets are a matter of safety, that is deemed to be of sufficient necessity to enforce it upon motorcyclists to the detriment of their choice in the matter, then it is of sufficient merit to enforce it upon all. If it is not of sufficient necessity for one group then it is not, for all. Safety issues are not a case in which exceptions should be made.

But this is going 'round in circles, and my statements are plain enough to stand on their own.
 
nakkers said:
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?
Click to expand...

Some Catholics used birth control, get abortions, divorce and remarry without a church-granted annulment. Does that mean that the beliefs of other Catholics who adhere more closely to official Church canon should not be seen as tenets of Catholic faith?
 
Rob MacLennan said:
If helmets are a matter of safety, that is deemed to be of sufficient necessity to enforce it upon motorcyclists to the detriment of their choice in the matter, then it is of sufficient merit to enforce it upon all. If it is not of sufficient necessity for one group then it is not, for all. Safety issues are not a case in which exceptions should be made.
Click to expand...

As already mentioned, seat belts are also a matter of safety yet we exempt certain groups from wearing them. Like motorcycling riding, driving is not a right. If safety was the be-all, end-all, then surely we would not permit anyone to drive if they cannot wear a seatbelt.

But we don't do that. We balance a desire for maximal safety against other societal interests and make compromises. An unbelted driver imposes little direct personal risk on anyone but himself. As long as the reason for not wearing a seatbelt is not frivolous as determined by policy and regulation, we permit it.

Same goes for helmet use. The only person at direct personal risk is the rider. Deeply-held religious beliefs cannot be considered frivolous. If freedom of religion as per our Charter is to mean anything, then religious beliefs must be accommodated provided they do not cause undue risk or hardship on the rest of the public or society as a whole, even if it is a choice that we might not take for ourselves.
 
Last edited:
turbodish said:
As already mentioned, seat belts are also a matter of safety yet we exempt certain groups from wearing them. Like motorcycling riding, driving is not a right. If safety was the be-all, end-all, then surely we would not permit anyone to drive if they cannot wear a seatbelt.

But we don't do that. We balance a desire for maximal safety against other societal interests and make compromises. An unbelted driver imposes little direct personal risk on anyone but himself. As long as the reason for not wearing a seatbelt is not frivolous as determined by policy and regulation, we permit it.

Same goes for helmet use. The only person at direct personal risk is the rider. Deeply-held religious beliefs cannot be considered frivolous. If freedom of religion as per our Charter is to mean anything, then religious beliefs must be accommodated provided they do not cause undue risk or hardship on the rest of the public or society as a whole, even if it is a choice that we might not take for ourselves.
Click to expand...

Failure to use a seat belt is permissible, based on physical inability to do so. This inability is most frequently not based on choice. Adherence to a religion is a choice. This is an invalid comparison.

I do not take religion lightly but I do not consider a choice to be a member of a religion to be on the scale of a physical disability. To suggest such is to belittle people who have such disabilities.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Nor does the fact that you consider virtually any "accommodation" to be "reasonable." If helmets are a matter of safety, that is deemed to be of sufficient necessity to enforce it upon motorcyclists to the detriment of their choice in the matter, then it is of sufficient merit to enforce it upon all. If it is not of sufficient necessity for one group then it is not, for all. Safety issues are not a case in which exceptions should be made.

But this is going 'round in circles, and my statements are plain enough to stand on their own.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about how virtually any accomodation is reasonable. You just decided to make that up for whatever reason.
I simply pointed out that it has been found to be reasonable in other parts of Canada and how they supported that decision. This is a legal argument and I showed you what those arguements are.
I am also pointing out that you are taking a rather asinine position of accusing human rights tribunals of being idiotic, making references to "case law", while at the same time taking a position that has no merit in Canadian law. You are entitled to your opinion, but holding out your opinion like its the only reasonable legal conclusion and that all other conclusions are idiotic and lack common sense is something else.
 
turbodish said:
If freedom of religion as per our Charter is to mean anything, then religious beliefs must be accommodated provided they do not cause undue risk or hardship on the rest of the public or society as a whole, even if it is a choice that we might not take for ourselves.
Click to expand...

Substitute seizure of assets prior to a trial for religion in that statement and you have a very good argument against HTA 172.


Oops.
 
Im patiently waiting for one of these guys to get drafted into the NHL.... Come on Sikhs bring us back to the no helmet and mullet hockey days. Better yet, the NFL. I would love to see a face mask attached to a turban.
 
This country is TOOOOO politically correct. I mean it was a sad moment when the police uniform was changed for them to accommodate their liking! whats next? a firefighter with no safety helmet? We have to draw the line somewhere otherwise we have to change all the laws and bend over backwards to make everyone happy. I for one think if you cant wear the uniform and since your religion is SOOO important to you, then pick a career out of the other 1213568767895 careers out there instead of trying to change a whole nation to suit your personal beliefs!
 
ashkan said:
This country is TOOOOO politically correct. I mean it was a sad moment when the police uniform was changed for them to accommodate their liking! whats next? a firefighter with no safety helmet? We have to draw the line somewhere otherwise we have to change all the laws and bend over backwards to make everyone happy. I for one think if you cant wear the uniform and since your religion is SOOO important to you, then pick a career out of the other 1213568767895 careers out there instead of trying to change a whole nation to suit your personal beliefs!
Click to expand...

I don't see how you are bending over backwards at all. I dont' see how a cop without a hat makes any difference in your life.
 
OpenGambit said:
I don't see how you are bending over backwards at all. I dont' see how a cop without a hat makes any difference in your life.
Click to expand...

I lose sleep every night over it just like ashkan :(
 
OpenGambit said:
I don't see how you are bending over backwards at all. I dont' see how a cop without a hat makes any difference in your life.
Click to expand...
Its not about a hat. But once you change a uniform for a personal belief, that opens watyto change many other things in the same name. It was a hat, now its a bike helmet, next we have firefighters without helmets because their turban doesnt fit. I respect peoples beliefs and everyone should have the right to keep them as long as it ONLY EFFECTS THEM and not others, but when it comes to those personal beliefs effecting others, then im against it. and yes, frankly, i think a police uniform should stay the same, hence the name UNIform.and people shouldnt be able to change it because it angers their god. Your god and my god may be different but we all share the same police officers on the road.
 
invictus43 said:
This nation was founded on changing people's personal beliefs..ask a Mohawk..
Click to expand...
so whats the solution, change laws everytime a group doesnt like it? what if the next group doesnt like the changes the first group made? we should change laws on daily basis to please everyone.That wont work. A religious Muslim might want Sharia laws in place of civil laws, that a woman cheating should be stoned to death. should we do it? it IS after all a personal belief and we should accommodate everyone. no? of course i used an extreme example to make my point that the place for a personal belief is in your personal life not where it affects others.
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom