The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.

Forum Sponsor
ashkan said:
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.
Click to expand...

As I stated much earlier in this thread, a change to uniform convention has very little impact. It has no effect on the safety aspect and the wearer is still recognizable as an officer. I have no issue with the concept of permitting the wearing of a turban, as a variation in uniform, especially given the military tradition of Sikhs within the British Empire. At the end of the day, it's still just clothing.

Safety gear is a different story and, just because a variation in clothing is permitted, that does not imply the same will be permitted for required safety gear.

ashkan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, as has been previously stated up-thread, we already have various forms of religious 'courts.' Their decisions must be validated by a Canadian court of law, to make sure that the decisions are valid within our legal framework.

Extremist commentary and fear mongering, like this, is ridiculous in the extreme. It is quite possible to say, "This, but no further."
 
Last edited:
Rob MacLennan said:
As I stated much earlier in this thread, a change to uniform convention has very little impact. It has no effect on the safety aspect and the wearer is still recognizable as an officer. I have no issue with the concept of permitting the wearing of a turban, as a variation in uniform, especially given the military tradition of Sikhs within the British Empire. At the end of the day, it's still just clothing.

Safety gear is a different story and, just because a variation in clothing is permitted, that does not imply the same will be permitted for required safety gear.



Again, as has been previously stated up-thread, we already have various forms of religious 'courts.' Their decisions must be validated by a Canadian court of law, to make sure that the decisions are valid within our legal framework.

Extremist commentary and fear mongering, like this, is ridiculous in the extreme. It is quite possible to say, "This, but no further."
Click to expand...
Well even though i am not one for uniform change, and like i mentioned above, its not so much the 'hat' that bothers me, its the way it might (quite possibly) open new doors for more changes. I dont want them(or even myself) to be able to make any changes that would compromise any services that us, as citizens, should receive from our officers like a firefighter not wearing a safety helmet. On the other hand, its much easier for me to accept this motorcycle helmet law than the police uniform. If someone doesnt want to wear a helmet, its their own choice and if they go down, theyre not hurting anyone but themselves. So let them ride full squid, who cares. If you have a license, youre old enough to make your decisions. If you wanna increase your odds of dying, go for it! But the hat change effects everyone(even if in a very very small way) because he is an officer of the law, if he doesnt have to wear a hat, the none of them should be forced to.
 
ashkan said:
But the hat change effects everyone(even if in a very very small way) because he is an officer of the law, if he doesnt have to wear a hat, the none of them should be forced to.
Click to expand...

The specified uniform provides for more than just one "hat" depending on circumstance. It could be a peaked forage hats, a baseball hat, a different style "hat" for women vs men depending on force, and a turban for observant Sikhs if they wish to wear one in place of the OTHER regulation "hats".

Point is, a turban is just one of a number of specified head-wear for police these days. It's not that they get to not wear a hat, they just get to wear one of an approved set of uniform head-gear choices, same as every other cop.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
As I stated much earlier in this thread, a change to uniform convention has very little impact. It has no effect on the safety aspect and the wearer is still recognizable as an officer. I have no issue with the concept of permitting the wearing of a turban, as a variation in uniform, especially given the military tradition of Sikhs within the British Empire. At the end of the day, it's still just clothing.

Safety gear is a different story and, just because a variation in clothing is permitted, that does not imply the same will be permitted for required safety gear.
Click to expand...

I concur. If the Sikh officers were prevented by their beliefs from carrying a gun, pepper spray, handcuffs or a tazer then you would have an argument equivalent to that of a firefighter's helmet. In other words, where it would be reasonable to extrapolate the officer's safety and that of the public would be compromised by their inability to use the "tools of the trade" then opposition would be understandable.

In addition, a turban is a significantly smaller departure from the standard police uniform in comparison to that of the plain clothes cops. Should we now prevent them from conducting police operations because they need to covertly surveil a suspect?

People forget that changes in regulation and the law to accommodate religious beliefs sometimes don't work to their favour.

Someone in my family works for an insurance company. One of their policy holders purchased motorcycle insurance and was offered, but declined life insurance as it was against their beliefs. The policy holder died in a collision on his motorcycle some time later.

The father of the deceased approached my family member about modifying the records to show he had the life policy at the time of his son's death. Of course the answer was something to the effect of "No ****ing way is that happening!"

But the point stands; if Sikhs, Muslims and other people want to do things a little differently from the rest of us they have to take the good with the bad. Your Muslim beliefs prevent you from having a life insurance policy; no money for the beneficiary and responsibility of the the funeral expenses etc. rests on the family. Your Sikh beliefs prevent you from wearing a motorcycle helmet; you don't get the safety benefits and you pay for any medical expenses related to any head trauma incurred.
 
Last edited:
ashkan said:
Well even though i am not one for uniform change, and like i mentioned above, its not so much the 'hat' that bothers me, its the way it might (quite possibly) open new doors for more changes. I dont want them(or even myself) to be able to make any changes that would compromise any services that us, as citizens, should receive from our officers like a firefighter not wearing a safety helmet. On the other hand, its much easier for me to accept this motorcycle helmet law than the police uniform. If someone doesnt want to wear a helmet, its their own choice and if they go down, theyre not hurting anyone but themselves. So let them ride full squid, who cares. If you have a license, youre old enough to make your decisions. If you wanna increase your odds of dying, go for it! But the hat change effects everyone(even if in a very very small way) because he is an officer of the law, if he doesnt have to wear a hat, the none of them should be forced to.
Click to expand...

If the slippery slope that you are speaking of is really just people trying to assert their rights while integrating into Canadian society. Then bring it on. You have people that care enough to become police officers( a thankless job ) to their home and serve the public, and you are worried about the hat...

the next time you think about this. remember, the Charter doesnt' protect us from the evil immigrants. It protects them from us.
 
OpenGambit said:
If the slippery slope that you are speaking of is really just people trying to assert their rights while integrating into Canadian society. Then bring it on. You have people that care enough to become police officers( a thankless job ) to their home and serve the public, and you are worried about the hat...

the next time you think about this. remember, the Charter doesnt' protect us from the evil immigrants. It protects them from us.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It's about avoiding "the tyranny of the many", which is just as dangerous to freedom as the tyranny of the few.
 
ashkan said:
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.
Click to expand...


i think the way that fantino changed the uniforms of the opp was worse.
 
ashkan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word effect, affects the effect of your message on me.
Hope I said that right.

For non-safety related headwear there should be some sort of compromise that could be made by both sides.

I suppose if you classify a turban as not being a hat, then there would be no disrespect to the Queen, in a military canteen. But, would police officers then have to wear a hat over their turban, or could you work around the issue some other way. Firefighters should all have a firehat, unless it is deemed unnecessary for anyone to have one.
 
yeah let them ride with no helmet. who cares! if they wanna die, let them. but if youre changing the law, do it for everyone, not just sikhs. i, for one, will never ride without a helmet. also, i think insurance companies either wont accept them or will change their policies and hopefully have a much higher rate for people who ride without a helmet or in case they get in to an accident without a helmet. no coverage for you buddy!
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom