stratofortress
Well-known member
We don't need more Gary Busey's around....
|
|
|
The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.
- Thread starter Motorcycle Mike
- Start date
Thank you. You've covered my salient points already.
And i'd definitely feel discriminated against, for being a skinny old white guy forced to wear a helmet, because Sikhism wasn't my religion/way of life/crutch to getting special considerations in what is supposed to be a SECULAR society.
Not that it matters - i'd still wear a helmet because i have no interest in a diminished IQ.. but principles count for a lot, when it comes to selective freedoms given to selective peoples in what is a choice-based activity with potential costs being borne by the greater public in the event of a head-injury - which this push by Sikh's most definitely is.
Agreed. If you like a sport, but you are barred from playing it because of a religious tradition, well maybe you should start re-thinking your values. I wouldn't attempt to Sumo Wrestle as a skinny person and say that's pure discrimination, I should be able to wear a fat suit to compete !!. Who knows, next you might see them playing hockey with turbans on, cause why the hell would you stop at motorcycles ?. Most people that move and visit different places in the world embrace and appreciate the culture and laws, they don't attempt to change them.
Last edited:
I call this BS and raciest! unless you defined Canadian as Christian, white with blue eyes and blonde hair, Sikhs are as much Canadian as you are.
Back to the topic! I understand the religion/life style requirement of Sikhs must with no exception to wear a turban, I will not argue that, however last I check I did not see anything in the religion/life style requirement of Sikhs that riding a motorcycle is a must!! so I don''t understand what's the big deal! I don't see Muslims demanding to stop serving alcohol in bars, or Jewish demanding stop serving pork in restaurant just because they are forbidden from having it!
Now lets have a group hug and stop some of the raciest comments please.
It's already happening in the UK - and we as a supposed multicultural society, are not that much far different.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...xtremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html
Last edited:
Not even close to the same thing...
It is and it's not.
Different subject, but it shows how they are going to different countries not of their own race and changing the laws/rules.
If any westerner tried to go to any Islamic country and change their rules, we would be thrown in jail or killed.
Two of those judgments, the ones regarding the Legion and RCMP, were correct. The one regarding the BC helmet law was not. IT is reasonable to make accommodation, where the only question is one of dress. Where the concern is mandated safety equipment, it is not. I wouldn't allow it, any more than I would allow a worker on a construction site without a construction helmet.
What? Please tell me your not this daft.
What part are you talking about?
What is your reasoning for thinking it is foolish?
Because you mentioned race. The guy in the picture is Caucasian. And Muslim.
Nothing may be worn over the turban.
Cite your sources please.
When i search there are just as many articles and links stating that it is ok to wear a helmet over a turban as there are articles and links stating that is not. So the issue is unclear.... There are numerous examples of Sikhs wearing helmets for safety reasons. Helo/Fighter pilots, athletes, military personnel, etc.
In these cases it seems that they choose to wear a slimmer more form fitting turban that allows them to wear a normal type of helmet over it.
Last edited:
Has nothing to do with race. Has everything to do with faith, inclusion, exclusion, and equal application of rights and respect for all in our society, which would be Secular in overall makeup in the present day.
I agree with your second statement to a point. Religious minorities do generally have a bad time of it, in Islamic states.
Moreno636: My link is very indicative of where things could go. All it takes is one radicalized mosque in the GTA, and you've got a militant speical interest group/religious entity imposing their belief system upon others, like in that article as is happening in the UK. The Sikh's while being of a different faith than my example, are with this helmet issue trying to exert their influence in a special-interest dispensation from the law of the land, that mandates helmet use for ALL citizens, regardless of creed, colour, or faith. A dispensation that has the direct affect of exclusionary rights to those who are NOT Sikh, and has potential financial consequences upon the healthcare system supported by all citizens, regardless of their faith.
End result - one special-interest religious faith gains extra rights, in a society that is secular, and in which all citizens are supposed to be equal. It's a slippery slope. Being a Sikh, Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or whatever, is a personal choice. Being a motorcyclist, is also a personal choice. Wearing a helmet is currently not a personal choice under our legal framework. Choose between which activity that you wish to participate in, and act accordingly.
As others, including Moreno636 indicate already - Sikh's can wear a Patka to address the requirement for religiously mandated headgear, so there is simply no need for a religious dispensation to be made in regard to our helmet laws. This Sikh push for religious dispensation from helmet laws is choice and convenience based. There is simply no grounds for or requirement for a religious exemption in this situation, based upon being of the Sikh faith, as it is a choice of religion and lifestyle, and participating in motorcycling is a choice of activity. Alternatives to allow Sikh's to participate already exist, with the present legal requirement for a helmet.
We should be proud of the Muslims in England for assimilating into the Christian culture and learning from our rich history. While it was mostly predominant in the colonies, we had examples of Christian groups going into bars/saloons, telling people not to drink/smoke/gamble and making things difficult for our fine red lantern establishments. Hell, they even managed to have alcohol completely prohibited and are trying for it again. There are dry communities in the U.S. and Canada and also communities where alcohol can be sold but at some ridiculous times, when it's not really accessible to most people.
I really don't see a difference between that UK piece of Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism in aim or in method. As far as I'm concerned, they're acting the same way as the Christian majority in their new country.. However, their actions are fine if done under the name of Christ, but not fine under the name of Mohammad.
By the way, I've had drinks with Muslim friends.. Even got pretty hammered. Also I got Muslim friends who practice temperance, are aware of my lifestyle and are still friends with me. Of course, the xenophobes here will pretend that such people don't exist and that the 0.00001% of the wacko extremist (the same characters as those crazyass preachers on city corners) represent the entire religious community.
I really don't see a difference between that UK piece of Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism in aim or in method. As far as I'm concerned, they're acting the same way as the Christian majority in their new country.. However, their actions are fine if done under the name of Christ, but not fine under the name of Mohammad.
By the way, I've had drinks with Muslim friends.. Even got pretty hammered. Also I got Muslim friends who practice temperance, are aware of my lifestyle and are still friends with me. Of course, the xenophobes here will pretend that such people don't exist and that the 0.00001% of the wacko extremist (the same characters as those crazyass preachers on city corners) represent the entire religious community.
http://www.sikhs.org/khalsa.htm
If the religion is evolving then it's a good thing but it is no more permissible for for something to be worn over the turban, than it is for a Catholic to use birth control pills. Obviously that doesn't mean there aren't Catholics who use birth control pills.
Does it really make me a bad person, an 'intolerant xenophobe', to believe that 0.00001% of any given population being an extreme influence on the rest, is 0.00001% too many?
I am not debating on whether Muslim Extremism/Fundamentalism or Christian Fundamentalism, or any other 'ism' is any better or any worse than each other. I do have a problem with them all being inappropriate and counter-productive to modern, secular societies.
The UK article is simply an example, not representative of all incidents - to show them all would take more space on the GTAM server than there is room for.
|
|
|
|
|