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.
Wrong
1) Those nutters in the UK are just that...nutters. They go around putting up stickers, thats it. No real political party in the UK is even remotely seriously considering any form of Sharia Law. All it is, is a bunch of nutters sprouting out lunacy, no different than the Westboro Baptist Christian nutters that protest Army funerals and walk around with signs that say "GOD HATES FAGs". I dont see anybody playing the slippery slope card with those idiots.
In contrast the Sikhs in this article are going by the proper political process, providing studies and developing proper legislation. I think they are wrong, but its a completely different animal.
2) Secondly the Sikhs are fighting for rights FOR THEMSELVES. While the islamic nutters in the UK want EVERYBODY regardless of race and religion to follow THEIR RULES! They are FORCING OTHERS to capitulate and sacrifice their beliefs for their Islamic beliefs. The Sikhs arent telling YOU to wear a turban instead of a helmet. They are asking for THEIR right not to wear one.
3) The Islamic nutters are small minority of fundamentalists that are no different from the Westboro retards or the KKK or the Black Hebrew Nationalists or whatever they are called. While the CSA are lobbyist that follow the proper political process, for what the believe is an infringement on their beliefs.
Also all this BS about wanting to change "OUR CANADIAN LAWS" and "Our canadian way of life, dont like it go home" nonsense is idiotic. I dont see anybody telling all those opponents of the HTA that want the legislation changed to "go home" or "stop trying to change our way of life"...why is that?