The Sikhs are at it again: fighting helmet laws.

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?
 
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.

And why would you use the UK as an example of a modern, secular society? That country is flooded with CCTV cameras in order to make sure that nobody steps out of line :cool:
 
Nothing may be worn over the turban.

This is incorrect, Rob.

There's nothing written in our holy scriptures that states that. The turban is essentially a fashion statement. Back in the day when the Mughal Empire ruled, only people of high status were allowed to wear turbans and keep beards. It was a majestic status.

Our 10th guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, during war told his soldiers that we're just like Kings and Queens and we can wear turbans and keep our hair just as they do.

Sikh's are not the only people in the world that wear turbans. They are all over in different countries and religions. It is an "image" more than the Sikh way of life. Keeping and maintaining hair is a disciplinary action that is more important.

Sikhism teaches us to enjoy life and do things that are joyful but do not get attached to these worldly things. Sikhism is a very logical way of life, everything has a very concrete answer to why things are practiced the way they are. Riding a bike while wearing a helmet is logical and safe.

The downside is.. a lot of what's written in Sikhism is up to interpretation. However, I always interpret it in the simplest and logical way.
 
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.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

You need to inform yourself on the status of Sharia Law in the UK. There was a similar movement here in Ontario, which thankfully was struck down. The UK legislation, however, passed.

September 14, 2008


[h=1]Revealed: UK’s first official sharia courts[/h][h=2][/h]Abul Taher


ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.
Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.
Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.
Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

Additional reporting: Helen Brooks



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.


Yes, rights for themselves, leaving the legislation to exclude others from those same rights, based upon a lack of sharing those same beliefs.

Which serves the greater good, for all citizens in a secular society? Including all equally, or excluding others based upon a faith, or lack thereof?

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.

And again, their beliefs are a choice of religion and style of living life. So too, is the choice to participate in motorcycling as an activity.

Dammit, just choose already, what is really important to them, without impacting the rest of society with inclusionary, or exclusionary legislation in order to accomodate them in a choice based activity.
 
Last edited:
And why would you use the UK as an example of a modern, secular society? That country is flooded with CCTV cameras in order to make sure that nobody steps out of line :cool:

Simply because i believe that the UK 'multicultural' model of society is closer to our own, than the USA 'melting pot' model. It's a closer example of society, to draw parallels upon our own.
 
This is incorrect, Rob.

There's nothing written in our holy scriptures that states that. The turban is essentially a fashion statement. Back in the day when the Mughal Empire ruled, only people of high status were allowed to wear turbans and keep beards. It was a majestic status.

Our 10th guru, Guru Gobind Singh Ji, during war told his soldiers that we're just like Kings and Queens and we can wear turbans and keep our hair just as they do.

Sikh's are not the only people in the world that wear turbans. They are all over in different countries and religions. It is an "image" more than the Sikh way of life. Keeping and maintaining hair is a disciplinary action that is more important.

Sikhism teaches us to enjoy life and do things that are joyful but do not get attached to these worldly things. Sikhism is a very logical way of life, everything has a very concrete answer to why things are practiced the way they are. Riding a bike while wearing a helmet is logical and safe.

The downside is.. a lot of what's written in Sikhism is up to interpretation. However, I always interpret it in the simplest and logical way.

That's the thing about religion; it's always up to interpretation. It all depends on which sect is in ascendancy. For example with Wahhabis gaining so much power recently, in Islam, the idea of women going fully covered is becoming more the norm. The Koran states only that people should be 'modest' in dress.

I wouldn't call one of the signs of Khalsa a 'fashion statement' ;)
 
I didn't even read most of the posts, but would it make a difference if a non religious group like the one that demonstrated in NY were to challenge the helmet law? Would there be such outrage?

I think the less control the gov has over my life the better.
 
I didn't even read most of the posts, but would it make a difference if a non religious group like the one that demonstrated in NY were to challenge the helmet law? Would there be such outrage?

I think the less control the gov has over my life the better.

AMEN to that! :cool:
 
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.

How is that UK article indicative of anything other than some people (regardless of religion, ethnic background, moral values) will try to impose their way of living on others? That article also goes on to state that local authorities are taking said posters down and opposing said attempts to "impose" Sharia law in the area, so any notion that Islam or any other group can impose their will on the unwilling is dead in the waters.

In any case, that particular person (white, British-born convert to Islam, Born-Again anythings Muslim or Christian can often be the most extreme) is trying to impose Sharia law on everyone living in that area, whether they be Muslim or not.

That's a far cry different than someone looking for an exemption to certain regs for a given religious group based on reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs. Even if he does manage to win a helmet exemption for Sikhs, any such exemption does not mean that everyone (Sikhs included) will now be compelled to forgo helmets use on motorcycles.
 
Funny how Jewish, Catholic, and various Christian sects have had their own civil arbitration and "court" processes in place for years in Ontario, and nobody ever gave them even a second jaundiced thought. But now Islam arrives on the scene looking to do the same for willing adherents, and all hell breaks loose!
 
Funny how Jewish, Catholic, and various Christian sects have had their own civil arbitration and "court" processes in place for years in Ontario, and nobody ever gave them even a second jaundiced thought. But now Islam arrives on the scene looking to do the same for willing adherents, and all hell breaks loose!

majority wins
 
Guess the only thing to do now is to create my own religion in which high speed allows me to communicate much better with my " creator ".
 
Funny how Jewish, Catholic, and various Christian sects have had their own civil arbitration and "court" processes in place for years in Ontario, and nobody ever gave them even a second jaundiced thought. But now Islam arrives on the scene looking to do the same for willing adherents, and all hell breaks loose!

You forgot Aboriginal "healing circles."

That's because most people don't even know that they exist and they think that Sharia Law means abrogation of rights, under the Constitution, when any such judgments must actually still be signed off on by a judge.

Guess the only thing to do now is to create my own religion in which high speed allows me to communicate much better with my " creator ".

"Church of the Holy Ton." Must do 100 MPH, at least once a day.
 
Funny how Jewish, Catholic, and various Christian sects have had their own civil arbitration and "court" processes in place for years in Ontario, and nobody ever gave them even a second jaundiced thought. But now Islam arrives on the scene looking to do the same for willing adherents, and all hell breaks loose!

Please post some examples, I have no idea what your talking about and Im Catholic.
 
I didn't even read most of the posts, but would it make a difference if a non religious group like the one that demonstrated in NY were to challenge the helmet law? Would there be such outrage?

I think the less control the gov has over my life the better.

I agree 100%. EXCEPT for the fact that healthcare for the most part is free.

That is why this is such a nanny state, because if we get hurt, they have to foot the bill. Even if we die, and our family has no money, they still have to foot the bill.

That is the way i have come to see our great over ruled land.

They are not out there trying to protect us, they are trying to protect their pocket books..
 
I agree 100%. EXCEPT for the fact that healthcare for the most part is free.

That is why this is such a nanny state, because if we get hurt, they have to foot the bill. Even if we die, and our family has no money, they still have to foot the bill.

That is the way i have come to see our great over ruled land.

They are not out there trying to protect us, they are trying to protect their pocket books..

I agree with the thought of not wanting to pay for the next guys idiocy and saving money but I think that's the price we pay in forming a society: We support each other for better or for worse. Plus motorcycle injuries probably account for a tiny fraction of the overall cost of our healthcare system, I mean junk food and cigarettes probably costs us way more than idiot riders ever will.
 
Last edited:
Please post some examples, I have no idea what your talking about and Im Catholic.

The Catholic Church refers to them as ecclesiastical tribunals, and in Ontario they can be found in some larger parishes and at the Diocese level. They deal with civil disputes between Catholics according to Church law where both parties are willing, and under Ontario law their decisions are binding except in certain matters of family law.

I don't think they are as commonly accessed by Catholics today as they were in past. However, the Jewish Beth Din counterparts is another story.
 
If the exception is ever approved, the gov't should make it law that "when driving a motorcycle without a helmet, you become a mandatory organ donor in case of death whether the rider is at fault or not at fault."
 
My only real concern is the cost of health care. I wear ATGATT and would be very angry if I was told I had to leave my lid at home and wear a turban instead because it is my life at risk.
However if a Sikh can wear a turban instead of a helmet then can anyone wear a turban instead of a helmet?
If a Sikh can wear a kirpan then can anyone?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander or is the "Rights" road a one-way street.
Lots of opinions here but few facts. Has any actuary calculated the projected health costs of turbaned riders or is this a financial tempest in a teapot?
 

Back
Top Bottom