What is under those turban anyway??? Is it just a long hair?? can they pony tailed it and wear helmet when they want to ride bikes??

I have many shikh friends/coworkers....and how come they dont wear turban???
(i think once i talked to them...that turban isnt even a religion issue..its more a traditional fashion issue???)

Anyways...i never notice a chin strap on a turban.. wouldn't this thing will flew off in the highway at 120km/h on a bike?? If it did flew off and hit a car behind him..then it may cause an accident.

 

I authored a paper while at Osgoode on the topic of subtle government eugenics policies. I was referring to the use of Norplant in the US and maternal serum screening in Canada. I would not call myself a eugenecist either but I would agree that it is not an evil concept. Unfortunately I don't believe in any person or government's ability to implement a eugenic policy without it being abused resulting in atrocities.

You are welcome to your opinion but why not man up and debate it.

Maybe you should use a source more reliable than wikipedia to educate yourself. But I am glad you find this topic funny.

Thank you for taking the discussion to a whole new level of ignorance.

I agree with you once again but there is no harm in seeking the exemption. If it is determined that Sikh's are suffering undue hardship they are entitled to the exemption. If they are not I am sure they will comply after exhausting all appeal routes.

I find it helpful to quote from the SCC decision regarding the kirpan case:

Lastly, the argument that the wearing of kirpans should be prohibited because the kirpan is a symbol of violence and because it sends the message that using force is necessary to assert rights and resolve conflict is not only contradicted by the evidence regarding the symbolic nature of the kirpan, but is also disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism. Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society. If some students consider it unfair that G may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is at the very foundation of our democracy. A total prohibition against wearing a kirpan to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others. Accommodating G and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities. The deleterious effects of a total prohibition thus outweigh its salutary effects.[Emphasis added]

This is a link to the entire case if you wish to read it.

http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200.../2006scc6.html

 

I dunno, it just bugs me whenever someone tries to change the laws, the rules or whatever in the name of equality so that they are better off in some way than others, so that they have some advantage, or so that the laws get applied differently to them.

Lets face it, religion is a choice, and because of this choice (religion/wearing the turban) they are excluded from making another choice (motorcycle), they're seeking to change the laws. That would seem to me to be unfair to everyone else (I'm in no way saying that we shouldn't accomodate religious beliefs or anything, but the law needs to be the same for EVERYONE). How about all those guys on Harleys that have gotten ticketed for no helmet use? That would seem to me to be descrimination against them if a Sikh can get the exception but they can't. That could then be taken up with the Human Rights Commission and on and on...

 

I'll re-quote the SCC as it clearly addresses how one should perceive your concerns of inequality from a democratic perspective:

Lastly, the argument that the wearing of kirpans should be prohibited because the kirpan is a symbol of violence and because it sends the message that using force is necessary to assert rights and resolve conflict is not only contradicted by the evidence regarding the symbolic nature of the kirpan, but is also disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism. Religious tolerance is a very important value of Canadian society. If some students consider it unfair that G may wear his kirpan to school while they are not allowed to have knives in their possession, it is incumbent on the schools to discharge their obligation to instil in their students this value that is at the very foundation of our democracy. A total prohibition against wearing a kirpan to school undermines the value of this religious symbol and sends students the message that some religious practices do not merit the same protection as others. Accommodating G and allowing him to wear his kirpan under certain conditions demonstrates the importance that our society attaches to protecting freedom of religion and to showing respect for its minorities. The deleterious effects of a total prohibition thus outweigh its salutary effects.[Emphasis added]

 

Meh, seems if my reference were way off base, the right thing to do would be to provide the proper information in order to stamp out ignorance as it was beginning.

I definitely believe in freedom of religion, I just think that there is a line somewhere between physically harming someone because of their beliefs, and changing the highway code so a Sikh man can ride a motorcycle.

And I find the debate far from funny; I am just trying to frame my argument in a different fashion. If God can't make reasonable accommodation for the democratically elected officials who govern this territory, why should the self same democratic officials make accommodations for God?

I’m pretty sure somewhere somebody wrote something down about a separation of church and state.

 

I'm all for multiculturalism, fairness and equality, but I fail to see how changing the LAW for a small group of people is in line with the values upon which this country is built.

Equality should be just that, EQUAL treatment for EVERYONE, with NO EXCEPTIONS. But that's me. I'm a young white male, no one will ever make any exceptions based on my plight.

 

Also, if you think about it logically, banning all forms of weapns in schools, whether decorative or not is not descrimination against a particular group, because it applies to everyone, but allowing an exception based on religion, or whatever else for a small group of people is descrimination against everyone else. The same goes for any other targeted exception.

 

Hey, if you guys want to be really pissed off, have you heard about the extra welfare cheques to those in poligimous marriages. These doucebag's are allowed to have more than one wife due to their religious beliefs. I have no problem with their religious practices, but these ******** use this to get a welfare cheque for each of their wives.

Oh, and the helmet thing should be the persons choice. They should have the right to choose not to wear one regardless of their religion. Only morons would take advantage of it and would quickly kill themselves off. The government should not be required to make all of our choices for us. We are being stripped of all our our rights and it makes me sick.

 

Last time I heard that was still illegal.

 

Thank you for taking the discussion to a whole new level of ignorance.



Just exercising my "Human right of freedom of speech"

 

94-95's at UofG we had two incidents of Sikh students pulling their kirpans on other students.. but the School decided to keep it 'in house' and give them a slap on the wrist, focusing instead the 'victims' for antagonizing them', ( the sikh's) to pull them out in the first place!?.. meanwhile I and a few others were not allowed to wear our Skein Dubv ( a 3" dull blade the fits in kilt hose) with our kilts. Personally these clowns get away with WAY too much in the name of religious freedoms. You make a decision to move to a country with a completely different set of social morals and laws you SHOULD live by those laws. IF these idiots want to ride around helmet-less fine, but should I be paying for their hospital bills if they choose to fore go common sense and the normal laws.. ? not hardly, require them to pay their own hospital bills and have unique vehicle insurance for non helmet riders.

Hypocrites, they want to be thought of a part of Canadian society yet they do everything in their power to try NOT to integrate and participate.


you gotta know some redneck who's pissed off is going to looking to scare em on the roads..

 

"We are Canadians. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile."

Wanting them to leave their culture behind is wrong, but they should respect our laws.

Isn't one of the founding principles of this country the separation of church and state? Now we're supposed to change the state to suit the church, it just seems wrong to me.

 

You can say what ever you please. That does not exclude it from being ignorant. You made assumptions about Hindus and Sikhs and stated them as fact. Your assumptions were all wrong by the way, hence my reference to them as ignorant. I don't have the time or patience necessary to correct you.

I wouldn't know where to begin to stamp out the ignorance. My knowledge base is both academic and personal in the sense that I was born into a Sikh household. It is not like people are asking questions here but rather putting forward false assumptions. I don't think a car enthusiast forum is the place for detailing the particulars of the Sikh faith. The discussion was more about a person exercising their rights. I don't think the actual faith/religion have anything to do with it other than to provide context.

Is that what you and your ancestors did when they came to Canada? You can look back at my earlier posts about those espousing high and mighty claims to "their" Canada. You do realize that there are Canadians that are Sikhs that were born here and have been here for more than one generation? Which one of those generations will you consider Canadian enough to stop referring to them as foreigners that have just landed here yesterday? In fact there is a Sikh temple in Toronto run entirely by white Sikh converts. My parents chose to send me there for Sunday school as a child to give me a broader perspective on faith/race etc.

The only hypocrites in this thread are the immigrant or immigrant descendants that forget that they too were once a new arrivals, be it yesterday or the past century.

Ignorance is bliss but can also result in idiotic behaviour. Your comment reminds me of the Sikh person murdered in the US post 9/11 simply because he wore a turban. The murderer thought that only muslims wear turbans.


I am Sikh and proud of it. I am not orthodox but I understand the plight of those that are courageous enough to wear the turban in a western world. They are not trying to "get away" with anything. Britain, India, Manitoba, and British Columbia all have exemptions for orthodox Sikh motorcyclists. Those that have a problem with it ought to actually educate themselves on the issues rather than act on assumptions.

As far as statistics re: healthcare implications please see the below quote from a globe and mail article on the issue:

While the Crown case initially questioned the sincerity of Mr. Badesha's religious convictions, its main argument is now based on increased costs to the health system, should helmetless Sikh motorcycle riders end up suffering head injuries.

Mr. Hutchison and co-counsel Owen Rees disputed this contention yesterday. They pointed to a study they had done that concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year.

The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would increase from $151,700,000 to $151,834,685 - a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province's annual health-care budget.

Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. "Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost," he said.

India and Britain exempt Sikhs from wearing helmets, as do Manitoba and British Columbia, where a human-rights challenge precipitated the exemption.


I think I have said all I can say. But who knows there still may be another ignoramous/closet racist amongst you that wishes to BS further.

 

^^ You preach tolerance and yet you make personal attacks on people?

This has nothing to do with his religious rights and everything to do with people seeking special treatment. It doesn't matter if the increased health care cost is .0000000000001%. It's simply wrong to grant special rights based on religion, as said before, he made a promise to abide by the laws in place surrounding the use of a motorcycle and now he would like to change them to suit his wants. There is no need for him to ride a motorcycle. Not to mention a knife is a knife regardless of whether it has religious meaning or not. As always everyone is entitled to there opinion whether or not other people like or agree with it. It would seem you believe your opinion is the only valid one.

 

Who did I personally attack? I only responded to posts on a public forum. You may not like what I am saying but that does not make it an attack.

It is not "wrong". It is what our democratic multicultural society is built on. Special rights are granted based on many religions. Are you stating that you would prefer that we no longer have a charter of rights that protects religion? Or is it just immigrants that come to Canada that should have a lessor right? Or Canadians that are born here but follow a minority faith?

You are entitled to your opinion. I never said you or anyone else in this thread were not. I am only probing deeper in debate on the issue. As a result it is clear that many of the opinions stated are based on false assumptions that border very closely to racist views. My opinion is simply in keeping with the Supreme Court of this Country as well as the law in B.C., Manitoba, Britain and India. And probably in line with Ontario Law in the near future.

And if Ontario law is changed to include an exemption for Sikhs will you accept it as the law? Or will you then feel that the law should change to your view?

 

Just calling a spade a spade. BTW just for the record that's not a racist comment. Just a saying.
Why would I bother getting into a debate with a lawyer? (Although there's a saying about us tool makers"arguing with a tool maker is like mud wrestling with a pig, after a while you realize he's enjoying it. The same could be said for lawyers)I stand by my previous post and if you read over your previous posts there are some obvious personal attacks, I don't feel the need to quote the obvious to prove the point.

Not sure where I said new Canadians(not born of this country) should have less rights?Simply that they should abide by our laws as we ourselves do, this is what being Canadian is.

 

I read my previous posts. I would say that I said some things that someone may feel shocked to hear but it is not personal or an attack. I would say the same things in person if asked. I think you may be referring to where I call someone ignorant. Maybe I should have used to the term "lacking in knowledge" but it means the same to me. If you put forward what I percieve is an ignorant opinion you should be prepared to hear a response. It is not my responsibility to sugar coat it.

Your post assumes that there are not Canadian born Sikh's that wear turbans that may wish to ride a motorcycle. Once again I am only pointing out the obvious to me, which may not be obvious for you.

 

Your post assumes that there are not Canadian born Sikh's that wear turbans that may wish to ride a motorcycle. Once again I am only pointing out the obvious to me, which may not be obvious for you.[/quote]



That's a huge leap, not to mention assumption. I spent 4yrs working with several sikhs and some were born here and wore the turbans. Not that I should need to mention this, I really don't see how you came to that conclusion based on what I posted.

 

I was simply referring to your comments on immigrants having lesser rights.

 

I didn't say that you are not aware of Canadian born Sikhs but that they may be equally in favour of an exemption. You stated that people should follow the laws when they come here. I am reminding you that people who are born here may have issues with it also. Many of the posts in this thread including yours seem to speak about the challenge as being of foreign origin. This is what I find most offensive in all of the posts. The person is a citizen, where they came from is irrelevant.

 

Exactly my point! Thank you, finally. It doesn't matter were you were born if you live here you must abide by the laws of this land. I guess we agree then.

 

I guess I blew, I've just engaged in a debate with a lawyer. This topic's definitely been done to death. It's been interesting. Peace.

 

lol, I am starting my 3rd moosehead and about to put in a movie so the debate will have to be continued.

PS: we don't agree but I'll have to explain later.

 

the helmet law is only a traffic law and while it is an offense to not wear one while riding a motorcycle it is only a fine-able offense not an imprisonable one.

Speed limits and traffic signs are under the same set of laws so really the right and freedom for this guy to not wear a helmet already exists however he is protesting the premium he will have to pay to do so (given the fines he will receive for doing so)

when we speed even a little like when we choose not to wear a helmet you do so as a choice and drivers pay a premium for this "privilege" in the form of fines. it seems to me that he/she doesnt understand that he/she already has the right to protest the law requiring a helmet by not wearing one though it will come at a premium price penalty.

 

From the charter:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I would say that it could be argued, maybe not in a court of law mind you, that allowing special exemptions based on religion is un-constitutional because it's in violation of the charter, because everyone else is now being discriminated against because they don't follow the one particular religion that is allowed that exemption. Maybe these exemptions don't really matter much in everyday life, but it opens the door for legal discrimination, and I think that's a really, really bad thing and frankly, it's scary. This is not about what's "fair" or what's "right", it's about what's equal and legal. Think about it.

I've never had a problem with equality, but I do have a problem with "equality" where one group gets special treatment to make them "equal" with others.