The Turniator - Give Me A Break!

[MalahatTwo7]

Ok, first of all, I understand and accept religious convention. It is what it is, and if you firmly believe in your religion of choice, so be it, and enjoy. However..... this is BS. The helmet safety law was written for one reason, and one reason only:


TO PROTECT YOUR FREAK'N MELON FROM GETTING SQUASHED!


By BRYN WEESE, SUN MEDIA

The Turbanator will be back -- in court to find out two weeks from now whether he can ride motorcycles without a helmet.

But however Justice James Blacklock, who heard the third and final day of submissions in Brampton yesterday, rules in the case on March 6, it won't change the law.

Indeed, Baljinder Singh Badesha, who was given a $110 traffic ticket for riding a motorcycle on Queen St. in Brampton without a helmet in September 2005, could get another ticket, even if the judge rules in his favour.

Section 106 of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act will still require motorcyclists to wear helmets, unless the province decides to write in an exemption for Sikh men who, owing to their religious beliefs, must wear a turban at all times when outside the home and cannot cover it up, not even with a large helmet.

Mel Sokolsky, Badesha's lawyer, said the Blacklock's ruling applies only to the ticket his client received in 2005 and whether he has to pay it, but it could have repercussions.

"The judge is not going to say this applies to all religious Sikh men or anything like that, but the effects of his decision, whether Mr. Badesha is exempt or not exempt, certainly is going to have repercussions in the total community," he told the Sun outside court yesterday.

"If (the ruling) is favourable to Mr. Badesha, then the government is going to be considering its position ... It will have to deal with the situation because it can't have a hundred Sikhs with turbans riding motorcycles and having prosecutions for all of them."

Badesha and two lawyers from the province's Human Rights Commission, which intervened in Badesha's case, claim the helmet law forces him to choose between his religion and using a government service -- namely, riding the province's roads.

The Crown maintains the helmet law is in place not only to protect Ontario's motorists from a risky mode of transportation but to prevent costly medical bills that would be charged to the taxpayer.

According to the Crown's position, Badesha could still drive a car and wear a turban; therefore, binding him to the helmet law does not violate his Charter right to be free from discrimination because of his religion.

Sokolsky wouldn't say how far he and his client were prepared to fight if the judge rules in favour of the Crown.

He said, however, that he and Badesha were surprised by the media coverage his case has received, given the negligible effect of the judge's decision.

'VERY SURPRISED'

"I've been very surprised, how much this has triggered comment, but hopefully every body keeps everything in perspective and doesn't create any unreasonable emotional components to this," Sokolsky said.

A maximum of "only one third of 1% of (Ontario's) population (could be exempt from the helmet law)," according to HRC lawyer Scott Hutchison.



So either wear the lid or don't ride the bike. Simple. Right?

[Catch22]

Hopefully the judge explains to him that driving is a "priviledge" and not a right. He doesn't have to ride a motorcycle and it's not a God-given right to do so. Follow the freaking rules or find another mode of transportation and/or recreation.

Another case of "religious freedom" gone too far.

[Mzanghetti]

Message removed due to title & icon confusion

[Mzanghetti]

Baljinder Singh Badesha is not being unreasonable and I understand that you may believe that everyone should wear a helmet, but the Sikh religion has a long and well known history of wearing and requiring males to wear the turban. This individual seems to feel that his religious beliefs are more important than his safety. I don't think he is wrong, and the Crown Prosecutor could have ended this by refusing to prosecute, I think the Crown is the one being unreasonable.

[MalahatTwo7]

Mark, I tend to intrinsically agree with you to a point, however the law is what is written. The same as OSHA laws are written the way they are written. I would probably more supportive if he did not own/drive a car and that the motorcycle was his only mode of transport, but even then, probably not. We all know why the helmet laws were written - we've seen the evidence first hand. Some of us far more than we'd like to admit.

Too bad we couldn't refuse patient pick up/care based on stupidity factors. :p {THAT WAS TONGUE IN CHEEK HUMOR}

[JHR1985]

problem with Helmet laws is that they really only effect one person: The one who chooses to wear or not to wear the helmet.

I personally feel that its his choice. If he doesnt want to, let him run his noogin into a parked car at 80 mph... one less dumbass in the world

[Lifeguard911]

Here's a thought. What kind of fire helmet do Sikh firefighters wear?

[mcaldwell]

problem with Helmet laws is that they really only effect one person: The one who chooses to wear or not to wear the helmet.

I personally feel that its his choice. If he doesnt want to, let him run his noogin into a parked car at 80 mph... one less dumbass in the world

That's a problem with our universal health care however, he could run up massive bills that would be covered by the general taxpayer. Taxpayers pay for the roads, so they get to make the rules through democratic process, not religious dictate.

It's a tough arguement to make outside of Canada too, when much of the US has relaxed or absent helmet laws. I might suggest if he wants to ride without the helmet, put a clause in the motor vehicle act requiring him to keep 5 million coverage in medical insurance, and pay his own way in the event of a collision. Then it is an insurance issue, but of course it opens debate on the entire helmet law?

[mcaldwell]

Here's a thought. What kind of fire helmet do Sikh firefighters wear?

Keep your common sense out of this! :p

They are frequently arguing SCBA (due to beards) and other restrictions too.

[Mzanghetti]

Here's a thought. What kind of fire helmet do Sikh firefighters wear?

I don't know, but I am intrigued by the question, a fire helmet is a very different situation!

[Frmboybuck]

Thats easy....Its a leather turbin

[volfirie]

I rode with a Sikh taxi driver every day for a few months. He doesn't wear a turban, and told me it was optional.

Here, riding, like driving, is a privilage not a right. So obey the requirements or don't do it. Simple really. Somewhat like some years ago now, some people of the Moslem persuasion were complaining about their women having to have their photo taken for a drivers' licence. They didn't get anywhere, no photo, not licence is the rule. They have the right to demand a female police officer for any licence checks while driving. Pity about the delay while an available female is found! Come to think of it, we also have random breath testing - how do they cope with getting that tube past the cloth? I must ask a copper about that one.

[MalahatTwo7]

I like your thought line there Marty - thats a good proposal for the courts, I think. And Volfire, we have had similar problems in Canada regarding licence photos - not sure if that issue has been fully resolved or not. Haven't seen much in the news feeds from Canada on that recently.

[FlyingKiwi]

Interesting view on this issue here.

http://www.sikhcoalition.org/news.asp?mainaction=viewnews&newsid=467

So well balanced and presented that it could almost have been written by George.

[DaSharkie]

I don't know, but I am intrigued by the question, a fire helmet is a very different situation!

Um, no it is not. Helmets, whether on a constuction site, in a fire, or riding a motorcycle, or mountian biking all serve the same purpose.......To protct the brain housing group.


Now, You can opt to not be a construction worker, firefighter, engineer, mountain bike, or ride on the roads on a motorcycle. No difference.

[volfirie]

Um, no it is not. Helmets, whether on a constuction site, in a fire, or riding a motorcycle, or mountian biking all serve the same purpose.......To protct the brain housing group.


Now, You can opt to not be a construction worker, firefighter, engineer, mountain bike, or ride on the roads on a motorcycle. No difference.

Succinct. I agree.

[MalahatTwo7]

The latest and greatest in this story:

Helmet trumps religion, Ontario traffic judge rules

Jordana Huber, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, March 07, 2008

BRAMPTON, Ont. -- A judge has dismissed the case of a devout Sikh man who argued his religious rights were violated when he received a ticket for riding his motorcycle without a helmet.

In ordering Baljinder Badesha to pay a $110 fine, Judge James Blacklock ruled helmetless motorcycle riding involved the "imposition" of significant extra safety risks that would pose an "undue hardship" on the province.

Badesha, 39, argued he should be exempt from the law requiring a helmet be worn while driving a motorcycle because it violates his constitutional rights to practise his religion requiring him to wear a turban at all times while outside his home.

But Blacklock ruled despite interfering with his freedom of religion, the law was justifiable because wearing a helmet "meaningfully" reduced deaths.

Allowing Badesha or other Sikh motorcyclists to ride without a helmet would not achieve the same level of safety, the judge said.

"There is a clear increase in the risk of devastating brain injury or death with the accompanying burdens on family members and the public in terms of medical needs," Blacklock ruled.

Badesha said he was not upset by the decision and understood the safety implications associated with helmetless riding. But he said the law was still "100 per cent" discrimination.

"We cannot put anything over the turban," Badesha said outside court. "It is against our religion." British Columbia and Manitoba have exemptions allowing devout Sikhs to ride without a helmet.

© Times Colonist (Victoria) 2008

British Columbia and Manitoba have exemptions allowing devout Sikhs to ride without a helmet

I was not aware of this though. :(

[Hexxus]

"Oh hi! Let me change all of our laws just to suit YOUR religion."

I'm tired of how Muslims keep falling back on their religion for excuses to do/don't do stuff. And when we don't then they get all butt hurt. Why do they think they are so special?

[DaSharkie]

"Oh hi! Let me change all of our laws just to suit YOUR religion."

I'm tired of how Muslims keep falling back on their religion for excuses to do/don't do stuff. And when we don't then they get all butt hurt. Why do they think they are so special?

You need to re-read the thread. It has nothing to do with Islam. This gentleman is a Sikh.

Most people confuse the two out of ignorance or stupidity.

[Raughammer1]

You need to re-read the thread. It has nothing to do with Islam. This gentleman is a Sikh.

Most people confuse the two out of ignorance or stupidity.


Perhaps he was not reffering to the Sikh (non-muslim) in this thread but to how islamists in general want Americans and Europeans to accomodate their minority religion.

Perhaps you jumped to conclusions on the intent of his post? :confused:

[DaSharkie]

Perhaps he was not reffering to the Sikh (non-muslim) in this thread but to how islamists in general want Americans and Europeans to accomodate their minority religion.

I understand that. But this thread has had absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with Islam.

Perhaps you jumped to conclusions on the intent of his post? :confused:

Perhaps. But I made my observation based upon what I saw written.

[Raughammer1]

I understand that. But this thread has had absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zero to do with Islam.

Really... :confused: not even when Volfirie posted...just a few posts in front of his, stated: "Somewhat like some years ago now, some people of the Moslem persuasion were complaining about their women having to have their photo taken for a drivers' licence. They didn't get anywhere, no photo, not licence is the rule. They (Moslems) have the right to demand a female police officer for any licence checks while driving. Pity about the delay while an available female is found! Come to think of it, we also have random breath testing - how do they (Moslems) cope with getting that tube past the cloth? I must ask a copper about that one"

Then Malahat responded to the "Moslem" post with: "I like your thought line there Marty - thats a good proposal for the courts, I think. And Volfire, we have had similar problems in Canada regarding licence photos - not sure if that issue has been fully resolved or not. Haven't seen much in the news feeds from Canada on that recently."

Sorry but those posts only were only a few ahead of the quip about Islam and religion/the law.
I can very easily see why he made his post and why he worded it as he did.

Perhaps. But I made my observation based upon what I saw written.
Perhaps, you should have followed your own advice to the gentlemen when you suggested: "You need to re-read the thread."

Hey, i'm just sayin'

[DaSharkie]

So I was wrong. I can deal with it. He still made what I felt was a stupi statement.

Don't liek it? Oh well. Ain't life e bitch. I made my own.

The original point of the thread was regarding a Sikh and the point of the use of Islam was as a comparison. Oh well.

[Raughammer1]

So I was wrong. I can deal with it. He still made what I felt was a stupi statement.

Don't liek it? Oh well. Ain't life e bitch. I made my own.


Oh wow, the irony is just so rich!

:D

Note to the world: When you call others "stupid" it is probably a good idea to have all of your ducks in a row. Hey, I’m just saying'. :p

[DaSharkie]

Oh wow, the irony is just so rich!

:D

Note to the world: When you call others "stupid" it is probably a good idea to have all of your ducks in a row. Hey, I’m just saying'. :p

I did not call him stupid. Perhaps you ought to re read-my post. I noted why most people confused the two. My post was also not "stupid" though I see how you would think so. But your mind has already been made up.

However, this thread has nothing to do with Muslims. It has to do with a Sikh wanting special rules for him. The introduction of Islam has nothing to do with the base premise of the thread.

Alas, that is too obvious for you to comprehend. Not a stitch of irony there.

[THEFIRENUT]

Has anyone thought of a helmet with a turban on the "Outside" of it??????

I think I will go into business!!!!!

[MalahatTwo7]

Has anyone thought of a helmet with a turban on the "Outside" of it??????

I think I will go into business!!!!!

Funny thing is. That did cross my mind even as I was making the original post/thread, but then the idea seemed to outrageous even for me. :o :D