^ Because they have a right to exist as much as you do. Anyways, why do you care whether a Sikh wears a helmet or not?
The government cares about everyone wearing a motorcycle helmet. It is a public safety issue. Stuff gets weird when we make religious exemptions on safety or health issues, since people can believe anything. In fact, mandating motorcycle helmets for Sikhs is indeed preserving their right to exist, if you ask me.
Rather than argue about the application of a common sense law, someone should invent a motorcycle helmet that can be worn on top of a turban, or perhaps an armored turban that provides head protection. This is a great business opportunity.
No, tjack didn’t bring up a public safety issue, but an issue of “bending backwards for a community”. Sikh turbans violate a lot of “rules” outside of public safety, such as dress code in the military, and this is simply another part of that.
PA doesn’t care about motorcyclists, Sikh or not.
Can we first concentrate on getting crab rangoon west of the Rockies?
Don’t know where you come from, but in Texas, you don’t have to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycyle.
But God help you if you’re in the back seat of a Volvo SUV and don’t have your seat belt on, because the government is looking out for your safety.
“The government” can mean any federal or state government, but in the context of this discussion, it obviously refers to the government of the Canadian place that mandated the use of motorcycle helmets.
^ Remember in Canada we have state health care so our government does care about whether you wear a helmet or not. If you waive your right to medicial care, then I’d say by all means be an idiot to the fullest extent of your capacity.
i grew up in Brampton (aka Browntown, where South Asians outnumber Whites) and i have never seen a brown guy on a motorcycle. moped, maybe, motorcycle, no. this Wynne-Sikh debate is one of theory, not of reality. so who cares? but yes, i agree they should waive their right to free health care in the event of an motorcycle accident if they wish to ride unprotected. the solution? create a turban compatible helmet.
He said raped and 90,000 seems to be the average number per year for the United States across most surveys. RAINN has a much higher number but takes into account attempted rape.
What is uniform across all the independent studies and RAINN is that even in the United States which should have much better support structures than the rest of the world, the unreported rate is hovering at 60% with a particularly high rate of campus assaults going unreported. Whichever way you look at it the numbers are fucking grim for a so called first world nation with victim shaming being a common theme.
Just as a side, when constrained for ‘per 100,000’ Japan and Canada seem to be exceedingly safe with South Africa faring the worst.
Just let the Sikhs do what they want dammit, history has fked them over enough.
I never said they didn’t have a right to exist. I simply asked why the rule of law doesn’t apply to them or why they get special exemptions. We already allow them to wear turbans as part of their police uniform (which defeats the purpose of a UNIform). I personally don’t care if people wear a helmet or a seatbelt. But if it’s the law they should have to. Just like anyone else. Riding a motorcycle isn’t a right, it’s a privilege.
and again, it’s always western countries that provide exemptions. And when we draw a line, we are culturally insensitive or racist. Why is that?
Because we are a tolerant society that can make reasonable accommodation. This is what separates us from them. Its this tolerance that defines why our way is better. If you want everyone to be exactly like a WASP, then you’re no different than the crazies “over there.” I honestly don’t care what others wear or do as long as I am not forced to participate. It does not infringe any of my rights.
+1
This is the exact reason why we care if Sikhs wears helmets or not. Our healthcare (and insurance) is paid for by taxpayers. Correct me if I’m wrong but in the US, if YOU get injured, YOU pay for your hospital bills (I don’t live there so I don’t know the laws). I agree with the Canadian government and I’m glad they took this stance.
Death isn’t the problem. It’s severe brain injuries that are the problem. It can cost millions just to take care of a victim in case of an accident. And insurance in Ontario is already high enough as it is.
^ Exactly! Car insurance in ontario is already through the roof. And our health care system is stretched to the limit.
That said I’m pretty sure the contribution of helmetless Sikhs is pretty small to both insurance and health care issues. I’d be much more concerned with obese and inactive people. Sometimes a little perspective helps…
I agree that we should be accommodating and I’m proud that Canada is so multi-cultural and welcoming. But when it comes to religious beliefs and the law, exemptions are a slippery slope.
I agree somewhat. But I’ll be worried when we go much further down it. A Sikh guy, who is a proud Canadian, wants to wear his hat while being a Mountie? Go for it. We are a richer country for it. It doesn’t hurt anyone. A guy beating his wife and claiming religious freedom is different as that does infringe others’ rights. Obviously this is across the line. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms promises reasonable accommodation of rights, but it also allows laws that limit freedoms as minimally as possible. I’d rather err on less state intervention than more. Again, if the guy isn’t hurting me, or someone else, then I honestly don’t care what the hell he does or what he wears. That’s freedom.
A woman shold be free to wear whatever she wants, get as drunk as she wants and get in a car with whomever she wants without being victim to a crime. It is in no-way the victims fault that she was raped by these barbaric men.
The trouble with indians and more specifically pakistani (i’m half pakistani) is that sex is a taboo subject, people dont talk about it and can’t get it anywhere and everywhere. There is no outlet or release for some of these peasant uneducated people, so instead of fapping every single night they go and prey on the weak amd who ever they think they can get away with sexually assualting or abusing. In most circumstances in the UK, this will be young white girls or those from different cultures and backgrounds. In india, these men think they can get away with it, and so do it.
^@Pokhim: I understand your post but I’m not sure I follow… What does rape culture in India and Pakistan have to do with the freedom to not wear a helmet or not? Unless your point is that people can do whatever they want to an extent?
Okay, good point. But to add to my original post, why does religion get a bye with the law? Freedom is great. Canada is great because we are tolerant. But where does it stop? Religion can’t always go crying to the Human Rights Tribunal if they don’t get their way. Wearing a helmet is a safety issue, which means it concerns everyone.
Another example would be the kirpan. It is a symbolic knife that is NOT used for killing. But in the article below, it was used in a stabbing. Why are Sikhs allowed to carry a weapon just because their religion says they can?
EDIT: image of a kirpan
Lots of countries accomodate different religions by providing exemptions. As for western countries doing so, I think it’s great, and I am glad to see Sikhs extract their share.
I get it, you want to engage in some navel gazing and brag about you tolerant and progressive you are unlike “them”, and at the same time complain that you are too tolerant. But Sikhs are part of Canada, so laws should take into account their considerations and concerns. If you don’t like it, I guess it’s too bad.