Helmet v. Turban

[KZDon]

My favourite line from Mr. Badesha

"Who cares?" Mr. Badesha said. "Everybody ends up dead anyway. People die in cars too. In life, you have to take risks, no matter what."

I'll bet you could hear that a thousand times a day on the streets of Daytona this week.

In any event, Judge Blacklock ruled against Badesha.

Ontario court rejects religious exemption to motorcycle helmet law
KIRK MAKIN
Globe and Mail Update

March 6, 2008 at 10:20 AM EST

A devout Sikh who challenged an Ontario law requiring all motorcycle riders to wear a helmet on provincial roads has lost his court case.

Ontario Court Judge James Blacklock ruled today that while the law prohibiting anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet does violate his right to freedom of religion, it's justifiable in terms of the benefit that society gains in possible reduced health costs and the possible loss of people's loved ones.

"Given the nature of Mr. Baljinder Badesha's beliefs, which foreclose him from wearing anything over his turban, and yet the unquestioned safety and related issues, this is one of those cases in which, unfortunately, no accommodation appears possible," Judge Blacklock ruled.

Mr. Badesha told reporters he was not particularly disappointed and that he and about 25 supporters who showed up for the decision will lobby politicians to change the law.

He said he hasn't decided yet whether to appeal. He has 15 days to do so.

Judge Blacklock ruled: "Helmets appear to me more likely than not to substantially reduce the risk of head injuries and death to motorcycle riders.

"It is certainly clear that in permitting Mr. Badesha and all Sikh adherents who hold his religious views to ride motorcycles without a helmet would not achieve the same level of safety for them.

"The same level of protection against emotional trauma and economic turmoil would certainly not be available to their dependents and loved ones.

"The same level of safety would not be achieved for other users of the road who happen to be around them."

[sportbikecalgary]

In any event, Judge Blacklock ruled against Badesha.


This was the right thing to do. As a country we've adopted the stance that helmets help in the event of an accident/collision and by law you're mandated to wear one. It's simple. If Badesha can't wear a helmet, he can't ride a motorcycle in Canada. Someone on the old board summed it up nicely... After this ruling, Mr. Badesha's adherance to his faith won't allow him to ride motorcycles. I'm ok with that. My adherance to my faith won't let me kill females for disrespecting me. Over the next few years, maybe turban-wearers as a group can lobby a helmet manufacturer to make a turban friendly shell that'll work for our laws. Good luck with that... and in the mean time, get off the road.

[Rocking Couple]

"not particularly disappointed"

But no doubt happy with himself for exercising his 'rights' as a Canadian, (immigrant in all likelihood) to waste the courts time and tax payers money.

Hopefully he won't appeal by taking further advantage of our system. (that'd be the one in place that allows Canadians to appeal cases of far greater importance than just the exploration {and exploitation} of religious loop-holes).

[Uwe W.]

I find it interesting that in the three provinces that this issue has been raised in court, two different conclusions were reached. Why would BC and Manitoba have allowed exemptions for Sikhs, but not Ontario?

I realize that the size of our nation creates regional differences, but isn't a motorcyclist in BC, Manitoba and Ontario a bird of the same feather?

[Swervin]

I find it interesting that in the three provinces that this issue has been raised in court, two different conclusions were reached. Why would BC and Manitoba have allowed exemptions for Sikhs, but not Ontario?

I realize that the size of our nation creates regional differences, but isn't a motorcyclist in BC, Manitoba and Ontario a bird of the same feather?

Because those provincial governments have no balls. It is about time one law means one law for everyone and as I said in the old forum, if they don't like it leave.:mad:

[Smiley]

Upon hearing today's announcement, Arai have introduced a new helmet.

Designed for the turban wearer and available in blue only, this exciting new Arai helmet will be known as the Marge Simpson.

[Malks]

I have to agree that the decisions made in BC and Manitoba were wrong. Justice Blacklock showed the proper decision and rightly said that you must wear an approved helmet when you ride a motorcycle in this province. As noted by Swervin, one law for all. Frankly, I am surprised that the judge made this ruling, I was expecting just the opposite based on the the BC and Manitoba decisions.

There can be no exceptions when it comes to safety and protecting against injuries. What's next, a court challenge to the Occupational Health and Safety Act that requires all workers on a construction site to wear a hard hat, or has that already happened?

[KZDon]

I find it interesting that in the three provinces that this issue has been raised in court, two different conclusions were reached. Why would BC and Manitoba have allowed exemptions for Sikhs, but not Ontario?

I realize that the size of our nation creates regional differences, but isn't a motorcyclist in BC, Manitoba and Ontario a bird of the same feather?

The simple answer is in the differences between the Ontario Human Rights Code and its application, and the relevant legislation in BC and Manitoba. Probably a more complicated reason is in the differences in the three provinces' legal and legislative approaches to the issue.

As you'll see in Justice Blacklock's decision (and as an aside, the Supreme Court of Canada just heard, and will shortly release a decision in Keays v Honda in which one of the main issues is whether courts can rule on an area of law in Ontario, Human Rights, that has normally been the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal) he had to decide whether the province was accomodating Badesha to the point of undue hardship. If accomodation would have created undue hardship for the province then the province does not have to make accomodation.

What isn't in the newspaper story, and I'll be making sure I get a copy of Justice Blacklock's decision, is that His Honour had to decide that Badesha was in fact being discriminated against before getting to the question of accomodation.

I'm still not quite sure why Badesha dealt with this in the courts rather than by making a complaint to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I'm fairly certain the Human Rights Tribunal would have come up with the opposite answer.

And in any case, do any of you give a big rat's poop about these legal intracies????

[TimP]

Actually, yes. The legal intricacies give us a much more solid foundation for our positions (whatever they may be) than taking issues with heritage or custom, religious persuasion, place of birth or length of time in the country. Thanks!

[Rocking Couple]

Actually, yes. The legal intricacies give us a much more solid foundation for our positions (whatever they may be) than taking issues with heritage or custom, religious persuasion, place of birth or length of time in the country. Thanks!

Legal intricacies have been manipulated in the past, and will be in future. Heritage, custom, religious persuasion, place of birth and length of time in the country, notwithstanding.

[Sidecar Bob]

Seikhs were in this country long before these laws were passed. They were allowed to fight & die in our army during the war without standard issue helmets.

Helmet laws have been on the books in Ontario for about 30 years. You can't make a law that infringes on an established religious requirement. My question is: Why wasn't this law been challenged on religious grounds before?

If they want to operate motorcycles without helmets and can find insurance that will cover them while doing so I see no problem with it.

[New & reborn Priest]

And where the hell have you been all this time...?

Members of the Sikh nation have been resident, active and productive citizens on the left coast of Canada for longer than most of our families have been here. The very conspicuous large numbers of ragtops in and around Vancouver are not all Johnnies-come-lately.

But a law is a law. It applies equally to all of us. If the Highway Code says we all drive on the righthand side of the road, then the man is an outlaw (and a danger to everone) who drives on the left. If the law of the Canadian Legion says that everyone take of their headgear when they enter, that applies to my baseball cap, your helmet, and this other guy's turban. The other choice is not be there.

[TimP]

Bob! You're back! Good to hear from you, and a contrarian position at that.

It seems to me that we're arguing pro & con on only one side of this debate - should a law be permitted to discriminate? Of course it should. What is there to abide by if everyone agrees and no effort is required (hence no laws compelling sneezing). But which law are we discussing? Why is only the Highway Code being challenged?

There is another side to this, and another law-making authority that Mr. Bedesha has not explored, at least not publicly: Has he approached his religious authority to seek permission to have a motorcycle helmet classified as an acceptable turban? I was not being facetious when I suggested this earlier (was that on the old board? I forget).

Not being a Sikh scholar I can't tell you what the "You must wear a Turban" religious law compels Sikhs to do, but I suspect it's somewhat like the Jewish or Muslim (and other?) laws requiring adherents to cover their heads. Motorcycle helmets do that, so why the fuss? What is stopping Mr. Badesha from adhering to religious tenets while enjoying a toot on his scoot? Is he not a Sikh unless yards of cloth are wound bulkily around his head? Do Sikhs get special dispensation temporarily when they wash their hair? Do they wash their hair? I don't care, that's up to them to figure out.

And it doesn't stop there. Do Sikhs live their lives constantly choosing between their personal and professional activities and their religion? I guess they must. It seems to me they're likely to give up a lot if they can't work this out. They'll have to go to court to become astronauts, pilots, firefighters, race car drivers, hockey players, even construction workers. And they'll have to weigh their personal safety against religious edicts every time they ride a bicycle, ski, snowboard, rollerblade, scuba dive or pick up a baseball bat. What does Mr. Badesha's religious authority say about those activities? Has he even asked?

Until he seeks (no pun intended) a ruling on that, most of us will dismiss him as a mere irritant. And rightly so.

[Uwe W.]

Not being a Sikh scholar I can't tell you what the "You must wear a Turban" religious law compels Sikhs to do, but I suspect it's somewhat like the Jewish or Muslim (and other?) laws requiring adherents to cover their heads. Motorcycle helmets do that, so why the fuss?

In the case of Sikhs, the turban isn't about keeping their heads covered. The origin of the Sikh turban can be traced back to around 1700 when a Guru named Gobind Singh established the Khalsa ('The Pure') order. Those baptised into the Khalsa uphold the highest Sikh virtues and strictly follow the Sikh Code of Conduct and Conventions, which include the wearing of prescribed physical articles of the faith. Men are not allowed to cut their hair, and are required to keep it covered with a turban.

The turban, which is a symbol of dignity, was transformed by Gobind Singh into a religious requirement so that the Khalsa would always have high self-esteem. It differentiates Sikhs from other religious followers who keep long hair but wear caps or keep matted hair. The turban cannot be covered by any other head gear or replaced by a cap or hat. The turban is mandatory for Sikh men and optional for Sikh women.

Except for kacha (underwear) and the turban, there are no restrictions on the dress of a Khalsa, but it should be kept simple and modest.

I did a lot of reading at various Sikh websites to get this info, and from what I could gather there doesn't seem to be any leeway on the wearing of turbans. Even if they could wear a helmet AS a turban, I doubt the amount of hair they have would make a fit possible.

On the lighter side of things, this website was a bizarre find: http://www.ratemyturban.com/

[TimP]

So, no Sikh astronauts, downhill skiers or construction workers either, then?

Makes life kinda limiting, I guess. But it does make Mr.Badesha's somewhat lackadaisical reaction to the Judge's order easier to understand. This is just one more minor impediment in exchange for dignity. See? It does come down to personal choice!

What employment restrictions might the kacha clause imply? No boxers? (Sorry!)

[Sidecar Bob]

Sikhs with turbans are allowed to operate motorcycles without wearing helmets in India and the UK, both of which rewquire helmets otherwise. I wonder what the statistics would say about their chances of having head damage in motorcycle accidents.

BTW: In some places Sikhs are allowed to wear their turbans in lieu of construction hard hats.

Re where the hell I've been: I told you I'd be back if they fixed the forum. It wasn't you bunch of misfits I couldn't take. It was the sheer incompetence that brought about the previous forum.

[KZDon]

It wasn't you bunch of misfits I couldn't take. It was the sheer incompetence that brought about the previous forum.

Geez Bob, I can feel the love from here. Welcome back to the ranch.

When your next train show visit to Midland?

[Sidecar Bob]

The Midland show is on May 24 & 25th. Our club will not have a layout there this year, but a number of our members will be attending the show.

The Lindsay show is scheduled for April 12 & 13, assuming the municipal workers' strike ends. We are supposed to move to a new clubroom in the next few weeks too, so we won't be participating in any out of town shows this spring.

[metalredneck]

the turban-wearer in question has decided to appeal the decision. enjoy paying your taxes to fund his probable head trauma.:D