He did laps at 110 km/h to prove turban held tight

[totalmotorcycle]

He did laps at 110 km/h to prove turban held tight
Observant Sikh challenges Ontario motorcycle regulations
February 15, 2008 - By KIRK MAKIN - Globe and Mail - theglobeandmail.com


BRAMPTON, Ont. — A devout Sikh all his life, Baljinder Badesha never imagined that his religious devotion would compel him to race a motorcycle around an Ontario speedway to test whether turbans unravel at high speeds.

The bizarre image of Mr. Badesha's experiment last year - conducted under the auspices of the Ontario Human Rights Commission - was evoked during a constitutional challenge to a law that forces motorcycle riders to wear a helmet.

Ontario Court Judge James Blacklock was told yesterday that, in order to disprove a Crown theory that turbans unravel at high speed and cause accidents, Mr. Badesha drove around Cayuga Speedway at 110 kilometres an hour.

His turban held fast.


Baljinder Singh breaks the law Thursday by riding his motorcycle without a helmet in Brampton, Ont. Manitoba and British Columbia exempt Sikhs from such rules. (J.P. Moczulzki for The Globe and Mail)

Mr. Badesha and the human rights commission maintain the helmet law discriminates against Sikhs because their religion obliges them to cover their long hair with nothing more than a turban.

"Observant Sikhs are put in the impossible position of choosing between ordinary, everyday activities and observing their faith," said lawyer Scott Hutchison, who is representing the OHRC. "That is religious discrimination."

Mel Sokosky, a lawyer for Mr. Badesha, said his client is far too religious to consider compromising his beliefs. "Mr. Badesha's desire is not a trivial pursuit," he said. "This is not a game he is playing. He isn't here to waste the court's time. This is a matter of primary importance to Mr. Badesha."

In an interview, Mr. Hutchison said the Cayuga turban test became necessary after the Crown declared that an expert it had hired proved that turbans unravel rapidly in 100 km/h winds.

The Crown's test had been carried out by a professional engineer who purchased a mannequin head, mounted it on a stick and then placed the assemblage in a wind tunnel.

However, Mr. Hutchison was unable to find a documented case anywhere in the world where a Sikh motorcyclist's turban had unravelled. Skeptical, he persuaded the OHRC to authorize its own test.

After he confronted the Crown with the dramatically different test result, prosecutors conceded that their engineer had grossly miscalculated the force of the wind he had generated to batter the imitation head, Mr. Hutchison said.

In fact, the device had been subjected to a 300 km/h wind.

Mr. Badesha, a 39-year-old father of four who immigrated to Canada in 1989 and had been an avid motorcyclist in his native India, said in an interview yesterday that he was charged in mid-2005, about a month after he purchased his 2003 Honda Shadow.

He noted that Sikh soldiers have never worn helmets, and argued that Sikhs should be left alone to make their own decisions about motorcycle gear.

"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."

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.

[totalmotorcycle]

Hummm...

Not sure how to comment on this one other than I don't think it's fair to non-Sikh's. Right now the laws are everyone wears a helmet reguardless of religion, sex, race or creed.

I believe wearing a helmet is a sensable thing to do myself. BUT, if you are going to let only 1 type of person the option of NOT wearing a helmet, isn't that religious discrimination???

Mike

[ceemes]

Personally, I'd rather have on a turban then one of these stupid things:



I figure a full turban offers more padding and protect more of you head then a beanie cap. Of course, I wear a full face helmet coz I am ugly enough as it is and don't need to be kissing the pavement with my face.

[totalmotorcycle]

Now, we don't know how BIG this turban would be really to be safe and legal like...

If it looks like this... well, I must just accept it! Although if THAT fell off at high speeds, it could cause quite the jam-up on the freeway.

[totalmotorcycle]

UPDATE TIME:



Sikh helmet law challenge dismissed
Thursday, March 06, 2008 - By Jordana Huber, Canwest News Service


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, Ontario Superior Court Justice James Blacklock ruled helmetless motorcycle riding involved the "imposition" of significant extra safety risks that would pose an "undue hardship" on the province.

Mr. 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 practice his religion requiring him to wear a turban at all times while outside his home.

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

Allowing Mr. 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," Mr. Blacklock ruled.

Mr. 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," Mr. Badesha said outside court. "It is against our religion."

Mr. Badesha and more than a dozen supporters vowed to start lobbying the government for an exemption to the helmet law, similar to those in British Columbia and in Manitoba.

In his judgment, Mr. Blacklock said the fact B.C. and Manitoba have exemptions allowing devout Sikhs to ride without a helmet does not mean Ontario is compelled to follow suit.

The province has a "legitimate state interest" in avoiding the "extra significant expense" associated with motorcycle accidents, Mr. Blacklock wrote.

"This is just a show of ignorance," said Mr. Badesha supporter, Mangat Manjit. "We have to educate this community more. The government and decision makers don't know about our culture and religion."

Mr. Badesha was issued a $110 ticket in September 2005 after being stopped by police while riding his Honda Shadow without a helmet.

He has one month to pay the fine and his lawyer said he will "very quickly" decide whether to appeal the decision.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission, which sought intervener status in the case on Mr. Badesha's behalf, said it also was reviewing the decision.

In 1999, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal found the province's Motor Vehicle Act "discriminated against members of the Sikh religion who wear turbans as a bona fide article of their faith."

Avtar Singh Dhillon filed a complaint with the tribunal in 1995 after he was told he would not be allowed to take a novice road test on his motorcycle because he refused to wear a helmet.

Ontario's attorney general said the province had no plans to legislate an exemption for devout Sikhs to ride without helmets.

"We thought it was important the judge hear about public safety," Chris Bentley said. "He did and the provision in the law was upheld."

[Johnj]

Who needs religious freedom anyway.

[High_Side]

totalmotorcycle wrote:


I thnk that I see a Snell sticker on there somewhere :mrgreen:

[dean owens]

it's not like he has to ride a motorcycle. i'm personally one of those crazy americans that believes you should be able to make the choice to be dumb. but i know that up in canada there is nationalized health care and that changes everything. i got no problem with the ruling.

[blues2cruise]

Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

[ofblong]

blues2cruise wrote: Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

well I think its stupid that I could get fired for talking with my buddies off at a table in the corner of a break room for talking about religion during my break time.

[Johnj]

ofblong wrote: blues2cruise wrote: Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

well I think its stupid that I could get fired for talking with my buddies off at a table in the corner of a break room for talking about religion during my break time.

You can get fired for talking about religion? How about politics?

[dean owens]

blues2cruise wrote: Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

it can get annoying... and this is coming from a pretty "conservative" "evangelical type" campus minister :shock: i don't like it when people use their faith (whether christian or not) to get special treatment or when they try to use the government to progress their beliefs or agenda. (some things are a grey area but that's another subject.) but i do believe that people should have the freedom to practice what they want as long as it doesn't interfere (didn't say offend or bother) with anyone else's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. and some rules should be bent/broken for some groups...
- sikhs being able to wear their covering in places where you're not allowed to wear a hat.
- rastafarians being able to keep their dreads in prison when everyone else has to cut their hair
- etc.
but there is nothing (that i know of) that says a sikh has to ride a motorcycle and they have to do it without a helmet. i would have no problem with them getting a break, but i also have no problem saying that they don't get any special consideration here. sometimes it's a fine line.

i also know this is working somewhat on my mind set where we have freedom of religion. is something like that in your constitution? i would assume so, but i've been wrong before :wink:

[dean owens]

Johnj wrote: ofblong wrote: blues2cruise wrote: Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

well I think its stupid that I could get fired for talking with my buddies off at a table in the corner of a break room for talking about religion during my break time.

You can get fired for talking about religion? How about politics?

that's what i'm thinking. where do you work? the old soviet union or china?

[blues2cruise]

dean owens wrote: blues2cruise wrote: Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

it can get annoying... and this is coming from a pretty "conservative" "evangelical type" campus minister :shock: i don't like it when people use their faith (whether christian or not) to get special treatment or when they try to use the government to progress their beliefs or agenda. (some things are a grey area but that's another subject.) but i do believe that people should have the freedom to practice what they want as long as it doesn't interfere (didn't say offend or bother) with anyone else's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. and some rules should be bent/broken for some groups...
- sikhs being able to wear their covering in places where you're not allowed to wear a hat.
- rastafarians being able to keep their dreads in prison when everyone else has to cut their hair
- etc.
but there is nothing (that i know of) that says a sikh has to ride a motorcycle and they have to do it without a helmet. i would have no problem with them getting a break, but i also have no problem saying that they don't get any special consideration here. sometimes it's a fine line.

i also know this is working somewhat on my mind set where we have freedom of religion. is something like that in your constitution? i would assume so, but i've been wrong before :wink:

Yes, people have freedom of religion. We also have the right for peaceful protests.
I can call our Prime Minister a dufus and not get arrested for it. :mrgreen:

Here is my take on religion.

Once upon a time, someone decided to play god. He (and I have no doubt it was a he) siad that we shall make all these dumb rules and force people to follow them.
Then of course as time went by and new generations were born, they got taught the same dumb rules and so on and so forth until all the dumb rules became "custom". If a dumb rule can be made, it can also be changed.

Like for instance what they do to young girls in some parts of Africa. Once upon a time someone decided that women must be mutilated in order to be true to her husband.
It became law and so became custom.
It is now being outlawed and the customs are slowly changing.

The same thing can happen with religion.

As for the turban wearing rider.....he can either wear a helmet in place of is turban or he simply does not ride.
He can take a bus, a taxi, or drive a car.

OK..rant over.
I don't know what it is like where you live, but here on the west coast of Canada, the immigrants now outnumber the born heres. I was born here as was my Mom.
With the inlux of so many immigrants over the last 20 years, we have become like a United Nations here. So many different languages, ethinc restaurants and shops., etc. While this may make it very interesting and diverse, it also brings with it a lot of friction.

Suddenly all the different religious groups want to change all the rules. Walk around the lower mainland and you will be able to find all sorts of different churches. Sikh temples, synagogues and even Hare Krishna temple. We don't care. You can have your religion and practice it.....but....
Quit trying to change our laws and quit trying to make us lose our culture.
Yes, that has been happening...here and in the states.

Merry Christmas.

[ofblong]

dean owens wrote: Johnj wrote: ofblong wrote: blues2cruise wrote: Most of us here have no problem with the ruling.

The law should supercede any religious thing.

I'm not religious and I sure do get tired of all the religions in my face every day.
I think I may make a constitutional challenge about my right to zero religion in public. :mrgreen:

well I think its stupid that I could get fired for talking with my buddies off at a table in the corner of a break room for talking about religion during my break time.

You can get fired for talking about religion? How about politics?

that's what i'm thinking. where do you work? the old soviet union or china?

If someone doesnt like what your talking about they can go right in for harrassement. Even if they arent part of the conversation. We had someone who was talking about how they didnt like a particular politician for whaterver reason. Someone didnt like it and went to HR. he got fired. friggen rediculous. Some people dont like god and dont want to hear about it in the break room so they will goto HR and get that person fired because they dont want to hear about it on their break time. Thats what america is turning into. Bunch of "exceptional people" that cant handle someone is talking to someone else and enjoying the conversation. Pissed off cause they werent asked to "join" the conversation.