Two Things
In one post, because I don’t have a lot of time today.
Ontario Human Rights Commission intervenes in motorcycle helmet case involving religious accommodation
TORONTO, Feb. 14 /CNW/ – The Commission will appear as an intervener at the Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton on February 14 and 15, 2008, in the case of R. v. Badesha.
Mr. Badesha, a devout Sikh who, in observance of his faith, wears a turban, was charged with operating a motorcycle on a highway without wearing a helmet contrary to the Highway Traffic Act. Mr. Badesha is seeking to be excused from this requirement for religious reasons.
The Commission is intervening as the case involves the interpretation and application of Ontario’s Human Rights Code and will be taking a position in support of Mr. Badesha’s request for religious accommodation.
Unfortunately I can see this being framed by the media as an “immigration” issue as opposed to an informed “personal choice” issue. According to an article in the Toronto Star Badesha says
he understands the inherent dangers of riding a motorcycle without a helmet but is willing to take the risk to follow his Sikh tenets.
Would that our various levels of government allowed us to make those sorts of personal decisions ‘eh?
|
Mall Of America / Say ’speed knitting’ and watch needles fly
Talk about a stitch in time.
The fastest yarn slingers in the world are going to cross needles and hooks in the speed knitting and speed crocheting world championships Saturday at the Mall of America.
The textile smack-down promises to bring together probably the speediest field of needle wielders ever in one place, including two Guinness world record holders, defending world champions and professional knitters from at least five countries at a confab described as the biggest knitting event on the continent.
How did knitting go from gentle practical skill and homey hobby to international sport with opponents training hours a day and employing speed-enhancing techniques ranging from special needles to metronomes to breathing exercises?
Blame something called the Knit-Out, an annual event to promote knitting started by the Craft Yarn Council of America.
International speed knitting? Metronomes? Breathing exercises?
What has my grandmothers world of home made mittens and scarves as signs of love and affection come to anyway… can allegations of steroid use, urine testing, and congressional investigations be far behind?
|
This entry was posted by
stageleft on Friday, February 15th, 2008 and is filed under
Religion.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the
RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
One by-law to rule them all would be nice. But of course “religious freedom” will supersede “the law”. Hey, nothing in my religion says driving 200kph down the Gardiner is wrong, but wearing safety gear which could mitigate the traumatic scene of my brain matter leaving a 200 meter skid mark? Against my religion. Sorry.
You’re comparing street cars and pomegranates Raphael.
200k/h down the Gardner is a “public” safety issue, helmets are a “personal” safety issue…. unless of course your premise is that the reason I am forced to wear a helmet is to possibly mitigate the potential trauma others may experience if I have an accident and my gray matter gets spread across the road?
Please tell me you’re not serious.
Do we now have some new right to be protected against potentially traumatic scenes in traffic accidents? Does that extend to other potentially traumatic accidents or events? Does it included all vehicles, or just some? Convertibles maybe? Is there some sort of general trauma scale to guide lawmakers in their decisions? How much trauma are we being protected against anyway?
…. and most importantly how do I know if I’ve been illegally traumatized or not, and if I have been, who do I sue?
I’m kind of in the middle on this turban/helmet thing.
I think that youth (anyone under the age of 18) should be required to abide by all safety laws, while anyone over the age of 18 should have that freedom to choose whether or not they want to wear a turban instead of a helmet.
What about a knitted helmet?
Why do we need government mandating us to wear helmets anyway? Left to their own devices, people will figure it out. I remember when the helmet law was thrown out here for about 6 months in ‘87 or ‘88, and half the time I wore a helmet anyway (because it kept my head warm).
People don’t need stupid, intrusive laws to tell them what to do “for their own good”, I think most of us can figure out what’s in our best interests. Helmet laws, seatbelt laws etc are just government cash cows, IMHO.
/rant
You know what, I got no problem with that dude not wearing a helmet, but I don’t want my tax-dollars helping him out if he becomes a paraplegic. There’s a law in place because the government has deemed that biking without a helmut is too much of a risk to our healthcare system. I don’t care if there’s brains on the ground, but I don’t want my taxes to clean em up.
Actually, most of this intrusive legislation is the result of insurance company advocacy. Just so you know.
Well, exactly balb. And the fact is, I think that all liability incurred from ignoring helmet laws should be self-incurred. And if a Sikh gets hit in the head with a brick on a construction site, his fault. So long as he assumed all medical costs and liability personally, let him do whatever he wants. From a purely libertarian perspective, I agree with his choice. Of course, he’ll argue he has no choice because his religion mandates his turban. But if we as a society want to keep insurance rates down through claims, proper safety is an essential part of that. Sikhs ignoring this law can have possible effects on insurance payouts and the rising cost of delivering that insurance.
And on a final note, I think that there can be no exemption to rules based on religion. If there is, then that rule fails to be a legitimate rule. So if Sikhs flout the law, then I think all people should be able to flout it.
JJ, seat belts save lives. Some people may not care about their lives, but there are plenty of people who have to clean up the mess. Wow, how uncharacteristically “regressive” a statement, JJ. It’s refreshing, lol.
How about a knitted kevlar turban.
JonZor wrote
“There’s a law in place because the government has deemed that biking without a helmut is too much of a risk to our healthcare system.”
This is an argument against our health care system imho.
As soon as the collective pays your bills they think they have the right to tell you how to behave. Libertarian socialism = oxymoron
Doug: “Libertarian socialism = oxymoron”
Doug, I agree with you 100%. However, I fall of the socialized medicine side of the debate. I don’t begrudge you the right to not wear a helmut, but I don’t want my tx dollars paying for your undue risk. Unless you’re under 18, in which case you should be required to wear a helmut. In which case, enforcement is a bitch. And so we’re back near square one.
Hmm, this is a toughy. I gotta say then, since I’m all for socialized medicine, and since the collective does pay your bills and should not be on the hook for your undue risk, then you gotta wear your damn helmut.
I think we can accommodate Sikhs on this issue. It’s not a speculative religious practice, it’s an actual one. And the burden imposed on socialised health care, in the worst case scenarios, would seem minimal, particularly when we consider the health care costs of any other number of lifestyle choices.
If people are worried about cost, they should really think about actual cost. If people are worried about slippery slopes for religious practices, they should think about actual religious practices.
I am trying to read this post w/o letting my blood boil too much.
If Mr. Sikh has an accident on the highway w/o a helmet on, thus causing a higher than normal cost of healthcare, does he have to pay the difference?
It seems they want all the benefits, but none of the responsibility!
I’d be fine with him going anywhere he wants, on a highway or a construction site, w/o a helmet as long as he pays 100% of the costs of any accident. I don’t want my taxes paying for his future problems!
Hi JonZor
Would your reasoning include a ban on smoking, drinking, eating the wrong stuff, any kind of sports or other risky activity? All as likely to put as big a strain on our health care system as no helmet bike riding.
Give the state an inch and it will take a meter.
The strain on the health care system, imho, started when it was made “free” for all and doctors were turned into civil servants. It used to be that you paid a personal premium to government health care insurance but you were billed directly by the doctor/hospital. You submitted the bill and the government insurance fund paid some or all of it. When I was poor my family doctor did his best to minimize the bill because he was still billing me not the government. Oh – and not only did we have family doctors but some still made house calls.
This system allowed everyone to see what their health care was costing and to make some judgment about the value of the care.
Free is very expensive in this case because the user has no idea of the cost and hasn’t any responsibility to use prudence in the transaction. Very convenient for the health care professionals as well.
I wouldn’t want to see anyone go without basic health services but what we have isn’t cost effective or sustainable.
Both of my parents are alive at 85 and I bet it costs us about $50,000 to $60,000 a year just for their meds. How are you going to keep all of us boomers alive to 120?
I’m still smoking and eating cheese burgers and I think you should encourage me to continue.
Doug, lol, very solid argument.
Motorcycle helmets do not save lives (*). That is not their purpose. Their purpose is to keep the road from getting messy when you kill yourself. They keep your spilled grey matter all in one place for easier disposal.
Anyone doubting that is free to investigate the guarantees made by the best helmet rating system available. I’ll wait while you locate it.
Now, about this arguement of “I don’t wanna pay for his medical if he doesn’t wear a helmet.” Well, I don’t wanna pay for some guy’s kids’ education if he doesn’t wear a condom, either, so we’re even, ‘kay? Yes, it does amount to the same thing. Public money is simply private money stolen by fiat. I don’t like it. You don’t like it. But unless we assassinate the entire government and prevent others from taking their places, we’re stuck with it.
And balbulican has it correct when he says the insurance companies are behind most of the “safety” laws. Contrary to what you are led to believe by your insurance agent, they are not in the business of paying out money. They are in the business of collecting it and keeping it for themselves. And their best friends are the government officials who aid and abet them with “concern” about “public safety,” most of which is specious. Government don’t give a damn about “public safety.” They care about collecting your tax dollars, and they can’t do that if you’re dead.
(* Seat belts do save lives. Different thread, though.)
From a bikers perspective please spare me the outrage. Whether or not your statements mean anything at all have everything to do with how willing you are to have my tax dollars paying the medical bills of the person your mistake, your bad judgment, your misjudgment, your bad luck, or even your outright stupidity, may cause if you get into an accident that is your fault and hurt someone.
Feel free to answer the same question, if the accident is the other guys fault are you gonna demand that he pay up? How about if an accident is your fault? Are you gonna cut me the same break you want me to cut you – or are you gonna take another big pull at the government health care tit.
What was that you said about benefits and responsibility – it’s hollow rhetoric dude unless you are willing to do more than talk the talk.
Awaiting the inevitable “but it’s not the same thing and you know it“, I remain
Your (laughing hysterically at the hypocrisy of it all) pal,
stageleft
After thinking this over for a few hours, I’m going to go uncharacteristically liberal here and say the Sikh should be able to ride without the helmet. But if he gets an exemption, we all should. I don’t believe in the idea “some animals are more equal than others” based on their religious prerogative.
Hi Raphael
I think that you are a liberal. You are just confused by what passes for liberal in this country now days.
No one should be forced by the government to wear a helmet or a seat belt. The nanny state isn’t a liberal concept.
What would a conservative position be on this issue?
We used to be allowed to drive anything up to but not including a semi or school bus with a one size fits all drivers license.
I had an airforce surplus Triumph that I rebuilt and used to ride with the wind in my hair and bugs in my teeth.
If people are worried about their taxes, how’s about we pull out of Afghanistan?
Lord…the nickel and diming…
You’re not going “uncharacteristically liberal” Raphael, aren’t personal choice and responsibility supposed to be tenants of conservatism?
Self labeled conservatives preaching in favour of nanny state regulation need to give their collective heads a shake and ask themselves if they really are conservatives, or if they just like the tag because, as they all know, liberal = bad.
Let me go on record and state that I still believe motorcyclists should be forced to wear helmets. Especially the white males.
Hopefully, in a few years, we’ll outlaw motorcycles altogether.
…*ducks*
Hi stageleft
I think it’s more like, really big capital L (insert Canadian flag here) liberal = Bad.
Don’t make such jokes Ti-Guy, the state already deems it necessary to “save us” from too many things already.
I see a few folks wrote letters to the Toronto Star about helmet laws, here’s a goodie.
An idea our favorite non-Muslim rewriters of the Quran would probably get behind…. I wonder if we could get some of the Christian rules modernized without complaint?