Multiculturalism in Canada

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Exactly what he said. Issues like this show the awkward hypocrisy of 'tolerance'. Either the rules apply regardless of religion or they do not, anything else is discrimination and goes against the principals of a secular state. This is crystal clear, but gets ignored by those peddling these policies for political reasons.

I fail to see how/why a law that "discriminates" in terms of religion would be seen as any different from the myriad laws that discrimiate based on age, or any other criteria one chooses. Given the well-established doctrine of reasonable accomodation in Canada, there is no conflict with Canada's secular status. The complaint lacks logic, istm.

For the record, I don't think allowing Sikhs to ride motorcycles without helmets is a particularly good idea, although it's not something I'll lose sleep over.

[milomilo]

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either and agree it is minor. But just because it is small does not make it any less of a discrimination either positively to Sikhs, or negatively to everyone else. Things like this are a step in the wrong direction and as this thread is showing, the more 'tolerant' types just can't, or refuse to, see it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it either and agree it is minor. But just because it is small does not make it any less of a discrimination either positively to Sikhs, or negatively to everyone else. Things like this are a step in the wrong direction and as this thread is showing, the more 'tolerant' types just can't, or refuse to, see it.

When you add up all of these minor instances together (gender neutral pronouns, voting with your face covered, bans on using the word Christmas, etc.), it does have the potential to lead a lot of mushy middle people to a less tolerant place.

I am not making a threat here BTW. Just being realistic about human nature.

[CityTech]

It doesn't really harm anyone. I'm all in favour of religious/cultural accommodations if it doesn't hurt anyone other than the person requesting the accommodation, which a helmet exemption for Sikhs fits perfectly into. Forcing people to violate their religious/cultural accommodations when there is nobody getting hurt (and thus no valid social interest), is just prejudice.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by CityTech

It doesn't really harm anyone. I'm all in favour of religious/cultural accommodations if it doesn't hurt anyone other than the person requesting the accommodation, which a helmet exemption for Sikhs fits perfectly into. Forcing people to violate their religious/cultural accommodations when there is nobody getting hurt (and thus no valid social interest), is just prejudice.

I think there are several externalities here including health care costs and increased pressure on first responders. In Ontario a motorcycle is less a transportation means and more of a hobby.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think there are several externalities here including health care costs and increased pressure on first responders. In Ontario a motorcycle is less a transportation means and more of a hobby.

Something to revisit in a couple years time, but likely trivial, in the scheme of things. I'm assuming all the cost/risk analysis has been done by DoFo's team in anticipation of this ...

By the way, does this means Ontario will join B.C. and Manitoba in having the no-helmet exception? Are there any others?

[milomilo]

Alberta, sadly, just joined the bandwagon.

If not wearing a helmet is no big deal, then allow everyone to ride without one. That is the only non-discrimantory way to go.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

It doesn't really harm anyone. I'm all in favour of religious/cultural accommodations if it doesn't hurt anyone other than the person requesting the accommodation, which a helmet exemption for Sikhs fits perfectly into. Forcing people to violate their religious/cultural accommodations when there is nobody getting hurt (and thus no valid social interest), is just prejudice.

Even if there are blips (as mentioned in one of my first posts - I was surprised the Wynne Liberals said no to this), generally speaking the approach from officials and institutions in most of Canada is that pretty much any form of cultural or religious accommodation or exemption will be granted provided it stops short of something serious like murder.

I am not actually sure if this almost unlimited openness will last in the medium term, but in the short term that's definitely where we're at.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Alberta, sadly, just joined the bandwagon.

If not wearing a helmet is no big deal, then allow everyone to ride without one. That is the only non-discrimantory way to go.

You need to get past this "discriminatory" business. Lots of laws discriminate for lots of different reasons.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if there are blips (as mentioned in one of my first posts - I was surprised the Wynne Liberals said no to this), generally speaking the approach from officials and institutions in most of Canada is that pretty much any form of cultural or religious accommodation or exemption will be granted provided it stops short of something serious like murder.

I am not actually sure if this almost unlimited openness will last in the medium term, but in the short term that's definitely where we're at.

That is factually incorrect. You need to inform yourself about the legal doctrine of reasonable accomodation.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That is factually incorrect. You need to inform yourself about the legal doctrine of reasonable accomodation.

You honestly think I am ill-informed?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

That is factually incorrect. You need to inform yourself about the legal doctrine of reasonable accomodation.

Courts have already ruled against Sikhs being exempted from helmet laws. This is a purely political question.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

You need to get past this "discriminatory" business. Lots of laws discriminate for lots of different reasons.

Some of them even for good reasons.

In the end, though, if it's reasonable to allow Sikhs to ride helmetless because the cost to society is minimal then it's also reasonable to allow non-Sikhs the same freedom.

[Mikemike]

Originally Posted by CityTech

It doesn't really harm anyone. I'm all in favour of religious/cultural accommodations if it doesn't hurt anyone other than the person requesting the accommodation, which a helmet exemption for Sikhs fits perfectly into. Forcing people to violate their religious/cultural accommodations when there is nobody getting hurt (and thus no valid social interest), is just prejudice.

Maybe I missed it, but who is forcing anyone to ride motorcycles?

[acottawa]

CDC has some interesting data.

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/mc/index.html

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

You need to get past this "discriminatory" business. Lots of laws discriminate for lots of different reasons.

I don't need to get past it and this is the type of glossing over facts which I'm talking about. Discrimination is discrimination, whatever you're talking about may be for good reasons, it may not be. But discriminating peoples rights based on their personal beliefs cannot be acceptable in a secular nation. If I have a hat that's special to me, why is my hat worth less than someone elses?

Are we a secular nation BTW? I'm not actually sure.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't need to get past it and this is the type of glossing over facts which I'm talking about. Discrimination is discrimination, whatever you're talking about may be for good reasons, it may not be. But discriminating peoples rights based on their personal beliefs cannot be acceptable in a secular nation. If I have a hat that's special to me, why is my hat worth less than someone elses?

Are we a secular nation BTW? I'm not actually sure.

What is a secular nation?

Does it mean a state which prohibits religion? That pretends that religion does not exist? That places no value on religion or religious practices?

I have no idea. However, for better or worse, I do not think that Canada, as it stands now, is any of those things. So if that is what a "secular nation" is, then Canada is not currently a secular nation.

[milomilo]

According to the Oracle, wikipedia, it is this:

A secular state is an idea pertaining to secularity, whereby a state is or purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.[1] A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion (established religion) or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not necessarily mean that a state is fully secular.

Which sounds reasonable. If that is a good definition, then this helmet law clearly is out of line with those principles. Secular means you can believe whatever you want, but you don't get special treatment because of those beliefs.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Courts have already ruled against Sikhs being exempted from helmet laws. This is a purely political question.

I'm curious as to how this is enforced - religion being a personal set of spiritual beliefs and all. Can't exactly whip out your religious identity card on demand, after all.

So, does one have to actually be wearing a turban to be allowed the exemption, or are "soft" Sikhs permitted as well? What about a non-Sikh wearing a turban for whatever reason - or groups like Rastas who also have vaguely similar rules about their hair? And how about Sikh women - are they also exempt from helmet laws, or does it only apply to men?

Worth noting that wearing a helmet in and of itself isn't actually against anyone's spiritual beliefs - and there do exist modified helmets meant to accommodate Sikhs in particular, so I'm not sure this is even really necessary in the name of reasonable accommodation. My preference, for the record though, would be to just make helmets non-mandatory for everyone.

[Acajack]

I see stuff like motorcycle helmet laws, flotation device laws and seat belt laws to be the marks of an enlightened society.

I am not up in arms about this but on the other hand I am not going to rejoice as parts of that get chipped away, or ask for more chops of the axe onto the walls of the edifice.