Multiculturalism in Canada

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

You honestly think I am ill-informed?

Based on the comment I was reacting to, yes.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by acottawa

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

And?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Based on the comment I was reacting to, yes.

My comment certainly reflects the general direction of things.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My comment certainly reflects the general direction of things.

No, it does not. Again, please do some reading on the legal doctrine of reasonable accomodation in Canada and all shall become clear.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

No, it does not. Again, please do some reading on the legal doctrine of reasonable accomodation in Canada and all shall become clear.

Thanks for the advice but I've read plenty about this principle, and even followed the Bouchard-Taylor Commission... umm... religiously. And they studied every single tenant and aboutissant of the notion, trust me.

Reasonable accommodation was initially about persons with disabilities, and how they could be effectively and respectfully integrated into various aspects of society, often professional, educational, institutional, etc.

Since then, it's evolved (some would say it's been usurped) and come to primarily involve accommodation for various religious and cultural practices.

Hence my comments about an immediate future of more and more requests for accommodation (generally religious and cultural in nature), and a fairly generalized granting of such requests. With the occasional exceptional denial.

[ssiguy]

This Sikh helmet exemption makes my blood boil and is the kind of thing where the general population feels that multicultural accommodation has gone too far.

I have epilepsy and couldn't drive for 15 years but I accepted the situation because of my concern for others on the road based on the fact that I also knew that driving is a PRIVLEGE and not a right. No one has the right to drive. Period. If someone has a religious/cultural problem with that then too damn bad. Life is based on choices and if they choose to wear a turban instead of a helmet then then they must also know that their choice means they have forfeited their privilege of driving.


If the government feels they should capitulate for political gain then insurance companies should also be able to be exempt from providing personal injury insurance. They should have to have theft and insurance for the damages they may cause others but if they get injured then they can damn well pay their own medical bills and forget about potential long term disability claims.

[Pavlov]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's basically where I am too.

[Acajack]

What's really interesting in the context of applying accommodation and discrimination policies, regulations and laws is how religion has pretty much attained an innate, unchangeable status in the same way that skin colour, gender and disabilities are. (I'd add that sexual orientation has this status as well now. There is probably a greater consensus for that than there is for religion.)

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Why not?

Because requiring people to wear helmets is a reasonable measure to help ensure that people will be safer when riding a motorcycle. I want people to be safe and healthy. It's a bit paternalistic, but I think it's reasonable and helps motorcyclists.

Reasonable policies work for reasonable people. If some of the Sikhs are going to make a big stink about this and cry about religious discrimination and how they are special snowflakes who are victims, then whatever. I don't think this is a hill worth dying on. I wouldn't expend any political capital on this or make it a polarizing issue. The morons who elect to wear a turban in lieu of a helmet can go ride a motorcycle and risk greater injury for all I care. The idiots who really try to do this will be thinned from the herd over time -- it's a problem that corrects itself.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

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?

You think the helmet accommodation is bad? Wait until you hear about the courts allowing the Sikhs to carry daggers (even children and adolescents). Even some of the Sikhs without turbans have the daggers. So theoretically some of them could be wearing helmets and carrying daggers, making it a lethal combo.

[saffronleaf]

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 agree. I'm willing to exempt the Sikhs from any and all safety regulations intended for their well being promptly upon request.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

You think the helmet accommodation is bad? Wait until you hear about the courts allowing the Sikhs to carry daggers (even children and adolescents). Even some of the Sikhs without turbans have the daggers. So theoretically some of them could be wearing helmets and carrying daggers, making it a lethal combo.

Sikhs are already allowed to carry kirpans pretty much anywhere, afaik. Even onto aircraft, if they conform to requirements, again afaik. I'm not sure I understand how you get to the "helmet/kirpan lethal combo" thing.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Sikhs are already allowed to carry kirpans pretty much anywhere, afaik. Even onto aircraft, if they conform to requirements, again afaik. I'm not sure I understand how you get to the "helmet/kirpan lethal combo" thing.

Yea sorry if my post was confusing, I meant to convey that courts had already done this. Kirpans = daggers. And yes, they can carry it anywhere in Canada, including children and adolescents in grade school.

[saffronleaf]

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.

It's not like they let Hindus consume cannabis beverages on account of religious accommodation. Daggers? Oh ok nbd. A joint?! No way.

[Acajack]

I have to say I do not find many of the most recent arguments in favour of the helmet exemption very compelling.

If we are just gonna bend like this from now on maybe de should do away with a bunch of these things meant to enhance people's safety. And let them live with the consequences.

It's a bit sad though because I thought we'd settled this stuff 40 years ago.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to say I do not find many of the most recent arguments in favour of the helmet exemption very compelling.

If we are just gonna bend like this from now on maybe de should do away with a bunch of these things meant to enhance people's safety. And let them live with the consequences.

It's a bit sad though because I thought we'd settled this stuff 40 years ago.

It's one thing to let a group of people hurt themselves as otherwise they'll keep complaining about it, but what do you think of the daggers? Daggers can hurt others, too.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

It's one thing to let a group of people hurt themselves as otherwise they'll keep complaining about it, but what do you think of the daggers? Daggers can hurt others, too.

I know that there have been issues with kirpans over the years. I wasn't up on the latest but checked and last fall CATSA changed its policy to allow kirpans through security and onto planes provided they were 6 cm or less. Which is the size of a pen or less I gather. Some countries also allow this, some don't. The US does not.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I have to say I do not find many of the most recent arguments in favour of the helmet exemption very compelling.

If we are just gonna bend like this from now on maybe de should do away with a bunch of these things meant to enhance people's safety. And let them live with the consequences.

It's a bit sad though because I thought we'd settled this stuff 40 years ago.

I don't think there really are any "compelling" arguments in favour of the helmet exemption. The Ontario courts established that ten years ago. This is a purely political decision to accomodate that overturns the jurisprudence in Ontario.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

It's one thing to let a group of people hurt themselves as otherwise they'll keep complaining about it, but what do you think of the daggers? Daggers can hurt others, too.

I guess I would have to ask whether there has ever been a case in Canada of a Sikh using his kirpan to initiate an attack on someone?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I guess I would have to ask whether there has ever been a case in Canada of a Sikh using his kirpan to initiate an attack on someone?

Yes, there have been. Though they're extremely rare.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...cerns-1.897362

I believe there may also have been a case in a school in Montreal at one point. The kid was being intimidated and attacked other kids with his kirpan. Or something like that. Not sure if he was being intimidated because he was a Sikh or for some other reason.

In any event, regardless of one's views on the subject, I've never found the argument for allowing large kirpans (where other types of knives would be banned) based on the defence that "Sikhs are peaceful and would never use them, as it's just ceremonial" to be very convincing.

Box cutters were never/have hardly ever been used violently either, and look what happened on Sept. 11, 2001.