WOW - a court shows some common sense...
- Thread starter dcbogey
- Start date
Actually, they would have ticketed the worker as well. And they can wear their turbans, just have to wear a hardhat over it (which they won't do).landscaper said:
As it stands now it is illegal for anyone to enter a construction site without proper safety gear (hardhat and csa approved work boots). The security guard at the gate shouldn't have allowed the guy in without the proper gear.
I was a site super at a development and if anyone came in without the proper gear then they'd be sent home.
And no doubt a principle reason the decision came down as it did. Yes a right is being denied, but Mr. Badesha has reasonable alternatives.yaya17 said:
Last edited:
Let him not wear a helmet. Just change the law to say that anyone injured while not wearing one has to foot their own medical bill.
I think you meant "denied" but it isn't a right being denied, it isn't one's right to drive, it is a privelege.Aardvark154 said:
Now we have laws written in order to drive in Ontario. If one cannot abide by those laws for whatever reason, no one is forcing him to no abide by those laws just as no one is forcing him to abide by his religion. If he choses, he could NOT abide by his religious laws.
Same as if there was a religion that said one must always be under the influence of marijuana. Does that mean that someone following that religion must drive stoned? No.....
But then again, buddy CAN drive without a helmet, he'll just get ticketed everytime he does. Which is how it should be......
ha ha ha ha
i just had a mental visual....
buddy is driving his bike on the HWY,
& his turban blows of....
i guess he'd be breaking his own religious believes then eh ?
roflamo
.
i just had a mental visual....
buddy is driving his bike on the HWY,
& his turban blows of....
i guess he'd be breaking his own religious believes then eh ?
roflamo
.
rosemount36 said:
Nope, I am a free minded person. If he wants to ride around with no helmet that should be his right to do so. Why should he have to remove his what ever-he was raised never to do that in public. Many other places allow it, why should ON be any different?
The judge is not very understanding, I hope I never have to go in front of him.
You equate enforcing the law with not being understanding. How are the two vaguely related? This judge stands for something - this has nothing to do with being close minded. Where do you draw the line? No seatbelts? Smoke wherever you like? Say whatever you want about anyone you want? You have to stand for something.....there must be limits.......the judge's decision in this case was a perfect balance of communal rights vs, individual rights.S.C. Joe said:
That's where you got it wrong. It's NOT his right to ride around without a helmet on. The law states that a helmet must be worn when operating a motorcycle on public streets.S.C. Joe said:
You want to ride the bike - follow the law.
You don't like the law - don't ride the bike.
It's a really simple situation. We have to respect their custom to wear the turban & kirpan...... & they have to respect our custom to refuse the privilidges of riding motorcycles who don't wear helmets & airplane rides to those armed with knives. We also respect their perrogotive to leave the country & go back to were they came from if they don't like our customs. Simple.
Well I copy this from the Toronto Star paper-online......
The judge said Badesha would have 30 days to pay the fine, but his lawyer Melvin Sokolsky said Badesha may appeal the ruling.
"He has certain rights he wants to uphold," Sokolsky told reporters outside the court.
"It's a process and he understands that, and he's prepared to do it in a lawful and reasonable manner."
Similar challenges have seen exemptions made for Sikh motorcyclists in British Columbia and Manitoba.
The United Kingdom, Hong Kong and India also allow devout Sikhs to forego the helmet.
Sokolsky said his client had hoped Ontario would adopt a similar stance.....
So either those other judges are wrong or this judge is..now this sounds like a good case for the Canada Supreme Court to decide because you all do make some very good points.
Hey, IF he fights it and loses and all his people have to wear a helmet in BC and Manitoba, hes not going to have too many friends
The judge said Badesha would have 30 days to pay the fine, but his lawyer Melvin Sokolsky said Badesha may appeal the ruling.
"He has certain rights he wants to uphold," Sokolsky told reporters outside the court.
"It's a process and he understands that, and he's prepared to do it in a lawful and reasonable manner."
Similar challenges have seen exemptions made for Sikh motorcyclists in British Columbia and Manitoba.
The United Kingdom, Hong Kong and India also allow devout Sikhs to forego the helmet.
Sokolsky said his client had hoped Ontario would adopt a similar stance.....
So either those other judges are wrong or this judge is..now this sounds like a good case for the Canada Supreme Court to decide because you all do make some very good points.
Hey, IF he fights it and loses and all his people have to wear a helmet in BC and Manitoba, hes not going to have too many friends
As they say, yes, but it's not really true. Rights are 100% meaningless without so called privileges.amber-jade said:
The whole basis of his objection is that he has a right due to his religion to avoid wearing safety equipment that is mandated by law so that he has the privlige of operating a motor vehicle in the province of Ontario. The basis of the argument is flawed from the start. He is basing it on the fact that he has a right to drive in the province. He does not the privlige of driving in the province is based on you following the rules. If you do not follow the rules you loose the privlige.
The basis for his argument is that he ownes a bike shop and he has to rest drive the bikes. This was not argued in front of a judge because it was a sure loser.
The basis for his argument is that he ownes a bike shop and he has to rest drive the bikes. This was not argued in front of a judge because it was a sure loser.
Aardvark154 said:
You're right I did, it was probably a spell checking typo. The right in this case has to do with Freedom of Religion. You are of course correct in saying that operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right, but even so a right might conceivably trump that fact. But, in this case the Judge really didn't need to go there since this was not a case where Mr. Badesha had no other reasonable alternative.tboy said:
My understanding is that this gentlemen can wear some sort of scarf on his head that is much less bulky than a turban. It's something Sikks do when they play sports like soccer.
This gentlemen can make an accomdation that would allow him to ride his bike, and observe his religious dogma, but he's just being a trouble making prick.
This gentlemen can make an accomdation that would allow him to ride his bike, and observe his religious dogma, but he's just being a trouble making prick.
Do you think he told his Insurance Company that he was driving without a Helmet? I'm betting that they would have jacked up his rates if not cancelled his policy all together for being wreckless.
I think the judge did the right thing. How would you have liked it if you had been involved in an accident with this guy and he died because he didn't have a brain bucket? Instead of you being possibly charged with a minor traffic violation it would now be upped to Vechlicar Manslaughter, and maybe you'd be sued with a wrongful death suit. All because "his rights" were more important than "your rights".
Why do people feel that their rights supersed the publics?
Don't want to wear a helmet or use safety gear as required by law, then your life is in YOUR hands and if something happens that could have been prevented, too bad. If you religious convictions are so important then be prepared to suffer for them and don't impact on my right to live peacefully.
I think the judge did the right thing. How would you have liked it if you had been involved in an accident with this guy and he died because he didn't have a brain bucket? Instead of you being possibly charged with a minor traffic violation it would now be upped to Vechlicar Manslaughter, and maybe you'd be sued with a wrongful death suit. All because "his rights" were more important than "your rights".
Why do people feel that their rights supersed the publics?
Don't want to wear a helmet or use safety gear as required by law, then your life is in YOUR hands and if something happens that could have been prevented, too bad. If you religious convictions are so important then be prepared to suffer for them and don't impact on my right to live peacefully.
I believe his argument was that he could wear nothing over his Turban, and I'm guessing he couldn't wear a helmet under it either.The Cunning Linguist said:
