Wearing turbans on a motorcycle instead of a helmet: Give me a break

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has come to the defence of a Brampton man who says he is being forced to wear a motorcycle helmet instead of his turban because of a law which runs counter to his religious faith.

Baljinder Badesha, 39, who was charged by Peel police in September 2005 with failing to wear a helmet, said that he understands the inherent dangers of riding a motorcycle without a helmet but despite this, he is willing to take the risk to follow his Sikh tenets. He is fighting the$110 ticket because he believes that the province which mandates that everyone who rides motorcycles, motor scooters and motor bikes must wear a helmet, is discriminating against him by insisting that he replace his turban with a helmet.

Scott Hutchison, an attorney for the Human Rights Commission said in part, "Telling Mr. Badesha to choose between his religion or alternatively, participating in the normal life of Ontario is discrimination. He admitted that public roads and riding a motorcycle are something that is available to everybody in Ontario provided they wear a helmet but that condition makes it impossible for Mr. Bedesha and every male of the Sikh religion as it goes against his and their religious faith. He said the Human Rights code prevails over the Highway Traffic Act and that forcing Mr. Badesha to wear his helmet infringes on his human dignity.

Having previously resided in British Columbia, where Sikhs are exempt from wearing helmets, he said he didn't know it was against the law in Ontario. Court heard that Manitoba also makes the exemption as does the United Kingdom, Hong Kong and India.

In an affidavit entered in court, Badesha said he had a "sincere" belief that he was obligated under the tenets of his faith to wear a turban at all times when outside his home. He said outside of the court that Sikhs want an exemption for their religion.

Hutchison said Badesha would not be required to take off his turban if he went into a restaurant that had a requirement for people to take off their hats. I don’t have a problem with that.

This issue, as I see it, is a non issue. Sikhs do not wear a turban when they go to bed, they don’t wear a turban when they take a shower and they certainly don’t wear a turban when they go swimming.

The helmet law is based on safety for all persons who ride motor bikes etc. Anyone who chooses to ride a motorcycle going a hundred or more kilometers an hour on a busy highway without a helmet is a damn fool and deserves no sympathy at all if he rides a motorcycle with only a turban and subsequently suffers from a serious head injury after he falls off the motorcycle during an accident. As I see it, such a fool deserves nothing but contempt. Such a fool will require thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical treatment. Where will the money come from? It will either come from his insurance or from the public purse. No matter where it comes from, the rest of us motoring public will be the ones who pay because if his insurance pays, our insurance rates will also go up. If the province pays, it means the public purse will be drained even further because of this stupid man.

I appreciate the right of everyone to enjoy the human rights we have in Canada but when religion steps in and makes a mockery of our laws that are designed to protect us, then we all suffer.

If a Sikh wants to ride a motorcycle with a turban, then I say, reduce the size of the turban so that it will fit inside the helmet. I don’t know of any religious tenet that says a Sikh can’t make his turban smaller so that it will fit inside his helmet.

The court may very well acquit this fool but would only be because it is accepting his story that he didn’t know it was against the law for a Sikh not to wear a helmet. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse but it can be a factor for a justice of the peace to consider when dealing with Mr. Badesha.

I hope the court doesn’t rule that wearing a helmet is a form of discrimination. I don’t see how being forced to wear a helmet can be a form of discrimination considering how many thousands of motorcyclists are killed every year in North America.

LATEST NEWS
The court reached a decision on March 6, 2008.In his 34-page judgment, Justice Blacklock focused less on the constitutional challenges – under charter sections that forbid discrimination based on religion and equal recognition of essential human dignity – while emphasizing the safety risks to a helmetless rider, the attendant financial costs to a society with universal health care, and the inestimable loss of a loved one to their families. The judge said that there is a "breach'' of freedom of religion inherent in the provincial law, because, as a pious Sikh, Badesha can't enjoy a common activity available to anyone with a motorcycle licence. His faith doesn't allow him to go about with head bare. But the infringement is justifiable, given the government's responsibility to protect all lives, no less that of Sikhs, while containing the cost of head trauma injuries, which are known to spike in jurisdictions without helmet laws.

I want to add that the majority of Sikhs don't actually wear a turban anymore and many Sikhs disagree among themselves.