Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Ontario court rejects religious exemption to motorcycle helmet law

KIRK MAKIN

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 12:51 PM EDT 06/03/08

Judge rejects religious expemption after devout Sikh challenged legislation requiring him to wear a helmet over his turban ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Johnny Canuck from Canada writes: Imagine! The law being applied equally to everyone. What a concept.
  2. T O from Canada writes: Common sense prevails!!
  3. Jack Jones from Canada writes: Harley rider here so take my comments with a grain of salt

    Helmet laws are stupid. Here's why:

    When you go to get your driver's license, what test do they have you perform? That's right, the peripheral vision test. You know, the one where you look into the box and see the lights on either side of you. and you HAVE to be able to say which side light is on. In other words if you don't have peripheral vision, you don't pass and you can't get your license. Why? Because peripheral vision is a necessary requirement for driving.

    Now put a helmet on and try the same thing. You dramatically decrease your peripheral vision by up to 30%! Think about how dangerous that is on a bike. Where's the logic? Exactly, there is none.

    Stupid law.
  4. F H from Ottawa, Canada writes: Gotta agree with this one although it might be a decent business idea to invent a helmet that can fit over the turban, much as sports hijabs were invented in order to allow devout Muslim girls to play sports.
  5. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Why force anyone (sikh or not) to wear helmets? If someone wants to kill themselves, let them, it improves the gene pool. This is nanny stateism gone bad. This isn't like bicycle helmet for children, this is for ADULTS who fully well know the risk of smacking their unprocted head on pavement.
  6. Joe Canada from Kingston, Canada writes: A good decision.
  7. Larfing Outloud from Virgin Islands (British) writes: A commonsense decision....from a court in Canada?

    Shurley shome mishtake here.
  8. lets get serious TG from hudson, Canada writes: With the current predeliction of people to sue, this is a wise decision. It's about time we STOPPED yielding to special interest groups.
  9. Jack Jones from Canada writes: Folks let's not this into a forum for racism or a reopening of the RCMP turban thing or the Legion thing. Get over yourselves! It's so 80's!

    Besides, I'd much rather ride my bike wearing a turban than some stupid helmet.

    Turbans are cool, look at the photo!

    Dude!
  10. Two Cents from Toronto, Canada writes: An obvious answer to such a st*pid question!
  11. need news from Canada writes: about time, we have one set of laws for all citizens. Some how I am sure it will be appealed, until they get the result they want. I wonder if any provincial / federal govs. will stand up and say, no, we all must live by the same laws, no special privileges for some.
  12. Thomas D'Arcy McGee from Canada writes: If this guy wants to ride without benefit of a helmet, let him. As long as he signs a waiver absolving any and all (including our government) of any liability to medically treat him or support him after he uses his brain as a felt pen on the pavement. Darwinism at work.
  13. Trilly B from Canada writes: Common sense. Imagine that.

    Jack Jones, you're an example of why we need helmet laws. Your head contains a brain that isn't working well enough to realize it needs a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Your brain can thank society for doing some of the thinking for it.
  14. maple leaf from Toronto, Canada writes:
    A good start...
  15. Tom Butler from Woodview, Canada writes: A question...how would a ruling in favour of helmet-less riding affect the rider's insurance. Would helmet-less riders, or all motorists, be subject to higher premiums because of an increased likelihood of devastating head injuries? Could an insurance company refuse to insure a lawful, helmet-less rider?
  16. Jack Jones from Canada writes: typical conservative

    one religion for Canada?

    is bigotry a religion

    how about stoopid

    how do I join your church?
  17. Joe D from Canada writes: This jerk should sell his motorcycle
  18. John Smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jack Jones from Canada writes: Harley rider here so take my comments with a grain of salt. Helmet laws are stupid. Here's why: When you go to get your driver's license, what test do they have you perform? That's right, the peripheral vision test. You know, the one where you look into the box and see the lights on either side of you. and you HAVE to be able to say which side light is on. In other words if you don't have peripheral vision, you don't pass and you can't get your license. Why? Because peripheral vision is a necessary requirement for driving. Now put a helmet on and try the same thing. You dramatically decrease your peripheral vision by up to 30%! Think about how dangerous that is on a bike. Where's the logic? Exactly, there is none. Stupid law.

    And what kind of helmet are you wearing? GEESH!
  19. Eldon Theodore from Toronto, Canada writes: Why isn't there a special helmet for the turbin? Has anyone even looked into this? Profitable opporunity... hellooooo
  20. Mike McFee from Ottawa, Canada writes: Good........
  21. R. Carriere from Maritimes, Canada writes:

    Does anyone actually believe the legal process is over? I can see this going to the Supreme Court, with a different 'Rights' verdict. Is that not the Canadian way? A country with only 'Rights' but no 'Responsibilities!'

    .
  22. CD W from Canada writes: At least his family will have him for a longer time.
  23. Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: A good decision. Religious beliefs should not exempt anyone from obeying the law.
  24. D M from Canada writes: Great decision.

    This isn't about whether or not the law in question is stupid, it's about all laws being applied equally to everyone, regardless of religious affiliation.

    Good job
  25. My eyes are open, Are yours? from Canada writes: Next they will ban incense in the Catholic church, because it exposes the parishoners to second-hand smoke.
  26. max from edmonton from Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada

    I could agree with you except for one point. Many people that suffer severe head trauma don't die. Instead they turn into something slightly less cognitive than a stalk oc celery.

    Then they take up a hospital bed and we pump 10s of thousands of dollars worth of drugs into them and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on other treatments.

    Helmet laws arent there to save the biker....they are there to reduce the chance you will become a 'living' health care dollar sink hole.

    All of that said....I have no idea if there is any data to prove if this theory holds water or not
  27. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: GOOD DECISION. Whatever the rationale for requiring helmets is . . . the law should apply to EVERYBODY.

    Those who find that this law offends their religion have two choices: (1) don't ride motorcycles (i.e., take the bus, drive a car, walk, hitchhike, etc.), or (2) get another religion, one whose tenets have no problem with helmets.

    There ya go.
  28. Tim Cares from Canada writes: I think the rider can take his turban off and put something else on his head that will meet his religious needs.
  29. Jerry Vale from Canada writes: Thank God!!
  30. I, Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Everyone dies sometime'? Tell that to your wife and kids, you selfish jerk.
  31. Donald Redhorse from TampaBay, United States writes: Re the people seeking to ride motorbikes without a helmet for religious purposes: Frankly without a helmet I would argue that it might be that they would join their departed ancestors more quickly upon riding without a helmet.
    DFR
  32. Comments are Closed from Toronto, Canada writes: Next up: Burkas with helmets over them. I wonder which insurer would be crazy enough to insure them?
  33. Harry Boner from Canada writes: Oh my God....I think I have a strange feeling coming over me.....I've never felt this way before.....I think I am experiencing some sort of faith in the system. Common sense prevailed? In a Canadian court involving a new coming minority? Perhaps this will actually set a precedent that illustrates that in a country where all are considered equal, there is no place for the term 'special interest.'
  34. Peter Walker from Calgary, Canada writes: Jeez, imagine that!!

    A turning point in Canadian Law, applies to EVERYBODY.
    Quick better fire the Judge, before word gets out!!
  35. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: Ontario common sense trumps. B.C. wacko accommodation.
  36. Wasabi Jones from Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Why force anyone (sikh or not) to wear helmets? If someone wants to kill themselves, let them, it improves the gene pool.'

    Fair enough...so long as it doesn't have an impact on my insurance premium.
  37. B T from Toronto, Canada writes: Let people ride without helmets but give the INSURANCE Companies the RIGHT to refuse insurance OR to charge them HUGE insurance due to high levels of risk and liability. Can you imagine our rates going up because some idiot on a motorcycle without a helmet is in an accident and then CLAIMS injuries?? Do you think hitting a car on the 401 without a helmet will not cause brain injuries?? Let me say ... BLOOD SPLAT..

    Tell me Mr. Harley, do you trust your life in YOUR hands or with the idoit car driver who just swerved his car into your bike? Let's say he hits you because he can't read the signs properly, on his blackberry, or under the influence? Would your helmet not potentially reduce/save/eliminate your brain injury? I think it would.

    This is CANADA. One law for the masses. Let's have multiculturalism any way we can, it is amazing and can be so positive, but if you can't follow or dislike OUR LAWS, why are you HERE????
  38. sometimes serious from Canada writes: This decision just makes common sense. It is about time that the laws applied to all citizens equally. I hope there is no appeal as it will further waste our tax dollars!

    I am sure we could use this judge's good common sense on many other issues that we seem to struggle with at times.
  39. A A from Mississauga, Canada writes: I wonder how people even get to this twisted understanding of individual rights? Who or what fills these people with the idea that they are special.

    They are not.
  40. Ryan Ginger from ottawa, Canada writes: People have to realize that RELIGIONS CHANGE. They always have, and they always will. And society is better for it. Can you imagine a Christian stoning a non-believer to death and then defend his/her actions on the grounds of 'freedom of religion'? It would be absurd. Every religion has changed in response to social, historical, technical and cultural forces.

    The problem here is that Human Rights Commissions very often 'freeze' religions in the present time, and do not admit to the idea that religions and customs naturally change over time. Let's face it, the Sikh custom stipulating that turbans should not be covered were made many years before you could zoom along on a motorcycle, helmeted. It's time we enter into more frank and honest discussions about religions here in Canada. Religious practices change all the time, even though beliefs may continue unabated. That's a good thing.
  41. Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: Wow! Does equality theorem apply only where the majority wants it to.
    Can we apply the same theorem to th'aid going for catholic schools' but denied to other religious schools.
    ntario is the MOST INJUST province in CANADA
    Equality is interpretted and applied as it appeases the masses to Terrorize the sentments of minorities (and the some of you call us terrorist in this thread)
  42. Nathan Cool from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm torn. I'm against helmet and seatbelt laws as they violate a person's right to conduct their lives as they see fit.

    That said, religion is a bunch of voodoo nonsense and that shouldn't be the argument for over-turning the law.
  43. Just A Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: Quite shocked at this ruling. I had money on the courts capitulating to 'cultural sensitivity'. Does his religion also oblige him to ride a motorcycle?

    When in Rome pal.......
  44. Joe Bloggins from Canada writes: The wearing of a turban is not a 'religious requirement'. The covering of the hair is. The turban is a method of covering the hair, but equally importantly it is a militaristic method of identifying different sects (more like a uniform than a religious requirement). The Khalsa Sikhs regard their easily recognizable turban as an important part of their identity (but not religion). Many Sahajdhari Sikhs do not wear turbans at all. The statement that the wearing of a turban is a religious requirement is a fraud.
  45. Damned if you do from in YOUR backyard, NIMBY'ers, Canada writes: I wonder how many of the 'informed' commenter's with 'redneck-slanted' comments have ever ridden a motorcycle? I don't mean a little dirt-bike in the cornfield, or along a cut-line, I mean on a 10-lane highway... really, ridden, seriously?
    Only then will you understand the restrictions a helmet puts on your vision and response time.
    It is OTHER motorists on the road that bikes have to watch out for, so maybe the helmets are protection from all of YOU rather than US. The fact we have to wear helmets is so YOUR insurance rates wont go up when you clip a back tire because YOU are too impatient to wait for 6 more inches of space to open up in front.
    And what do the 'special interest groups' have to do with anything? this was ONE man, who should be seen as a MAN rather than a 'special interest group; who raised you - the single-toothed bartender at the Buffalo Poop Lodge (no offense intended for Buffalo or their poop or those in need of minor dental work)???
  46. Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: What makes these people feel important?

    The same feeling that makes catholics feel important by getting aid in TO for catholic schools
    CLEAR?
  47. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Ryan: . . . Right you are; religious poobahs get revelations, see visions, hear voices, etc., and -- PRESTO ! -- religious doctrines change.

    Pretty nifty.
  48. Darren X3 from Toronto, Canada writes: max from edmonton, you could argue that helmet laws cost the health care system more money than they save it. With a helmet, a motorcyclist might be seriously injured and need lots of expensive care... without a helmet, they merely need an economical funeral. Tough to say.
  49. A reader from Canada writes: At last a judge with common sense. It's too bad that many lawyers completely lack common sense but are highly skilled in smudging the truth.
  50. James C from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: a wise decision i must say. and one i didnt really expect. is canada returning to common sense? i hope so.
  51. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: The nanny state has spoken.
  52. F E from ottawa, Canada writes: GOOD!
  53. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: >> Peter S from Toronto, Canada writes: A good decision. Religious beliefs should not exempt anyone from obeying the law.

    You sound as though you are unaware of the exemptions already in place in Canada for other things for some other religions.
  54. GM Blogger from Canada writes: We are talking about a secular state here. And there is sepeartion of Church & state. In a situation where there is a conflict b/w the laws of the state & the any religion, should'nt the will of the state prevail.

    This is clearly a fair and sensible verdict. We have to draw the line somewhere b4 the laws of the land are rendered completely inept.

    ...
  55. Geoff Salter from Canada writes: My understanding of Sikhism is that Kesh ( not cutting of hair) is indeed the religion, as well as keeping it clean and well cared for ( kanga - comb). However the turban is a socially accepted way of keeping the hair in place / protected, but is not explicitly part of the religion. Therfore if long hair is under a helmet, or tied up, it is not as large as when it is additionally wrapped in a turban. It would appear that one can both meet Kesh and wear a helmet, just not a turban and a helmet.

    Thoughts?
  56. The Maestro from Canada writes: I would defend with all my might the right to wear a turban. A turban cannot harm anyone else.

    However, the PRIVILEGE to ride a motorcyle, or drive a car, etc.... comes with certain requirements. For the motorcycle, it's wearing a helmet.

    No one is forcing this man to wear a helmet. But just as religious Jews and Muslims miss out on the flavour of a BLT sandwich, so will he miss out on the joy of riding the bike.
  57. Harry Boner from Canada writes: Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: What makes these people feel important?

    The same feeling that makes catholics feel important by getting aid in TO for catholic schools
    CLEAR?

    Perhaps the Catholic community is one of the founding institutions of a country, whose institutions provide so much to new comers. How would people in India feel if a white Canadian showed up and asked for special privileges to accommodate their beliefs? If devout Sikh has problems with our customs, and way of life...please feel free to go elsewhere.
  58. X. T. from Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Why force anyone (sikh or not) to wear helmets? If someone wants to kill themselves, let them, it improves the gene pool.
    ------------------------------------------
    Well, in this country we have a thing called 'health care'. And if those people's head are not as strong as lamp pole come an accident, we might have to pay for that.
  59. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: Two different points:

    1) It is your Religious Right to wear what you please in your daily life. It is NOT a Right to be allowed to operate a motorcycle. If you wish to partake of this PRIVILEDGE you must show that you deserve that opportunity by following the laws laid out in regards to said priviledge. It is NOT a Right to force the laws to bend based on your Religion so that you may take advantage of a PRIVILEGE offered you.

    2) Personally, I think this law is not needed. Make it a clause in insurance forms that should you not take the necessary precautions while driving (ie. Seatbelts in cars, helmets on bikes, etc.) you void your insurance should anything happen. It'd be like signing a waiver everytime you went riding without a helmet. You die or get injured, its YOUR problem. Let each adult make their own decisions. Having said all that, this is the law right now, regardless of how we feel about it. Obey the law or accept the consequeces of not doing so. Show some personal responsibility.
  60. Michael B from Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: This is nanny stateism gone bad.
    ****
    If I never see or hear 'Nanny stateism' ever again, I'll die a happy man.
    ******
    Trilly B, Jack Johnson actually made a clear point about peripheral vision, and so you decided to say his brain didn't work. Care to substantiate your baseless remark? Otherwise, it's your brain that is left looking less than useful.
    *****
    I'm all for letting people practice their own beliefs, but no religion should allow people to break the law. I don't care if your God doesn't want anything on your head... to be quite honest, that seems really extreme... What next, we allow Fundamentalist Islamists to institute Shar'ia law and get on with their honour-killingsfilicide)?

    Rights only go so far. We still have a country to think about, citizens to care for - keep state and religion separate. If you want to enjoy the luxury of riding a motorcycle (and yes, it is a luxury, as is driving any vehicle, and one which the government is WELL within it's right to take away if given cause), then adhere to the laws or move to a country where they actually are willing to modify safety regulations to suit extreme religious requirements.
  61. Acts of Blog from Victoria, Canada writes: As Judge Blacklock ruled, this does violate his right to free of religion, it's justifiable in terms of the beneft society gains in possible reduced health costs and the possible loss of people's loved ones.

    OK. So in this 'free country' of Canada for whom thousands of solidiers died fighting for our liberties, some 'judge' gets to decide how you liver your life because of potential costs to our health care system. Hmmmm....

    Then I guess the next thing we ought to start jailing people for are all other potentially dangerous activities which have some risk of injury or loss to loved ones. Top of my list: Riding a motorcycle riding WITH a helmet, walking alone at night, mountain climbing, snowmobiling, quad riding, stunt flying, eating trans fats, unprotected sex, traveling
    to countries where there is 'danger', not exercising enough, playing violent video games, dropping out of school, smoking, leaving the house, or anything else which could potentially lead to increased health care costs and/or the possible loss of a loved one.

    Where does this intrusion of the state into people's live's end? Do we outlaw everything in life that carries any potential for risk whatsoever, or do we give an exemptions to those who have opted out of the compulsory communist health insurance program, and are unloved.

    In other words, should we have to buy our freedom back from the government? If we no longer own our bodies, how much longer until they want our souls as well?
  62. James C from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: 'Just A Guy from Toronto, Canada writes: Quite shocked at this ruling. I had money on the courts capitulating to 'cultural sensitivity'. Does his religion also oblige him to ride a motorcycle?

    When in Rome pal.......'

    ----------

    also shocked. didnt expect this ruling but happy it turned out this way. is canada returning to common sense? maybe i'll return home one day....
  63. Greg Calgary from Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Why force anyone (sikh or not) to wear helmets? If someone wants to kill themselves, let them, it improves the gene pool. This is nanny stateism gone bad. This isn't like bicycle helmet for children, this is for ADULTS who fully well know the risk of smacking their unprocted head on pavement.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    While what you say makes sense, the problem with these bozo's is that when they get hurt we all pay for their mistake.
  64. Jack Jones from Canada writes: For the record I wear a skid lid. All you folks applauding the court's decision make it sound like there were never bad laws in Canada. There ARE bad laws. It is our right in a free democaracy to protest them. That's how good laws get made. Most of you are bigots hiding behind the court's decision like it's the champion of equality. Gime a break already!! PS If I get crunched by any of you cage drivers talking on your cell phone or nailing your crackberry, a helmet might help me, but not much. At least I'll have my mind to contemplate my paralysis oh and my lawsuit. Geesh!
  65. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Amar: . . . Maybe EVERYBODY should have the right to get $$$ to their religious schools ? Maybe all of us should be free to invent our own religions (since all religions ARE made up) ?
  66. m mills from vancouver, Canada writes: Badesha's lawyer argues that a devout believer is forced by society to choose 'between ordinary, everyday activities and observing their faith.' Isn't that what devotedly following a religious practice demands?' If Badesha, or any religious believer, chooses to follow their faith there will necessarily be demands on them to make choices other than just continuing to maintain 'ordinary, everyday activities.' How self-indulgent to demand that society grant exemptions to them from laws that apply to everyone else just because of their private religious beliefs.
  67. James C from Chaozhou, Guangdong, China writes: 'Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: What makes these people feel important? The same feeling that makes catholics feel important by getting aid in TO for catholic schools CLEAR?' ---------- catholic school funding is protected by the constitution as far as i remember. not wearing a helmet on a bike isnt. CLEAR?
  68. Dom P from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think this is the right decision. Next one the list... removing provincial gov't funding to catholic schools!
  69. The Skipper from Canada writes: Finally a Judge with Common-sense !
  70. john chuckman from Canada writes: Common sense indeed in this decision.

    There is no genuine religious issue here at all, only a misinformed person's interpretation of a fair law.

    If only we could see more of this kind of judgment in other areas of our society.

    When Ontario dropped zero-tolerance rule for violence in schools, it did so only as a result of complaints from those violating the rule the most.

    We make no progress as a society doing that.
  71. Pretty Much Sane from Canada writes: Common sense and the law! Jack - Get back on the meds ASAP, I'm hoping they are 'smart pills'. Apparently not!
  72. Andy Hertel from Mississauga, Canada writes: Great! Finally a ruling that considers common sense rather than one that caters to the lowest possible common denominator. There are a few issues that MUST be addressed. And please recognize that my profession is safety and specifically - motorcycle safety. 1. The experiment discussed regarding the turban and the influence of speed on the turban is completely and undeniably counter-productive. It proves absolutely nothing. I am an avid motorcycle rider and can tell you that wearing a baseball cap turned backwards on the head and traveling at 100 kph can be done quite easily. The real issue is safety and protection. How much protection does this offer? The same amount as a turban. Zero! This is a pointless argument in defense of wearing fabric as a helmet. 2. There is a comment regarding helmets and peripheral vision. The FACT is that a full face helmet does NOT restrict vision in anyway. This is a myth. The opening for the face in the helmet is cut back behind the eyes therefore allowing 180 degrees of vision. And MOST importantly - 3. Helmet laws do NOT prohibit Sikhs or any group from participating in activities. The religion itself does. These arguments MUST be addressed with the 'organizations or religions' that are clearly limiting peoples so called rights to participate in 'ordinary' activities. In other words, you are barking up the wrong tree. Do not ask that the laws of our country be changed to benefit or satisfy minority special interest groups - rather, have the special interest groups adapt or make allowances / exceptions to the conform to the rules and laws established in this country. Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts. Andy
  73. Ian from Calgary from Canada writes: I think the differentiator here is that his religion requires him to wear a turban but he wants to ride a motorcycle. The law requires him to wear a helmet if he rides a motorcycle.

    Religions have rules to protect the souls of their followers but society creates rules to protect the health and welfare of its citizens.

    Therefore, he has to decide which is more important to him - his religious beliefs or his motorcycle.

    The whole 'turban unravels at speed' is a legal red herring and would be laughable if it wasn't such a waste of public money and time. I hope the OHRC reports their 'expert' to the Professional Engineers of Ontario for professional incompetance.

    In the meantime, I'll be riding my motorcyle with a helmet and I hope I will see Mr. Badesha riding his - with a helmet. There is a name for those who ride without a helmet - 'Organ Donor'.
  74. Northern Dancer from Canada writes:
    what's wrong with a motorcycle helmet in the shape of a turban

    this fellow really needs to solve his own problems
  75. Camoni Banker from Toronto, Canada writes: Diversity is great. Freedom of thoughts and beliefs is even better, but let's get serious Canada. With diversity also comes a responsibility for everyone to be equal under the law. The law is stated/written for public safety, regardless of religious beliefs. If Mr. Baljinder Badesha wants to ride a bike he needs to wear a helmet or get rid of his bike. What kind of an example is he setting for his children anyway? Assuming he has any.

    This is similar to the case of Sharia-law in Ontario. In Canada, a free and democratic nation built on the premise that everyone has the chance to build a better life cannot continue wasting tax dollars and system time on issues of 'petty' discrimination. Sometimes we need to put our foot down and say 'no.'

    Mr. Baljinder, with all due respect, take off your turban while you ride or expect a ticket. Thank you very much.
  76. L. C. from Canada writes: I think it is just ridiculous to challenge the rule of wearing a helmet over your turban. I don`t care what religion and how religious you are. Freedom of religion should a certain extend. If you say your religion doesn`t allow you to wear seatbelt then you can drive without a seatbelt?? This is a safety measure for all motorist. The wind tunnel test or that MR. driving 100km/h test are both irrelevant. We want to get the best possible outcome for the situation. You need to test your result over million time at 100km/h with different tightness of your making your turban and find out how many time it unravels.. then you can argue the turban is ok while riding your motorbike.. however at the end, you are still causing uneasy to other motorist on the road due to your lack of safety. Helmet is securing in your head best possible way, avoid making and discomfort or restricting rider head motion and view. The key is, you won`t anticipate any flying object out from your helmet. There might be odd chance some of the parts might come loose and fly off..but there is a good statistic behind it to limit the probability. Try to test the impact dmg with wearing a helmet vs turban?? your turban probably will be 10 times weaker than a helmet.. please someone find a true figure on that. One solution.. make a Turban style helmet.. before you can figure out how to make a turban style helmet.. please stay away the road with your motorbike. Honestly.. it is a possible business opportunity.. there will be million of Skih will buy from you..
  77. Greg Calgary from Canada writes: Make real helmets that look like real turbans in numerous colors.
  78. I, Canadian from Toronto, Canada writes: Amar Singh, at least in this country we don't burn down churches or temples.
  79. Paul NoLastName from United States writes: Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: What makes these people feel important?
    The same feeling that makes catholics feel important by getting aid in TO for catholic schools
    CLEAR?

    Amar ... Please do not confuse the issue of not wearing a motorcycle helmet for religious grounds with the failure of the government to provide funding for non catholic schools ... the 2 are not related in any way. If religious organizations which to challenge the Province's funding there are legal avenues that can be persued. I for one would like to see all public funding for non-public schools to be stopped.
  80. Daryl daryl from Alberta, Canada writes: What has happened to being all for the immigrants and their needs? Isnt this what Canada is all about?
    Seemingly Canadians, those who are not immigrants should have any say in what goes or what dont go? But being an immigrant it is easier to get what they want just like the natives and land claims etc.?
    Where is the Provincial and Federal Government going to stand up for the true Canadians?
  81. Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: Can you come and make that statement in any Sikh Temple of your choice.. I thoink we found a new prophet..
  82. Sweeney Todd from Oilberta, Canada writes: Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: 'ntario is the MOST INJUST province in CANADA'

    This begs the question - if it's SO terrible and unjust, then why do you live there? Just curious...
  83. Don Proctor from Toronto, Canada writes: Sooo conflicted. I'm against all sorts of nanny laws, but in favor of this ruling. This person's religious beliefs should not get him a pass on the law.

    BTW, Jack Jones (Harley Rider); you should get a new helmet. Mine is full face, and it doesn't obstruct my peripheral vision at all. I wouldn't ride without it.
  84. North of the Border from Canada writes: I agree. The only thing is I'm sure he's just as safe with that turban on as most of the idiots riding peddle bikes to work in winter with ice and snow everywhere. Is there a law against that? There should be unless the insurance companies rule in favour of the vehicle driver in all cases when these idiots hit the road. These people are the king idiots of the road.
  85. Donald Redhorse from TampaBay, United States writes: Amar Singh
    Ahh yes but money to schools only hurts your wallet while no helmet crushes the noggin. In some cases that noggin is pretty soft too or they'd not confuse religious freedom with common sense and health care costs.
    Redhorse
  86. PATRICK TREMBLAY from Montreal, Canada writes: Motocross rider here,and there is now way I would take the street with a bike without a full face helmet, leather, elbow/knee pads and neck brace.

    Letting one religion ride without a helmet would open the door to almost every Harley rider to ask the same. And yes HD is like a religion to them :)
  87. Rollie Beethoven from Canada writes: Are veiled women permitted to drive cars? Or is this a major issue on the horizon?
  88. John Connor from Canada writes: Good. This guy needs to give his head a shake, but he'd probably dislodge the turban in the process.

    Never fear, our apologist Supreme Court will no doubt overturn this sensible ruling anyway.

    The taxpayers can freely pay his medical bills when he gets into an accident.

    So when do WE get protection from HIS religious freedoms??

    Just wondering.
  89. Tyler Phillips from Seattle, writes: Amar Singh from Toronto, Canada writes: What makes these people feel important?

    The same feeling that makes catholics feel important by getting aid in TO for catholic schools
    CLEAR?
    ***

    Catholic schools are funded because of an agreement in place back when Canada was formed. Same as the special rights Aboriginal Peoples get. I don't think there was any mention of motorcycle helmets in 1867.
  90. Ed Op from Canada writes: I vote for no helmet law, let the insurance companies' premiums take care of it. If someone is stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (turbaned or not) I say let them - and let them pay through the nose for the privilege. Besides, I doubt whether our health care costs would be impacted significantly. I don't have the stats but I would think getting in a motorcycle accident without a helmet results in death more often than not. Wouldn't wearing a helmet increase health costs since more people survive motorcycle accidents when they wear them?

    As for Sikhs needing to wear the turban, I looked at a couple web sites and it sounds pretty central to their religion. On the same level as believing in Jesus, getting circumcised or praying to Mecca or thereabouts. I guess if we're going to continue to allow religious freedom in Canada we're going to have to accommodate turbans whether we (non-Sikhs) think they're necessary or not. As a more or less atheist I think the value of a religion (to the extent it is valuable) is in its beliefs as opposed to its rituals or habits but we seem to allow people the freedom to follow their customs as long as they're not hurting others directly.

    So I think posters who are suggesting Sikhs ditch their turbans are not being realistic or fair, but I also think requiring helmets is a bit unnecessary to begin with.

    I also can't help but think I'm witnessing a bit of racist backlash here from some who feel threatened by the different customs of new immigrants. But that's probably a whole other posting.
  91. Rain Couver from Canada writes: First, separation of church or temple and state.

    Second, how much would it cost us taxpayers if this guy got into a crash and got a preventable head injury, had to go to emergency, months of acute care, months or years of rehabilitation and a lifetime of therapy, all coming out of our taxes. Millions of dollars over the rest of his life. This guy's freedom of religion does not trump preventing his safety so that he has a long and happy life to practice his religion.
  92. Wayne H from Canada writes: Religion my derriere............Its all about religion with you people and if your not happy with it return to where you came from. I'm no racist but have had enough with your stupid religion that you try to stuff down our throats. Not happy with the desicion? Well get rid of you bike..........
  93. Casey Circelli from Thornhill, Canada writes: 'He noted that Sikh soldiers have never worn helmets, and argued that Sikhs should be left alone to make their own decisions about motorcycle gear. '

    Normally I'd agree with the principle that the laws should be the same for all. But this one's just silly.

    These people fought and died for our country without being forced to wear formal head dress or helmets. We didnt' complain then. Can't have it both ways, Canada.

    Common sense would dictate we'd offer them the same courtesy for riding a freakin' motorcycle...

    Geez, if the man wants to ride bare, let him, at his own risk. There's bigger battles to be fought than this.
  94. Jeremy K from vancouver canada, Canada writes: i support this guy's right to not wear a helmet when he rides his bike. I also support the insurance company's right to refuse him an injury claim that was made more expensive because of lack of said helmet. I also support the medical system's right to charge him full price for medical care for injuries exacerbated by a lack of a helmet.
  95. Wilf Kruggel from Canada writes: If I imigrate to a country, I am expected to be absorbed within the populace. The same must be applied in this country to people comming here. Our rules apply and must have the backing of our laws the same as the country where this person is from. The courts are finally showing some spine. The only thing lacking is that the charter of rights and freedoms must be remanufactured because too many people find it a 'tool' of convenience. Wilf
  96. Claude Carriere from Canada writes: Damned if you do from in YOUR backyard writes: Only then will you understand the restrictions a helmet puts on your vision and response time.

    I have ridden a motorcylce in the way you describe and I want to say your argument is false. Your vision is no more restricted than the blind spot in a vehicule restricts your vision. It is up to you to ensure you know what is going on on the road around you. This argument is pretty weak.

    I can say helmets save lives, mine for one. Lost control of my bike at 16 and I can say from the chunck of material missing on the helpmet just above the temple, at best, I would have come out as vegitable like some have suggested and I would have been a burden to my family, society and the health system.

    This is the only rulling that makes sense.
  97. Bob K from United States writes: yes a good decision because if religion trumps our laws then maybe I can demand that society make provisions for my creator, the Spaghetti Monster,

    worship his noodly appendage
  98. Antony Conrad from Charlottetown, Canada writes: 'Ontario Court Judge James Blacklock ruled today that while the law prohibiting anyone riding a motorcycle without a helmet does violate his right to freedom of religion, it's justifiable in terms of the benefit that society gains in possible reduced health costs...'

    Judge Blacklock's ruling could be summed up as, 'Canada is a communist country, where the will of the majority trumps the rights of the individual.'
  99. Vincent D from Canada writes: Nanny state... please give me a break!

    This is just common sense. It was a logical and well thought out decision on the judges part.

    Why would we want to allow some people to get around a law, potentially hurt themselves and others and cause our insurance costs to go up? Any one who rides without a helmet is a complete idiot.
  100. R 27 from Canada writes: I wonder if the same passion being expressed in here can be seen if for example a Christian man or woman goes to India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia or the Emirates and demand to receive the equality on the basis of relegious, creed or race.

    Do you think when you go to Islam nation you can demand the same way the way Sikhs and Muslim do here in Canada? All in the name of the constitution.

    I'm a person of color and I think the multiculturalism platform has gone overboard with legal battles like this helmet issue. It's a plain waste of taxpayers money.

    If you feel the laws, statutes or constitutions in Canada offends you as a non-Christian then why come here in the first place?

    You can't go to an Arab nation and demand Christian rights so why is it being allowed here?
  101. Sam Courtney from Canada writes: With the severe shortage of organs available for transplant, perhaps we should let them ride without helments as long as they sign thier donor card. This would in short order reduce the wait times for kidneys etc.

    What a win win situation.
  102. When do we Eat? from Nashua, NH, United States writes: No helmet laws here in NH, and no seatbelt laws (over 18) either. Funny thing - our mortality rate is the same as everyone else's in North America.
    Ditch the Nanny State!
  103. Western Girl from Calgary, Canada writes:
    When Canadian law obligates everyone to ride a motorcycle, then this guy will have a case. Otherwise, I fail to see how this is 'religious discrimination.'

    Three cheers for common sense!
  104. Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: 'Acts of Blog'

    Excellent, excellent, excellent argument!

    If you are an adult, your personal life is yours and yours alone, the government has no right in telling you how to live or else they have to ban everything that is a danger to our lives!

    Freedom to practice your religion and personal freedoms are both equal rights in this country. But trying telling a Canadian socialist that, good luck.
  105. Cameron Reid from Toronto, Canada writes: I must have missed the part in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that lists riding a motercycle as an inalieable right.

    Dammit, I want a Kawasaki Hayabusa delivered tomorrow to my door or I sue!
  106. Michael Soft from Windows, Canada writes: There is a business oppotunity here! You can have both at the same time. We can design and manufacture 'turban style helmets', one that meets the religious need and meets the safety standard like a helmet at the same time.
  107. Mr. Criddle from Calgary, Canada writes: Thank God common sense has prevailed. A rare occurrence in Canada lately.

    As an avid ATV enthusiast, I am pleased with the court’s decision. Now, if only we could see jurisdictions such as Alberta make helmet use mandatory for ATV riders here. I don't really care to see a puddle of brains on the trails when someone rolls an 800lb machine down a rocky slope.
  108. Arthur Broadhurst from Palm Coast, FL, United States writes: I am a 71-year old retired executive who rides a motorcycle and have done so off and on for 50 years. Florida passed a helmet law some years ago; the pressure on the state legislature from some cyclists led them to remove it. Bike Week in Daytona FL a few miles from here is underway now, and each year there are many deaths and serious injuries, mostly to helmetless riders. Hundreds of deaths and injuries occur in this state in a year. The issue is not personal freedom, it is the protection of society from catastrophic injuries. Our hospitals and towns cannot and should not have to bear the social cost, the uninsured or underinsured hospitalization costs and the costs of welfare to widows and children. There is always a clash between competing interests, and the court in this instance was right to say that society's interests here outweighed a personal interest. Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to require sufficient insurance to pay for hospitalization and rehabilitation, disability, long term care, paraplegia, unemployment. I should not have to bear the costs of selfish cyclists who can think of nothing other than their own 'freedom' to drive without protection and give not a damn about the implications for everyone else.
  109. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, I guess there are always alternative methods of transportation available to devout Sikhs, but have there been any court rulings on job-related headgear requirements? Are Sikhs prevented from working on construction sites, or as firemen, or on a SWAT-like team, or any other profession requiring some kind of head protection?

    I would think Sikhs would be far more concerned about that, as it goes to the issue of earning a living.
  110. Jeff Burke from Oakville, Canada writes: Everyone forgets....driving, either a car or a motorcycle is not a right. It is a privillage.
  111. Joe D from Canada writes: I wonder if Amar Singh would be in favour of a law being passed that
    required all medical expenses incurred for head injuries from motorcycle accidents to be paid for by the patient.
    Catholic or Sikh.
  112. Friendly Anglo from Ottawa, Canada writes: Finally. A good decision.
  113. f c from Canada writes: Somebody above asked whjy not let them not wear a helmut ...may kill them. Well, you can't reject that little bit of darwinism...but, lets say the fella gets hit by a bird while driving, has an accident and causes the death of many people(grief, etc....).....all while surviving and using up precious bed space and taking up doctor's time...all out of our taxes I might add! I don't agree with this guy and am glad to see the law applied the same to all people....if you don't like Canadian laws, return to your homeland. Canada may be the land of the tolerant, but, I think immigrants need to come meet us part way...or as I have said....leave and/or don't even consider coming here!
  114. Bob Loblaw from Canada writes: If we want to have a discussion over the merits of helmet laws, well then fine. I ride a bike and although I don't enjoy the helmet, I do enjoy all these higher brain functions. If there was no helmet law, I would still wear a helmet but that's just me. However, the question that one 'class' of people didn't have to wear it while I wear mine is stupid. Riding a bike is an option, not a right. I would like to fly a plane but until I pass the rquirements for a licence, I'll be sitting in the back seat. Safer for everyone.
    Glad to see the court make the right decision. One set of rules for everyone. No exceptions.
  115. Buddy Rich from Toronto, Canada writes: Will he stop there?
  116. S M from Canada writes: Ontario court who cares...just a step to the Supreme court and a charter challenge

    Also Iwould like the term Hog banned as it may offend some religions.
  117. Canadian Eh from Canada writes: I'm with Paul Jones on this one. If he wants to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then he signs a declaration on his OHIP and his motorcycle insurance that he won't wear one. If due to a motorcycle accident, he is injured, then he pays all the bills himself and absolves the people of Ontario of supporting him. Also, as many have pointed out, a drivers licence is not a right, it is a priviledge.

    The judge made the correct decision based upon rule of law.
  118. FREEDOM 2 BLASPHEME. from writes: Daryl,

    your post drips of albertan prejudice.

    When you talk about 'real Canadians' you can count yourself OUT.
  119. FREEDOM 2 BLASPHEME. from writes:

    Surely a turban could be fitted over a helmet AND look fashionable at the same time!!!
  120. Fed Up from Halifax, Canada writes: Wow. A verdict I can actually agree with. This is Canada. We have laws that require that you wear helmets when you ride motorcycles (except in the 2 mentioned provinces). If you don't like it, or if it offends your religious beliefs to do that you have several options 1) don't ride a motorcycle, 2) settle in one of the two provinces where apparently your right to be unsafe and practice your religion is more important than the rights of taxpayers who will pay to treat your head injury, or our right not to have to see your brains splattered over the highway, or 3) live in a country where this is not illegal. No one is telling this man he can't practice his religion, but motor vehicle laws are in place for a reason, and that is public safety. If his religion is of such utmost importance to him, and so inflexible that only a single type pf headcovering is permissable, then I guess he'll be travelling to India or Britain if he wants to ride his bike, or moving to Manitoba. There are no shortage of people who, as part of their religion or faith, go 'without' certain pleasures of the world in order to comply with their faith. Good to see for once, that the laws are upheld instead of the special interest of a very small minority (not Sihks in general, but motorcycle riding Sihks)
  121. Ghislain Tremblay from Heidenreichsten, Austria writes: @R.Carriere

    Is that not the Canadian way? A country with only 'Rights' but no 'Responsibilities!'
    Right on my friend!

    I'm bery surprised of that judge decision! A judge that defends the law as wrote! Agaunst a religious zelot that wantred special priviledges! Does the judicial system starting to wears its pants! Wow what a surprise. Mow, wait for the Supreme Court decision! THat guy will win, He got no responsabilties, Right?
    Ghislain
  122. Semi Fully Censored from Bushland, Canada writes: As a motorcyclist, supportive of freedom of religion and of 'accomodements raisonnables'... I fully support the decision. Motorcycling has nothing to do with a fashion show or some innocuous touring activity on week-ends. Motorcyclists need very much to help God help them at all times. Full-face helmet should be mandatory for everyone. Of course, wearing one such helmet does not make motorcycling fool proof... but it helps (and really protects), when the dangerous going gets particularly tough. Just imagine the overpass collapses while you're riding on it, as did happen in Laval...
  123. FREEDOM 2 BLASPHEME. from writes:

    great business op for manufacturers...

    I got yer turban-shaped helmet right here...
  124. anywhere and everywhere from Switzerland writes: I n Canada you do not wear head gear; if this man wants to practice his religion, well what better place to be b