Turban Wearing Biker Loses Challenge In Court

Hey Gang - This original topic was posted a few weeks back.

For those who missed it, a guy claimed that his religion prevented him from wearing a helmet when riding his Harley. Looks like this guy will be selling the bike.

This is one of those rare cases where established laws were upheld by a judge with a backbone that didn't support the argument of (claimed) religious persecution versus the accepted laws of the land. Obviously, the guy bought the bike for the express purpose of challenging the law since he must have known that he couldn't use a turban for head protection.

Personally, I am glad this guy lost his bid to have the law changed because if he had a spill and hit his head, we would have to pay for his medical bills. In Ontario we have universal health care paid for by all of the hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers in our province.

For those who don't think there is still a degree of justice, here is the link.

www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/310015

Cheers-Colin Firth-Ontario Canada

reborn650 wrote:

Personally, I am glad this guy lost his bid to have the law changed because if he had a spill and hit his head, we would have to pay for his medical bills. In Ontario we have universal health care paid for by all of the hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers in our province.

What's the big deal. You already pay medicals bills for alcoholics, meth heads, lard asses, and 'gender correction'.

First the government tells you you can't ride a bike without a helmet because it costs too much if you get hurt. Next thing you know you won't be allowed to ride at all. Give them an inch...

I'm with reborn on this one. Like it or not the helmet law is in affect there. The law covers everyone and the man knew it. If your religious belief is so strong that you can't obey the law, well then you don't get to ride.
It's the same as the woman that couldn't get a license because she can't take her face cover off.
Let's quit changing the rules to fit each person.

Post edited by: The Milkman, at: 2008/03/06 19:00

Duck wrote:

reborn650 wrote:

Personally, I am glad this guy lost his bid to have the law changed because if he had a spill and hit his head, we would have to pay for his medical bills. In Ontario we have universal health care paid for by all of the hard-working, law-abiding taxpayers in our province.

What's the big deal. You already pay medicals bills for alcoholics, meth heads, lard asses, and 'gender correction'.

First the government tells you you can't ride a bike without a helmet because it costs too much if you get hurt. Next thing you know you won't be allowed to ride at all. Give them an inch...

Duck. My point is that this guy is trying to change the law to accomodate his requirements, similar to certain religious groups refusing to have their traditional facial coverings removed for photo ID cards. In my opinion, this is wrong in a democratic political system.

If anything, this decision is an endorsement that riding bikes should be done safely in the eyes of our judicial decision makers and this hopefully bodes well for the future of riding in our country. I must point out that there has never been a discussion about outlawing motorcycles in our country to the best of my knowledge.

As far as our medical system supporting the issues you brought up, you will get no challenge from me on that point. But at least these sick (physical or psychological individuals) aren't trying to make us change the laws for them. They are arguably abusing themselves and also abusing the system which does in fact cost us all in expensive medical resources.

The effectiveness and efficiency of our country's universal health care system versus your country's, is a discussion best saved for another thread as both have their own advantages and drawbacks. I was simply offering some follow-up on this challenge to our existing laws which was closely followed by bike riders in Ontario.

Cheers-Colin Firth-Ontario Canada

Post edited by: reborn650, at: 2008/03/06 20:48

I'm with you 100% Reborn. I'd like to know how this joker got his license.

While I appreciate the breath of sanity, I have to think that your version of our ACLU will file an appeal.

The turban-wearer, Badesha, immigrated to Canada with his wife and kids, and a motorcycle licence. It's generally fairly easy to transfer licence privileges into Ontario.

As soon as it's available I'll get myself a copy of Justice Blacklock's decision. He was a very bright lawyer, and now a better judge.

As for appeal, that will be Badesha's decision. A lawyer for the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervened at this trial, but the Commission is unlikely to carry it further on its own.

And given another pending decision at the Supreme Court of Canada (Keays v Honda) one of the questions will be whether Justice Blacklock even had the jurisdiction to hear the human rights issues in the case. Those issues are normally under the jurisdiction of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. I'm still not sure why Badesha was in court rather than in front of the Tribunal. I have no doubt that the very left-leaning Tribunal would have come up with the opposite decision.

Gosh, I'll bet you folks are just salivating over the legal intracies of Ontario human rights legislation and helmet laws

Hmmm...anyone have a patent on a helmet that looks like a turban? $$$ :woohoo:

Ultimately, riding a motorcycle is a privilege to be earned, and to be done in the context of the law. Religious expression and human rights arguments have no place here. What's next? Refusing to strap your child into a car seat because it violates your religious principles? Sheesh... :whistle:

I've been following the courtcase also and while I have some symapthy for the guy I have to agree with the judgement and think that the law is there for the greater good and his choice now is to either get a helmet or dont ride on the street. Like others above have said, and I agree, there has to be a point at which we no longer change the laws to suit an individual. If my religion dictated that I kill a bull by cutting it's throat and then burn the carcass would access to that religious freedom transcend animal cruelty laws and local ordinances on backyard fires ?

No doubt someone will appeal the judgement.

To Don's point on transferring drivers licences, take it from one who has been there, done that, no it's not easy. I came with an international licence which was good for I think 3 months. Just enough time to start at the beginning and go through the same process as everyone else.

Why can't he wrap a towel around his helmet? Plus I think if he gets a big enough towel and makes a sh--load of wraps it might be as protective as some low priced DOT approved helmets I've seen. Maybe he's on to something!:whistle:

Hate to be the odd man out here, but I personally feel the helmet laws fall into the category of Big Bro. protecting me from myself. It is an intrinsic right of and individual to endanger himself by whatever method of stupidity he chooses, so long as he does not endanger the lives of others. If he cracks his head open and can pay for life support himself, Yee Haw! Otherwise, bury him.

On the other hand, I would think that to have a law changed on the basis that it encroaches on his religious beliefs, he would have to prove that his religion forbids the wearing of helmets AND requires that he ride a motorcycle. Since he can choose not to ride a motorcycle and still not sin and also not break the law, he is not being persecuted.