The Shotgun Blog
« Ron Paul's campaign "winding down" | Main | L’Affaire Cadman: A Theory of How it Went Down »
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Keep the turban, scrap the helmet law
Who owns Baljinder Badesha head?
Badesha is a Sikh whose religion demands that he wear a turban – and it is impossible to wear both a turban and a helmet at the same time. So Judge Blacklock decided that Badesha’s personal safety is more important than his religious freedom.
But Badesha doesn’t agree. He’d rather be true to his faith than be safe while on this motorcycle – and shouldn’t that be his choice? It’s his head after all.
I’m sure some people will say – “I don’t want to pay for his medical bills when he crashes his motorcycle and splits his head open.” Fair enough. Fight against socialized medicine then so that the cost of high risk behaviour isn’t externalized. Make people like our Sikh freedom fighter pay for their own reckless choices.
Or should the cost of public healthcare include the loss of our freedom? Helmet laws, smoking bans, trans-fat bans, drug laws...the list of petty health and safety related restrictions on our freedom grows daily.
I say wear your turban with pride, Badesha. Nobody asked the Sikhs who “fought for freedom” in WWII to wear a helmet. Protest in their name and the demand the freedom for which they were asked to die.
Posted by Matthew Johnston on March 6, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/26869544
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Keep the turban, scrap the helmet law:
Comments
It really is a moot point and not even a matter of human rights. Whether the roads are privately owned or owned in common the "right" to use them is really a priviledge granted when you obtain a driver's licence. That gives the owner of the road the right to set the conditions of use.
What is the position of the little knot of cloth woven into the top knot on an orthodox sikh's head? Does it take the place of a turban? If so, a helmet will fit over it and the case loses its merit.
As to the medical bill's argument, many helmetless accidents result in death and that should reduce the medical bills and shift the burial costs on to the family.
Posted by: DML | 6-Mar-08 10:45:57 PM
DML, the medical argument only has merit because of the government monopoly on health care. They pay, so they can use their coercive power over us to make us do things, like where a helmet. If we all payed our own health care it wouldn't matter.
Regarding who ownes the roads, a private owner would hardly care so long as they got their money.
Helmetless riders probably ride more carefully anyways.
Posted by: TM | 6-Mar-08 11:21:42 PM
Have you ever gone past a Sikh temple? If so you'd have noticed that not all males wear turbans. It's a choice made by the hard core fundamentalists. If the turban is so important then the choice is easy. If you want to play the game play by the rules. What is more important, the turban or riding a motorcycle? The same could have been said about certain other high profile cases involving throwing out the rules to accomodate turbans. Choose your priority and deal with it.
Posted by: R. True | 7-Mar-08 12:12:49 AM
Kudos to the judge for making the decision he did. Either everybody must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or it becomes optional for all.
BC and MB set troubling precedents by actually changing their provincial statutes to allow turban wearers to not wear a helmet. Let's hope that other provinces do not become followers.
If there is an appeal, we will see if the superior court(s)are beginning to "get it".
Posted by: calgary clipper | 7-Mar-08 6:52:31 AM
If Sikh’s are exempt from wearing helmets then it opens a real can of worms. An orthodox Jew shouldn’t also have to wear a helmet because he wears a yarmulke or me as a Christian should also be exempt because I'm supposed to pray with my head uncovered and I may have to burst into prayer at any time. If a person's religion has requirements that are contradictory to a person’s activity, then perhaps the person either has to give up the activity or the religion.
Posted by: D Johnson | 7-Mar-08 6:59:39 AM
Just as crying fire in a crowded theatre is illegal , but is a reasonable constraint on free speech or just as I have to wear a seat belt [ I don`t bother ] , in order to ' save lives ' , so too must our conveniently religious Sikh be forced to wear a helmet. Maybe some Sikh could come up with a protective device to fit over the entire rig. Then watch the squirming and howling.
Posted by: daveh | 7-Mar-08 7:35:30 AM
Riding a motorcycle is not a human right. If he can't obey our helmet laws, he has other modes of transportation available to him.
This guy can choose what it more important to him -- riding a bike or wearing a turban. Life is all about choices.
Posted by: JMD | 7-Mar-08 7:57:54 AM
Gee, the turban I get, but wouldn't his ceremonial dagger get caught in the wheel?
Posted by: Markalta | 7-Mar-08 8:49:06 AM
"Riding a motorcycle is not a human right."
No, but from what I've read, manifesting his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance _is_.
And so is the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
So, if the so-called hate laws have to be changed because they conflict with the right to hold opinions and impart information through any media (you know who I'm talking about), then shouldn't so-called road safety laws also have to be changed where they conflict with the right to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance?
As for other religions and helmets, a yarmulke fits pretty nicely under most DOT approved helmets, and if as a Christian, If I were concerned with the command to pray with an uncovered head I'd also want to follow Jesus suggestion that they, "enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray". So I'd probably pull over and find, at the very least, a porta-potty where helmets aren't mandatory.
Tell me I'm not the only one who sees how this helps Ezra? Especially because I don't really care how that case goes.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 9:21:08 AM
By giving the state control over our health, they then have automatic control over our well-being. That means they have some control over our life style and habits. This leads to more and more control over everything.
The extrapolation to the environmental, climate change issues follow as well. If our environment is polluted our risk of illness increase the cost to our communist medicare system. If the climate becomes more violent and more injury is possible ... the same.
On thing leads to another. The seat belt, the helmet, smokers, the obese and so on. Why aren't skiers and scuba divers and race car drivers and other contact sports on the list? ... they will be,eventually. It takes time to turn an entire country from free to totally controlled by the collective. Especially while they are trying overcome the Sun's influence on our planet's climate. No star is too big for a properly written socialist policy to overcome.
I think you get the point. Everything that's going on in this country and the one south is about more and more control over the people's daily lives in the name of safety.
Socialist health care and the environment are the most powerful tools a government/society can have to succeed in destroying freedom and enterprise.
I am with the Sikh on this one. I don't think this is as much about his optional religious turban as it is about wanting to decide for himself.
I want freedom to chose every aspect of my life from helmets to smoking to seat belt, to risky activities to what I eat and how much I weigh. The government has no business in my life other than to tax and protect me from enemies of freedom. Novel thought isn't ... enemies of freedom. They could start with themselves on that one.
FYI I would opt to wear a seat belt, but I would take my helmet off on really hot days to truly enjoy the bike ride. I would opt for good diet and exercise because I personally value my health, not to save the tax payer money ... as if any government bothers with that idea.
Posted by: John West | 7-Mar-08 9:32:34 AM
Good post, John West.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 9:40:40 AM
Does anyone else see a decent opportunity to design a turban-friendly full face helmet for men like Mr. Badesha? That's a pretty pricey looking bike so I'm guessing if the product were there, he'd buy it. Catching a bumblebee in the face at 90 km/h+ sucks no matter who you pray to. If anyone here knows anything about styrofoam and fiberglass fabrication, email me. I know a few things about industrial design & marketing. Let's make some money and tick off some judges.
( figure if you leverage the already-ther protection given by the turban, and add the chinstrap that makes a helmet an approved helmet we're not looking at much in the way of additional weight. Throw on a visor, offer custom paint jobs, and boom... dastaar-lids dot com!
Posted by: Pattern/Opportunity Recognition | 7-Mar-08 9:44:55 AM
So what's the primary reason for the opposition to allowing Sikhs to go helmet-free?
Is it general support for helmet laws and safety?
Is it opposition to the idea of creating a religious-based exemption to a law and the unequal application of that law?
Is it a concern that we are making too many concessions to new Canadians and in doing so are losing our national identity?
To me this is a simple matter: helmet laws are a product of the nanny state and a petty encroachment on our freedom. Let the Sikhs be the first to escape this injustice and perhaps there will be an opportunity for others to do so in the future.
Laws should be based on property rights and created to protect our liberties – not to realize some public policy obsession with personal safety and certainly not to help the government contain healthcare costs.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 7-Mar-08 9:53:22 AM
>"Does anyone else see a decent opportunity to design a turban-friendly full face helmet for men like Mr. Badesha?
Pattern/Opportunity Recognition | 7-Mar-08 9:44:55 AM
Helmets don't have to be full face.
Mr. Badesha or any other turban wearer could simply use the same plaster casting of more modern binding material in the cloth and create his own turban/helmet, thus satisfying the letter of the law just as bikers do when they where German military helmets.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 9:53:46 AM
>"To me this is a simple matter: helmet laws are a product of the nanny state and a petty encroachment on our freedom."
Matthew Johnston | 7-Mar-08 9:53:22 AM
Helmet laws were first pushed by the police as a tool for harassing motorcycle gangs.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 9:57:09 AM
"Helmets don't have to be full face. "
Oh I know, and neither do car seats need to be heated, but Ford makes all kinds of money by offering them. I'm thinking about marketing here and satisfying a possible "want", vs. just satisfying the law.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 9:58:56 AM
Yeah, sure, someone who doesn't "want" a helmet at all is going to want a fullface one if they have to have a helmet.
Weight isn't even a consideration.
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 10:07:14 AM
"someone who doesn't "want" a helmet"
Most of the senior citizens gardening with their $300 iPods didn't want a $80 discman, a $20 walkman, or even a $5 radio before they came along. It's not that they didn't want music, they just didn't want inconvenient music.
We don't know that Badesha doesn't want a helmet, all we know is that he doesn't want to reconfigure his turban to wear a generic helmet. That doesn't mean he'd be opposed to eye protection, better vision in all-weather riding, and having the cops off his case while he does his thing his way.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 10:28:18 AM
>"We don't know that Badesha doesn't want a helmet, all we know is that he doesn't want to reconfigure his turban to wear a generic helmet. That doesn't mean he'd be opposed to eye protection, better vision in all-weather riding, and having the cops off his case while he does his thing his way."
Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 10:28:18 AM
You're right, PR, we don't know that Mr. Badesha doesn't want a helmet.
He may want one to plant geraniums in.
We do know he doesn't want to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle and probably means only wearing a turban for headgear, period.
If he is forced to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, whether Mr. Badesha has goggles or a full-face helmet, you can be certain he isn't doing things "his way".
"His way" means not wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.
>"It's not that they didn't want music, they just didn't want inconvenient music."
Make no mistake, wearing a helmet of any configuration isn't going to be "convenient" for Mr. Badesha before or after he is on his motorcycle because he will then have to either take off his cloth turban to don the helmet, or re-wrap his turban after taking the helmet off.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 10:47:44 AM
"because he will then have to either take off his cloth turban to don the helmet, or re-wrap his turban after taking the helmet off." - Speller
You've never ever put a plastic ski boot on over a sock have you? I'm not talking about a helmet shaped like a turban, I'm talking about a helmet compatible with one. Something that can clip overtop the entire thing, perhaps using some of the thinking behind BMW's System 5 helmets, but with a few more hinges. And like I said, less material because the padding is already there thanks to the turban he keeps on. "Normal" helmets' volume is almost all from padding, so we're talking about maybe 10-15% of the weight of a normal helmet, but with 100% coverage (if that' what they want) and 100% of the laws requirements for a locked-in-place helmet.
But this is totally off topic.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 11:00:06 AM
Your description sounds large, inner padding or not.
Imagine the affect of wind on it.
Also, imagine the leverage on a person's neck if they dumped their bike.
But, again, maybe you're right PR.
Why don't you do a draft of one of those designs and post it on YouTube?
You could become rich or win the Nobel Peace Prize for cultural harmony and promoting the law.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 11:15:56 AM
"Your description sounds large, inner padding or not.
Imagine the affect of wind on it.
Also, imagine the leverage on a person's neck if they dumped their bike."
The enamel casing over the styrofoam on a motorbike helmet is less than half a millimeter thick. Since we only need to supplement the already-there padding of the turban we're only looking at maybe an additional 200-300 grams, and the wind profile won't be any more than his current turban, in fact it might be less since the fabric has to provide more drag than an enamel shell would. The total weight with the turban won't be any more than the weight of a decent traditional motorbike helmet. If there's a safety issue with those by weight, then that's a whole other discussion.
"Why don't you do a draft of one of those designs and post it on YouTube? You could become rich or win the Nobel Peace Prize for cultural harmony and promoting the law."
Cool! I figure it's a niche product so doing it up opensource might be wiser, make more money off the fame than the product. Like that Dean Kamen guy. I'll do up a draft 3d model in in Sketchup next week and have it up on YT by Thursday the 13th. If you're qualified, the nomination cutoffs are in February so we'd have to shoot for a 2009 prize.
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 11:31:52 AM
Don't forget the Order of Canada.
Think of all the Sikh children too.
Bicycle helmets are mandatory in Alberta.
The there are hockey helmets to design.
Maybe your motorcycle helmet shells could take a multifunctional approach: bobsleds, rock climbing, skydiving, construction/industrial, dwarf tossing, etc...
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 11:42:09 AM
Now you're thinking. Turn a compromise into an opportunity.
My understanding of dwarf tossing is you spin and toss like a hammer throw so you'd need a wide field of view. I guess a basic helmet design could be flexible enough to have a wide visor. Not sure if you need a helmet though, unless the rules have changed.
Unless you mean the tossed dwarf were sikh. Then sure. Yeah.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 11:49:34 AM
The "tosser" doesn't need a helmet unless he's driving home on a motorcycle.
;o)
I forgot to mention the TAC Team/military applications.
Those "shells" would have to made from Kevlar, though.
Also, I should mention fire-fighter's helmets.
You could probably get a government grant for development with all the Affirmative Action hiring you would advance.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 11:56:55 AM
I'll leave it to opensource engineers to work out the TAC challenges. From what I've read from the WW2 anecdotes, Sikh soldiers did fine without them. I guess that's why you see so many commando guys in just the lightest of ski masks or even modded skateboard helmets.
BTW I was under the impression Affirmative Action was a program in the States, and that our Employment Equity was quite a bit different. Not that it affects helmet design. Hopefully it won't require a grant. We're talking about a clay model, some paint-on enamel for a prototype, and some volunteer time from a guy with a turban. Maybe a modded Nerf gun at 100 psi to simulate bugs on the highway. Under $100 total for a prototype.
http://www.instructables.com/id/Nerf-Gun-Modifications./?comments=all
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 12:10:12 PM
I think we've overlooked the most frightening aspect of this story, Sikhs on motorcycles. Picture this chrome and leather cavalry, with gleaming ceremonial daggers, charging through the lower mainland, taking no prisoners.
I think it's a gift that they don't want to wear helmets. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Posted by: dp | 7-Mar-08 12:14:47 PM
I was just on the DOT site looking up the FMVSS 218 standards for helmets and I guess you need to test it with a "Hemispherical Anvil" with a 82.5 J force.
I may need to pay my tester.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 12:15:01 PM
"I think we've overlooked the most frightening aspect of this story, Sikhs on motorcycles. Picture this chrome and leather cavalry, with gleaming ceremonial daggers, charging through the lower mainland, taking no prisoners"
Not near as cool as if they had turban-compatible exo-shells with wickedbad custom Troy Lee paint jobs.
www.troyleedesigns.com
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 12:20:31 PM
PR,
If you're going to use clay I recommend Sculpey.
Start with a wire armature, you can get specialized wire nets and Sculpey in craft stores like Michael's.
Sculpey has a consistency like Plasticine but can be baked in your kitchen oven at 250 F until it's hard enough to drill, sand, or saw.
Then you can attach hinges, bolts, rivets, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sculpey
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 12:21:24 PM
Kudos to John West for his comments. I could only add that there should be no such law, but as there is one the judge made the correct decision. BC made a mockery of the law by allowing Sikhs not to wear a helmet. This shows how useless the law is, since it pretends to exist for our protection. Does this mean then that the Sikhs are not entitled to protection? I say it shows that the law does not do what it claims to do. It was just another case of someone whinning that the government should do something which any control-nazi loves to hear.
Posted by: Alain | 7-Mar-08 12:29:43 PM
Alain,
I posted at 7-Mar-08 9:57:09 AM why the helmets law exists.
It doesn't exist to protect people.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 12:40:20 PM
This shiek guy should be allowed NOT to wear a helmet, while riding his bike, for the same reason that hooka bars MAY allow smoking in a public place - and the drug injection centers too, I presume - while everyone else is subject to the gument dictates. Some people are more 'equal' than others.
Posted by: jema54j | 7-Mar-08 2:01:07 PM
Some Sikhs wear turbans because of culture.
Their religion requires them to wear a head covering, not necessarily a turban.
It used to be part of Canadian culture to ride motorcycles without mandatory helmets.
That part of Canadian culture was swept aside for the helmet law.
One law for all or no law for any, say I.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 2:08:06 PM
Jema54j, sheikhs wear ghutrahs and iqals, sikhs wear turbans. I'm busy enough working on one helmet design, someone else can work out a solution for riding with an iqal, although I think it's considered ok to just stuff it in your dishdasha's pockets while you ride.
Now, these guys [picture link] can just sort themselves out, or catch the bus.
http://www.liamkeane.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/singmonks.jpg
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 2:16:25 PM
Do you have a designer solution for a smoke free hookah bar too, Pattern Recognition. One whiff of tobacco/Maryjane is LETHAL to innocent pleb nostrils. 'Dis is not fair to others'. Put that in your 'virtual' pipe and smoke it - let me know when you have a solution.
Posted by: jema54j | 7-Mar-08 5:56:51 PM
>"Now, these guys [picture link] can just sort themselves out, or catch the bus."
http://www.liamkeane.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/singmonks.jpg
Pattern Recognition | 7-Mar-08 2:16:25 PM
Good one, PR!
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 7:49:39 PM
Reading over these comments, it is clear the conservative community on the WS is as petty, tyrannical, and statist as ever.
Conservatives are all in favour of dragging EVERYBODY down in to the muck of coercive government control and mediocrity.
Rather than celebrate one individual's attempt to create not only freedom for himself (which makes us all a little bit freer in the process)but an opening whereby further future exemptions can be secured, we have a bunch of people who are too cowardly to fight for their own freedom and instead celebrate the state's anal suffocation of someone, in this case a Sikh, who is different.
90% of you are conformity craving collectivist cowards and fail to understand how your cheerleading for government's obsessive fetish for safety and micromanagement is destroying the very society so-called conservatives claim to want to conserve. In the end, you people only conserve the tyrannical nanny state created by your alleged enemies, the "progressive" left. I hope you people all stab eachother to death with government approved safety pins.
Posted by: Jose Costello | 7-Mar-08 8:18:55 PM
Brava, Mr. Costello!
In Canada, the conservative is a friend of the coercive state. The conservative is a fearful person who wants uniformity in all things and for each to know their place in the government grand scheme. We had that with Mussolini. Why do Canadians seek this for themselves?
No matter whether a great tyranny or small, the conservative Canadian clamours for more. And is roused to fits of anger and resentment when the "other" objects and seeks to protect his or her own small sphere of personal freedom. "Well if I can't be free, then I shall oppose freedom for any who tries for himself", says the Canadian conservative. If the default in Canada is constant government control, then that is the position that the conservative chooses as against efforts for freedom by any member of the herd who wanders away.
So very very sad. Such an embarassment it is to be a conservative in Canada today.
Posted by: Juliano Fauste | 7-Mar-08 8:27:51 PM
Jose Costello said "90% of you are conformity craving collectivist cowards..." Yes, I'm with JC! Oh wait, does that make me a conformist JC?
"Brava, Mr. Costello!"
said Juliano Fauste...another pathetic conformist apparently.
Posted by: Markalta | 7-Mar-08 8:49:21 PM
Jose Costello | 7-Mar-08 8:18:55 PM
=
Juliano Fauste | 7-Mar-08 8:27:51 PM
It is an intellectual travesty to be your own cheerleader.
Same style, no paragraph breaks.
You are a TROLL!
You should be embarrassed, but it is probably an emotional leap which you cannot make.
moby - An insidious and specialized type of left-wing troll who visits blogs and impersonates a conservative for the purpose of either spreading false rumors intended to sow dissension among conservative voters, or who purposely posts inflammatory and offensive comments for the purpose of discrediting the blog in question.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 8:52:58 PM
While I do not think the helmet laws are meant to protect us, or that the government's mandate should include the intent to protect us from our own bad judgement, when the individuals who comprise the government display their own bad judgement regularly.
If Canadians will suffer a law to exist, it should be applied uniformly.
That said, Mr. Badesha is playing the same culture card that Muslims play too frequently.
As the Sikh religion came into being opposing the predations of Islam in India, it is ironic that a Sikh is smoothing the way for Islamic hegemony in Canada by playing the "culture card" when Sikhs will be reaping the whirlwind along with the rest of us if Mr. Badesha were to be successful in his quest.
His success depends on carving out a niche of special treatment for cultural consideration.
Any Sikh knows that any head-covering will do to satisfy their religion.
It need not be a turban.
It could be a hat and then, if necessary, a helmet.
Again, bikers fought this helmet law long and hard decades ago and lost.
Where were the Sikhs then?
Sikhs did not stand along side the bikers at the point of decision, it should be noted.
One Law for all or no law for any.
Posted by: Speller | 7-Mar-08 9:19:34 PM
Speller,
While it appears "Costello" and "Fauste" are certainly on the same page, and very likely know eachother IMHO (given the very close and convenient timings of their respective posts on the same subject, and a very clear probable libertarian bent), your assertion that one or both posts are the work of a "left wing troll" is a pro forma absurdity. You may note I am not using paragraph breaks, either. Am I of a set with your two troll bogeymen? Feel free to so assert, it only underscores your rather paranoid nature. Absence of graph breaks is in fact standard in internet writing; my own suspicion is it may have something to do with the box within which posts are composed and submitted. Warning: paragraph break...
The larger issue, Mr Speller, is you appear to be one of a small conservative (or is that NEO conservative) clique on the WS site who is hostile to outside, and especially libertarian, opinion and particularly any semblance of agreement or plurality thereof. I am dreadfully sorry to inform you, Mr Speller, (if that is one of how many name YOU post here under?) that you must do better in debate than simply make knee-jerk and wild accusations toward those with whom you disagree; I taught English for many years at the state college level in the Mid West, and can assure you that apart from the similar rendering of thier words, and an ideological congruence, that the writing style of "Costello" and "Fauste" could not be more dissimilar; I would suggest that "Fauste" likely speaks -- and writes -- English as a second language. Warning: SECOND paragraph break...
Bottom line, Mr. Speller, is conspiracy theories and baseless accusations are not conducive to exchanges in this particular stall in the marketplace of ideas; please stand down unless and until you can contribute something of significance.
Posted by: Embryo Defense | 8-Mar-08 1:15:43 AM
>""Costello" and "Fauste" could not be more dissimilar;"
They, in fact, COULD be more dissimilar.
Even their time stamps are the same except allowing just enough interval for the composition of the second post.
They are the same Troll.
Neither of them contributes anything to the discussion, as you Embryo Defense did not.
I have several comments on the topic of this thread but neither you nor the Troll have done anything but a drive-by smear of Conservatives.
"Bottom line, Mr. Speller, is conspiracy theories and baseless accusations are not conducive to exchanges in this particular stall in the marketplace of ideas; please stand down unless and until you can contribute something of significance."
Embryo Defense | 8-Mar-08 1:15:43 AM
Blow it out your fat A$$.
Your "contribution" was piffle.
When you are a web master on the Shotgun or contribute yourself I"ll take heed of you opinions.
>" I am dreadfully sorry to inform you, Mr Speller, (if that is one of how many name YOU post here under?) that you must do better in debate than simply make knee-jerk and wild accusations toward those with whom you disagree; I taught English for many years at the state college level in the Mid West,"
..."if that is one of how many name YOU post here under?"...
You taught English at the college level?
LOL
I've been posting under the nic "Speller" and no other here since 2004.
I know a Troll when I see one and have busted many here and had them banned because they destroy the integrity of the Shotgun Blog.
Posting under multiple nics and cheer-leading one's own earlier comments is something that was promised to be mended here with a registry.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 9:17:23 AM
Pardon me while I don my Maxwell Smart turban of silence . ED is starting to give me a headache . Where`s my Viagra ?
Posted by: daveh | 8-Mar-08 9:39:58 AM
Posting under multiple nics and cheer-leading one's own earlier comments is something that was promised to be mended here with a registry.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 9:17:23 AM
-----
Fair point, Speller. It's still on our to-do list, but will require a total rehaul of the site.
I'm actually very happy with our community blog and steady stream of news and opinion pieces going up on the site. We've got a long way to go, but with loyal readers and commenters, we'll get there.
This discussion thread is a good example of the diverse views held by conservatives.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 9:50:22 AM
Matthew Johnston,
Thank you for taking up the torch here and keeping this amazing Shotgun Blog alive.
I am very happy here too.
I only raised the registry issue to highlight the problem that multiple nic Trolls pose.
I've been on threads here in the past where psychopaths did nothing but post under new nics, never debating or addressing the topic, just smearing the regulars, and the frustration that engendered was akin to being a one-legged man in an ass kicking contest, with no furtherance of the discussion topic which was often a good issue.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 10:12:31 AM
I agree 100%.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 10:21:05 AM
When I was young, the bikers I knew wore a headband or a bandanna or a hat on their heads to keep their hair out of their eyes (or to prevent sunburned heads if they did not have hair). I do not think that it would be a stretch to support this sheik fella and then apply the 'head covering' rule to include anything that sits on the top of the head while riding a bike.
Posted by: jema54j | 8-Mar-08 1:21:16 PM
jema54j,
This "sheik fella" isn't trying to advance general freedom and have the helmet law made null and void.
He is only trying to carve out a special exemption for his culture, leave the helmet law otherwise in place, and the rest of us non-sheik fellas can pound sand.
He thinks he is special and the law applies to the rest of us, just not him.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 2:43:34 PM
Hey, Speller:
I just read the whole thread, here, and let me tell you, boy, YOU are the problem here. Alls we get from you on here is bigotry and general churlishness and childishness.
You are all about the ad hom attack, and seem to feel that your righteous bitterness and long-standing time on this site entitles you; boy, it does not. You are a whiner and like a little kid who never go any attention at school but finally found his way to the "inside" of somethin' and you are now bound and determined to exclude everybody else.
You describe frustration at the way discussions have gone, but because you are not equipped to particiapte you run around like a schoolyard snitch whining and complaining that everybody else is a "troll" (LOL, guess I am one, too, eh boy?) or a "lefty".
You are a joke, speller. You sound like a kraut of some sort who can't get over the germans were the bad guys in the war, and that WE kicked your totalitarian asses.
Posted by: Legit Mac Bullet | 8-Mar-08 3:07:43 PM
Am I allowed to agree with Mac the Bullet without being accused of being a troll or being attacked on here?
I agree that a lot of peoples here make it difficult to join disucssions because you are called a left winger and a troll and all of that.
I am posting for the first time, but it is true that Speller and his other names make it hard to enjoy this site. Their comments are nonsensical and they are hostile to everybody who is new.
So, go ahead and flame me, and ridicule me, I am just glad that somebody is finally speaking up about this abuse by peoples like Speller.
And, I think the Sikh should be free to wear a helmet or not to wear a helment and that freedom of choice is good for all and we should be supportive of that. Thank you.
Posted by: Juanita | 8-Mar-08 3:19:59 PM
AND, Juanita that would be the law for ALL taxpayers, of ALL cultures and colors, sex and religion, who choose to wear headgear of their choice while riding a bike of any type (motorized or not). Right?
Posted by: jema54j | 8-Mar-08 4:00:16 PM
>"You are all about the ad hom attack,...WE kicked your totalitarian asses."
Legit Mac Bullet | 8-Mar-08 3:07:43 PM
Who is "we" Grampa, you and your Commie legions?
Your comment is nothing but an ad hominem.
When did you ever contribute to a thread topic, Troll?
>"I agree that a lot of peoples here make it difficult to join disucssions because you are called a left winger and a troll and all of that."
Juanita | 8-Mar-08 3:19:59 PM
Poor you.
Was it difficult for you?
I agree freedom of choice for all is good, Juanita.
Baljinder Badesha isn't interested in freedom of choice for all.
He wants a special privilege because he is a Sikh.
I think he should get it too, for the zero traction I've been getting with the idea that a special privilege is a bad thing.
I'd list all the reasons why special privilege is a bad thing but the people capable of understanding already know and the people too dim to already know wouldn't appreciate the reasoning.
An Ontario Judge has decided special privilege isn't a good thing in this case and it's too bad Baljinder Badesha doesn't get a special privilege here because if he did some Hell's Angels would probably resent it in a big way and we'd get to have another discussion here at the Shotgun about the late Baljinder Badesha or maybe about how insurance companies are discriminating against Sikh motorcycle operators by requiring higher premiums.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 5:10:49 PM
It's the same troll folks.
Posted by: deepblue | 8-Mar-08 5:13:15 PM
Ya, think so?
You could be the next to be called paranoid, deepblue.
Matthew Johnston could tell us if the IP is the same, that is, if the Troll isn't using proxies through an onion router.
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 5:19:49 PM
Legit Mac Bullet and Juanita:
I've followed this thread as well, and not a single comment could be described as bigoted. I do, however, agree with you both that Sikhs should be able to ride without helmets, as you can determine from my post.
Opposition to a religion-based exemption to the law, however, has merit and is not bigoted.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 5:24:28 PM
While there are no hard data, Jaswinder Singh, a lawyer and leader of a "turban pride" movement, estimates that half of India's Sikh men now forgo the turban, compared with just 10 percent a couple of decades ago.
FROM>
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/news/turban.php
Of course the above is probably just bigoted propaganda.
>"I do, however, agree with you both that Sikhs should be able to ride without helmets, as you can determine from my post."
Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 5:24:28 PM
My question to you Mr. Johnston, is do you say the above because you think that Sikhs should have a choice denied the rest of us or because you generally disagree with the mandatory helmet law for reducing all of our choices and choice for some is preferable to choice for none?
Also, do you think that if Baljinder Badesha were to take this issue to the Supreme Court and win, would that become a wedge to crack the helmet law in general?
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 6:03:33 PM
It`s the same old stuff. Let`s not deprive the immigrant ; he might get mad and call somebody a bigot. It`s just a sign of the wimpification of NA society that we cring in out boots every time someone gets offennnded. You really can`t blame the sikhs [ and blacks and latinos ; Indians too ] that the people who fought and died for , planned and engineered , this society are too stupid to stand up and say for not only ' our ' but their own good as well ; enough is enough. The more we give them ,the more they want and they`ve been given a ton . I suppose all the ranting and raving in the world can`t change the communistic actions of one man , Trudeau . I still can see him doing the old mischievious pirouette beside the Queen and understand that his whole raison d`etre was to make mischief. And indeed he did.
Posted by: daveh | 8-Mar-08 6:41:57 PM
Thanks for the question, Speller. As I wrote in a previous post:
“To me this is a simple matter: helmet laws are a product of the nanny state and a petty encroachment on our freedom. Let the Sikhs be the first to escape this injustice and perhaps there will be an opportunity for others to do so in the future.”
I think this issue is not unlike the debate over targeted tax relief. Bear with me:
The Conservative position since the Reform days is to vote against targeted tax relief proposals. For example, the Reform caucus voted against an NDP private members bill calling for the elimination of the GST on books. Reformers hated the GST and they accepted the logic that a tax on books was a disincentive, however small, to reading – but they voted against it because it gave a particular group, however large, special status.
But, in my view, conservatives in office should take every opportunity to reduce the burden of government on people when that burden is unjust – and helmet laws are unjust.
I also think it’s a smart tactical move. Again, bear with me:
It has been argued by conservatives that government subsidies are a race to the bottom. When you subsidies “Company A” or “Industry A” and “Company B” or “Industry B” will demand similar treatment. In the end, everyone is at the trough. Hence, a race to the bottom.
Give targeted tax relief to “Company A” or “Industry A” and “Company B” or “Industry B” will demand similar treatment. In the end, taxes will be lower. Hence, a race to the top...the top being increasingly lower taxes.
I think this logic applies to a special helmet exemption for Sikhs.
As far as equality under the law, I’m not sure that should apply to unjust laws. The universal application of injustice doesn’t sound right to me.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 9:24:37 PM
Thank you, Matthew Johnston, for that excellent answer.
>"As far as equality under the law, I’m not sure that should apply to unjust laws. The universal application of injustice doesn’t sound right to me."
Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 9:24:37 PM
And neither does it sound right to me.
But bear with me:
Rather than frame the judgement of the law as the universal application of injustice, suppose a law, which does not grow from common law, is seen as a burden to some, injustice, but a standard of responsibility to others.
By standard of responsibility, I mean not that the state or citizens have a responsibility to preserve their own physical well-being for the benefit of other citizens or the state, but rather that citizens have a responsibility to oppose onerous laws when the government is proposing them, as the Sikhs did not do when the fight against helmet laws was lead by motorcycle clubs, with the expectation that they could oppose legislation after it had been passed based on a claim to special circumstances or custom peculiar to their group, thus separating their welfare and societal burden from responsibility to society in general.
In short, Sikhs, and other identity groups do not see themselves as being in the same boat as the rest of us and do not fight for common cause, but for their own entitlement as a separate group, furthering the Balkanization of society and the inevitable resentment that special status entails.
Can there then be said to be a Canadian culture and what claim have such who lay claim to special entitlement have to being Canadian and to equality under the law?
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 9:53:52 PM
And an excellent counter.
"In short, Sikhs, and other identity groups do not see themselves as being in the same boat as the rest of us and do not fight for common cause, but for their own entitlement as a separate group, furthering the Balkanization of society and the inevitable resentment that special status entails."
Well, let's get to the bottom of this. I'm going to try get an interview with Baljinder. The first an obvious question is whether or not he supports repealing Ontario's helmet laws.
Got any other questions you think I should ask?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 8-Mar-08 10:27:31 PM
"You are a joke, speller. You sound like a kraut of some sort who can't get over the germans were the bad guys in the war, and that WE kicked your totalitarian asses."
Some victory!
Canada the US and Europe are being surrendered to third world invaders, aided and abetted by our,allegedly conservative, governments. And sixty plus years later, the sum total of the "victory" is that "50 Cent is a best selling musician, Britney Spears is a role model, Brokeback Mountain is an Academy Award winner, and Norm Podhoretz is a respected intellectual."
Adolf's revenge.
Got get 'em Speller.
Posted by: DJ | 8-Mar-08 10:54:16 PM
What is the point of an interview? It's already been stated that the issue is discrimination based upon religion. It's not as if they intend to forego their access to universal health care and all and sundry benefits if they are injured in an accident.
Posted by: DJ | 8-Mar-08 11:20:12 PM
A question I have, Mr. Johnston, is that since the cessation of government funding of the Court Challenges Program, was this human rights challenge initiated before the CCP was cut, thus ensuring government funding, or if it was not, where did the funding come from?
Will the challenge continue to be brought to the Supreme Court, and if so, on what new grounds and with what funding?
Posted by: Speller | 8-Mar-08 11:28:41 PM
Motorcycle helmet laws are evil. Of course, this guy should be allowed to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. If that is the "law" then it should be changed.
Hey, have they ever heard of FREEDOM up there in Canada?
As for his potential medical bills, how about no one being forced to pay for them?
Posted by: Robert Morrow | 8-Mar-08 11:48:52 PM
Legit Mac Bullet, I have to take issue with the slams on Speller. Speller and I probably don't see eye to eye on oh, 60%-80% of things but you'll notice how even in this thread we can banter back & forth, rely on humor to keep the tone civil, and then even point out where the other made a good point. All while still not agreeing on everything.
If you take issue with Speller, take issue constructively and firmly, but not angrily. Remember: It's just a message board, not a court of law or a parliamentary committee.
And to everyone else, let's try to find a way to make our points without always having to resort to reductio ad hitlerum. It just cheapens things and makes us all look like we're angry lonely people who didn't get our Paroxetine today.
Let's all set better examples of how "our side"—whether that's libertarian, capital C conservative, or zoroastrian dadaist—can be civil and principled at the same time.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 10-Mar-08 8:05:45 AM
For all those who say that safety should supercede freedom of choice, I know that since the vast majority of fatal auto accidents are head injuries, helmets should be mandated for all auto drivers and passengers. This is only common sense. After all, race car drivers all wear helmets.
Oh..................., that would affect YOU, and may not be such a good idea.
Posted by: Rudy | 10-Mar-08 7:08:11 PM
"Any Sikh knows that any head-covering will do to satisfy their religion.
It need not be a turban.
It could be a hat and then, if necessary, a helmet."
Speller, please don't make ignorant comments like this. You are clearly not a Sikh so why are you speaking like you understand Sikhism? You must not know anything about the history of the turban and its importance to Sikhism. It's not just about covering your head.
Think about it this way. 500 years ago, India was ruled by the Mughals, who did not allow anyone except the elite and royal kings to wear turbans. The Sikh Guru's stood up against this and gave every Sikh the right to wear a turban proudly upon their heads. Even women were given this right.... 500 years ago. Now who in their right mind would give up this right even if it's 500 years later? It would be like a woman today saying 'I don't need my freedom and rights' after women 50 years ago had to fight to get those rights for us.
Please do your research before making ignorant comments.
"In short, Sikhs, and other identity groups do not see themselves as being in the same boat as the rest of us and do not fight for common cause, but for their own entitlement as a separate group, furthering the Balkanization of society and the inevitable resentment that special status entails."
Just because your beliefs aren't being challenged doesn't mean the rest of us have to give in to YOUR standards of society. Sikhs are different people. So is the gay community. Does that mean we are unacceptable in society? I don't think so. Sounds more like YOU are a separatist.
Posted by: bkaur | 11-Mar-08 11:25:49 AM
bkaur
This is Canada. A well established, long standing democracy that participated in two world wars. We are not some international safe-house, or new frontier. We are no longer up for grabs by the culture that gets the best foothold. Please learn a bit about Canadian history and culture before shooting off your mouth about a Canadian's ignorance of some 500 year old Indian culture, because we don't want to hear about it.
Posted by: dp | 11-Mar-08 11:34:50 AM
Thank you very much for joining this dicussion, bkaur. I have only one question: would you as a Sikh support repealing helmet laws for all Ontarians, where this case applies?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 11-Mar-08 11:56:07 AM
I live in BC where Sikhs are allowed to wear their turbans without a helmet. I would love to see Ontario Sikhs have the same rights.
And dp, I'm born and raised here in Canada so I'm fairly familiar with Canadian history. I'm not saying that Canadian culture should become more like my culture or somebody else's. All I'm trying to say is that Canada is home for many different cultures and no one culture is better than the others. We have to respect each other and put these differences behind us. Why does Canada celebrate its multiculturalism? Because it has become a part of Canada.
You can choose to ignore my comments about the history of the turban if you like. I was only trying to educate those that want to learn more about it before blatantly insulting it and calling it unnecessary. It has some value to me and I would expect others to respect that.
Posted by: bkaur | 11-Mar-08 12:10:52 PM
bkaur, PR here, the guy with the helmet idea that may or may not sound glib depending on where you sit on the cynical/imaginative spectrum. If you were a motorcyclist would there be any value to a superlight shell that went over your turban and maybe provided a way to have a visor etc. as much for convenience/eye protection as for keeping the lawmen happy? Thinking 2-300 grams total. Clip on & off, no adjusting of anything required. Maybe iPod friendly.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 11-Mar-08 12:16:49 PM
bkaur
Right now I don't think Canadians are celebrating multiculturalism, we're lamenting it. It was a big mistake we may never recover from.
Do you really believe no culture is better than another? How about a culture that mutilates girl babies to prevent them from being promiscuous? What about a culture that publicly executes women accused of adultery? How about the caste system that creates a class of untouchables?
My family came hear 230 years ago to escape the British feudal system. I say good riddance to the old world. Leaving it behind was the greatest gift my ancestors could have given to me. If you can't see this clearly, you don't deserve the gift you've been given
Posted by: dp | 11-Mar-08 12:24:14 PM
"Right now I don't think Canadians are celebrating multiculturalism, we're lamenting it. It was a big mistake we may never recover from."
No... I know lots of Canadians that would disagree with that statement. I think you should rephrase that to: "I am not celebrating multiculturalism, I'M lamenting it." Clearly you have some problem with people that are different from you.
And just to clarify, I was suggesting cultures within Canada. If anyone were to mutilate babies here, they are punishable because it is against basic human rights.
I agree most people that come to Canada are trying to escape from something or they come here with the hopes of starting a better life, like my parents did. I do appreciate being born here and being able to live in Canada. But there are things that I have learned from the so-called "old world" too. If you are suggesting that it's completely irrelevant to wear a turban in Canada, I don't agree with that. You can only say that if you've worn it and lived through the shoes of someone like Baljinder Singh. And being a Sikh woman that wears a turban, I can say that I know why it is relevant to people like me and him. You can't do anything to change that.
Just a thought, if the main idea behind this law is the safety of the person, why not make motorcyclists wear full-body armor? You could easily get hurt anywhere else on your body. :P "One of the main reasons motorcyclists are killed in crashes is because the motorcycle itself provides virtually no protection in a crash." Why not ban motorcycles altogether? :P Sounds kind of silly doesn't it?
Some people choose to ride motorcycles knowing the risks involved. But Baljinder Singh's religious freedom should not be challenged "for his safety". He should have the right to choose.
Kudos to Matthew Johnston for writing this post. Couldn't agree with you more. "I say wear your turban with pride, Badesha. Nobody asked the Sikhs who “fought for freedom” in WWII to wear a helmet. Protest in their name and the demand the freedom for which they were asked to die."
PR.. if that's what it'll take to keep the lawmen happy, who knows.. maybe you'll make a fortune. haha
Posted by: bkaur | 11-Mar-08 2:47:53 PM
bkaur
You know many Canadians who agree with your statement? They all happen to be part of your community by any chance?
Was Sikhism not founded to try and push back against the tide of the Islamic movement in India?
You feel cultures "within" Canada are all equal? Then why are you trying to change laws? Your comments contain so many contradictions it's hard to sort them all out.
I'd agree that Sikhs are desirable immigrants, compared to a lot of our other choices. But if they're going to get rid of helmet laws it has to be for everyone.
Posted by: dp | 11-Mar-08 3:11:00 PM
I don't want to argue with you about your views. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you don't speak for all Canadians.
But I do want to clarify that Sikhism was not founded against the Islamic movement in India. It was founded based on many other reasons. But the Sikhs did stand up and fight against the movement because the Mughals were giving a sentence of "Islam or death" to the people of India (who were mostly Hindu at the time). The Sikhs stood up so everyone could have the basic freedom to practice their religion of choice.
And I never said cultures are equal. I don't know where you got that from. I said they are all different.
But anyways, I like the BC model for helmet laws. I guess BC Sikhs are lucky!
Posted by: bkaur | 11-Mar-08 4:18:40 PM
It's true, I don't speak for all Canadians, just the majority.
"All I'm trying to say is that Canada is home for many different cultures and no one culture is better than the others."- That's where I got it.
You are right about something else. BC Sikhs are lucky. But then, so is everyone in BC. It's a beautiful place.
Posted by: dp | 11-Mar-08 5:44:59 PM
DP, "I'd agree that Sikhs are desirable immigrants, compared to a lot of our other choices."
These are people, not ceramic floor tile swatches from Rona.
DP, "It's true, I don't speak for all Canadians, just the majority."
Idunno DP, where I work, and I work in Wild West Big Truck Spit-On-The-Sidewalk Calgary, and lived in a wide range of the rest of the province, rural and urban, and the fact that the xenophobia I've seen here shocks me so much, makes me think you _don't_ speak for the majority of us. The talk I see here seems so completely out of character with the Canada I've seen and the Candians I've known that I've found myself compelled to speak up here way too often and waste way too much time.
I htink what's happened here is that a small number of people have gathered with like minded people, and accidentally or deliberately created an echo chamber and tricked themselves into thinking they're all of us, rather than some of us.
I really wish you knew just how weird some of what's said on here sounds to my friends. German. Chinese. Scottish. Polish. 1st gen. 6th gen. Nova Scotian since pre-revolutionary times, and Vancouverite since the head days of Expo 86. It might ease some of the frustration you must feel when the majority you see as a minority steer the country away from where the minority you thought was the majority wanted to go.
In physics, there used to be a set of calculations that supported one model of how space worked, and it was based on the assumption that much of the universe was made of an invisible dark matter. "The silent majority" of the universe. The math never seemed to work against what we observed, but they just assumed they hadn't quite worked out the mass of the silent majority dark matter. Then they built some expensive instruments to detect and measure the dark matter. Crap. There wasn't any. None. While it explained why their predictions never ran properly, it so challenged their assumptions that there's still a faction of scientists who refuse to accept the observations. Maybe that silent majority who think like you is really just more imaginary dark matter, and that explains why Canada is still a pretty liberal culture to the chagrin of a very small but vocal few?
Hugs,
Pattern Recognition.
Disclaimer: I'm not a scientist, I scored >40% in physics 30, so I probably botched the dark matter story a bit or a lot, but you totally get where I'm going with it right? Good.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 12-Mar-08 9:08:37 AM
"I live in BC where Sikhs are allowed to wear their turbans without a helmet. I would love to see Ontario Sikhs have the same rights." -- bkaur
But would you extend this "right" to non-Sikhs? Should everyone be allowed to ride without a helmet?
Thank you again for being part of this discussion.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 12-Mar-08 9:58:58 AM
I guess it depends on which mall you work in PR. If you work in the northeast, I can see how you might actually believe that Calgary is part of your vision.
Posted by: dp | 12-Mar-08 10:00:33 AM
DP, clever. Almost had me ready to reverse my position.
FYI I'm on the beltline in one of those mini-towers the CP trains shake the dust off of at 4:32pm when they roll in, so a bit south of dead center, and a short stroll from the WS' old office. And nary an Orange Julius or Gap in sight.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 12-Mar-08 10:15:10 AM
>"Spit-On-The-Sidewalk Calgary"
This is only a recent thing, like the litter.
>"But anyways, I like the BC model for helmet laws. I guess BC Sikhs are lucky!"
bkaur | 11-Mar-08 4:18:40 PM
Luck has nothing to do with it.
I'm glad you're comfortable with discrimination.
We'll see how lucky you are when the pendulum swings the other way.
Posted by: Speller | 12-Mar-08 10:16:03 AM
I know it's slow in the patch right now, but does that excuse you from posting from a company computer, on company time?
Bankers Hall eh? Not exactly a multicultural mosaic.
Posted by: dp | 12-Mar-08 10:20:00 AM
Correction- Bankers Hall is multicultural. If you count the shoe shine guy and the janitors.
Posted by: dp | 12-Mar-08 10:22:10 AM
"but does that excuse you from posting from a company computer, on company time?"
Running a render if you must know. Converting a 45 minute flash animation to MPEG-2 for an SD DVD to run in a client's lobby. Posting from an iPod Touch over Wi-Fi while my desk machine is slammed. I need more RAM and a Core 2 Duo machine.
"Bankers Hall eh?"
Um, Bankers Hall is like the 2nd largest man-made object in town, I said a mini-tower. Not that Bankers Hall _isn't_ multicultural. Ever been to Sun Terra at lunch?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 12-Mar-08 10:27:25 AM
So your office probably is in a mall? Or does Geeks to Go work mainly from strip malls?
Posted by: dp | 12-Mar-08 10:41:59 AM
Fail. The nearest mall is several blocks north of me. Looks like you'll have to find another way to make your point about being the voice of majority.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 12-Mar-08 10:48:23 AM
I don't need to make that point. I wouldn't have made the statement if I didn't have something to back it up.
I'm trying to establish that you are not really in the loop. A computer nerd who moved from downtown Vancouver to downtown Calgary does not have a grasp of what the majority of Canadians think. Try travelling to every small town in Alberta. Try talking to farmers, roughnecks, car dealers, and yes immigrants. Not the inner-city welfare types. I mean the ones who've gotten real jobs, and are trying to make a life for themselves. They are ready to jump into the melting pot.
I know a lot of Asians. They have no problem keeping up their traditions without help from the government. By the way, St. Patricks day is just around the corner. I haven't seen much government support for that one.
Posted by: dp | 12-Mar-08 11:04:38 AM
>" By the way, St. Patricks day is just around the corner. I haven't seen much government support for that one."
dp | 12-Mar-08 11:04:38 AM
Remember the time Mulroney and Reagan sang, "When Irish Eyes are Smiling"?
;-)
Posted by: Speller | 12-Mar-08 11:12:07 AM
I'm not going to name names but just so you know, I do talk to farmers. It's part of what I do for pay.
(And I moved from Edmonton to Calgary, not Vancouver.)
But anyway, speaking of pay, I've floated my point about who the majority might really be, and you can take it or leave it. My render's done so I have a disc to deliver. Have a good one. Try not to take this all so seriously. Even immigrants with turbans know when to just call it a day and go grab a coffee.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 12-Mar-08 11:15:29 AM
OK I lied, one last thing and I'll go. A co-worker following the sparring pushed me to. I'm weak, I know.
DP, here's a $10 melting-pot experiment. Grab like, 34 pure white crayons. Non-toxic Crayolas if you can, and throw em in a thick-bottomed steel pot on medium heat for about 23 minutes till all the pure white crayons have melted. Now throw in a single red crayon. Wait till it melts. Stir for about 2 minutes. A wooden spoon works well.
Now, what color is the mix in your melting pot?
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 12-Mar-08 11:20:57 AM
You finally made my point. With you, it comes down to crayons in the end.
Posted by: dp | 12-Mar-08 11:27:25 AM
Sikhs are prohibited from wearing hats/helmets. It is an incredibly strong injunction for Sikhs. This was, I believe, to prevent the deevolution of the turban, which is tied onto the head, to become a hat, which is simply put on the head. l
Most people are unaware of the protection that the turban offers. Read this excerpt from the Sikh motorcycle club website:
"You cant ride a motorcycle without a helmet or a small mini-turban of just 1 meter. No, you have to have a full turban and the turban is very safe. Our forefathers have fought in the second world war along with the British soldiers. The fire coming in from the mortars, cannons and they've been handling that and it was very safe and it's still safe. A lot of people have died of head injuries while they were wearing hard hats and there are a lot of cases where people have had accidents, where the turban has saved any head injury at all. Still we believe in safety, particularly in riding in a group or riding in twos ultimately the type of precautions that we always take. When you are on a motorcycle, specifically if you are a turban Sikh, you have a turban on your head and you have to be more responsible. We all do follow and abide by all the rules and regulations about the traffic laws and other people merging and we just wave to other motorcyclists."
Posted by: Sundeep Gill | 12-Mar-08 6:10:01 PM
Sikhs have worn helmets 'throughout their history'
Chris Wattie, National Post Published: Saturday, February 16, 2008
"Michael Doi, representing the Ontario attorney-general, told a Brampton court that Sikhs, even orthodox ones, do not wear their turbans all the time. "The turban is not worn while bathing or sleeping or when engaging in certain sporting activities such as swimming,...
However, Mr. Doi introduced historical evidence that shows Sikhs have worn helmets "throughout their history," pointing to a Sikh turban helmet from the 18th century now on display in the Royal Ontario Museum.
He said Sikhs currently serving in the Canadian Forces also wear helmets, "over smaller turbans or other cloth head coverings during operational activities and training."
The province also observed that there are motorcycle helmets designed to fit over smaller turbans which are commercially available in Ontario and Mr. Doi argued that ultimately, Mr. Badesha can choose to use other methods of transportation. "He is not claiming that riding a motorcycle is itself a part of his religious practice," he said.
Posted by: DJ | 12-Mar-08 7:18:01 PM
I just wanted to say the original article is fabulous and I agree 100% - thank you so much for having such an open-minded, non-biased approach to this issue. I salute writers like you who are dedicated to truth (rather than following the crowd / rather than treating every new race-related issue as another juicy piece of gossip that can be used to label non-Whites and shove our anger at them). Thank you.
Posted by: Anonymous | 12-Mar-08 11:03:32 PM
Sadness.
It turns out there's been a helmet overlay thing to go overtop of turbans for a long time. So I'm not going to bother with further development (link below).
http://www.royalarmouries.org/extsite/view.jsp?sectionId=3506
Gotta say, it looks pretty badass. It'd totally go with the new 2008 V-Rod (image link below).
http://z.about.com/d/motorcycles/1/7/c/2/-/-/VRSCAW-AVRod.jpg
Sundeep and bkaur, Valentine Armouries in Calgary could probably build a street-legal replica if you're in the market for one.
Anyway. I'm bummed out about that.
Posted by: Pattern Recognition | 13-Mar-08 11:58:56 AM
That's okay. Maybe that pattern recognition software will work out for you.
Posted by: dp | 13-Mar-08 12:09:44 PM
R.True, a true moron, says above that turban-wearing Sikhs are hardcore fundamentalists. Then he advises us "If you want to play the game play by the rules." Can anyone say hypocrite?
Posted by: Blue | 14-Mar-08 10:57:22 PM
Nice to see that the Western Standard is finding a few pro-freedom readers now - not just the typical "small government" conservative types who actually scrape and fawn and praise every petty government intrusion.
Posted by: Vince Liberty | 15-Mar-08 9:53:26 AM
He has the right to wear his turban, but he does not have a right to ride a motorcycle without one. It is not a civil right to be able to ride a motorcycle and not disobey laws.
Posted by: Lynn | 16-Mar-08 4:09:53 PM
In BC, Sikhs can ride without a helmet and I don't agree with the exemption at all. I say remove the exemption or scrap the helmet law!!!!
The exemption discriminates against me because I do not wear a turban, therefore I am FORCED to wear one based on my race, ethnic background, and religion. If they want to let them ride without a helmet, then I should be able to as well, according to the Charter of Rights:
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Posted by: Long time rider | 24-Apr-08 1:33:39 PM
Long time rider,
Shouldn't you be happy that at least someone or some group is allowed to get out from under the obligation to wear a helmet?
Look at it as an incremental move toward the freedom for all to ride without a helmet.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 24-Apr-08 1:59:36 PM
Post a comment