Canadian Sikh biker to appeal turban ban

**Bob** · 13th March 2008, 01:18

A Sikh motorcyclist is to challenge Canadian law over the decision that he must wear a motorcycle helmet as opposed to a turban.

Baljinder Badesha, 39 lost an appeal against a ticket he received for not wearing a helmet. Sikhs must wear a turban outside of the home and cannot cover it.

"This time I will not fight for myself, but I will challenge Ontario's law in the larger interests of all Sikhs who want to ride a bike," Badesha said.

The World Sikh Organization of Canada (WSO) issued a statement expressing disappointment at the court's decision, saying "A turban is an important Sikh article of faith that shouldn't be covered by any other object.”

The United Kingdom grants an exemption to Sikhs on religious grounds.

**Bikernereid** · 13th March 2008, 02:48

These people have been challenging wearing the mountie uniform too. They want to wear their turban and not the traditional mountie uniform. They are aware of the inform requirements so if they are not prepared to adhere to this uniform then they should not join the Mounted Police.

The same argument goes for wearing a motobike bike helmet. But then again there is always the counter argument of Darwin; let the most able and fitest survive!!

**Soul.Trader** · 13th March 2008, 06:23

I think when we're talking about our own personal safety, freedom of choice should come first. Why shouldn't this guy wear whatever he wants on his own bike? Why is it anyone else's business? Having said that, I dont see any grounds for having the ticket remitted - the law's the law, and if his religious convictions were so important, he wont mind giving up riding for the sake of eternal happiness.

**Bikernereid** · 13th March 2008, 06:35

I have yet to see a Sihk on a motorbike without a helmet. Maybe they are just smarter/ less religious over here or just not into bikes.

Then thing that gets me is who will pay for them if they are seriously injured and need medical assitance care after an accident whilst not wearing a helmet- the tax payer that is who?!

**xwhatsit** · 13th March 2008, 07:06

Originally Posted by Bikern1mpho

Then thing that gets me is who will pay for them if they are seriously injured and need medical assitance care after an accident whilst not wearing a helmet- the tax payer that is who?!

If he's not got a helmet, the poor chap will more likely just crack his nut open anyway and there'll be no expenses bar the clean-up and investigation etc.

I'm all for personal choice, too -- provided there's proper education first, so people know what they're getting into.

**Usarka** · 13th March 2008, 07:19

Originally Posted by Soul.Trader

I think when we're talking about our own personal safety, freedom of choice should come first. Why shouldn't this guy wear whatever he wants on his own bike? Why is it anyone else's business? Having said that, I dont see any grounds for having the ticket remitted - the law's the law, and if his religious convictions were so important, he wont mind giving up riding for the sake of eternal happiness.

I agree regarding personal choice, but i dont agree with people being granted exemptions to laws because their "beliefs" happen to be one of the few sanctioned check boxes on a list.

The NZ Jedi believe that speed binds the force of the universe, and travelling less than 120km on the open road is the ultimate insult to our faith.

**Bikernereid** · 13th March 2008, 07:33

+1

Since when did religion superceed the law? If we allow such madness we will end up letting people off murder because it is part of thier 'belief/ faith system'.

The law for helmets is there for a reason.

Originally Posted by Usarka

I agree regarding personal choice, but i dont agree with people being granted exemptions to laws because their "beliefs" happen to be one of the few sanctioned check boxes on a list.

The NZ Jedi believe that speed binds the force of the universe, and travelling less than 120km on the open road is the ultimate insult to our faith.

**Coyote** · 13th March 2008, 08:17

I propose a ban on speed limits as it goes against my religion!

**Steam** · 13th March 2008, 08:24

Some of you are sounding very PC today.
PC bikers who want to force laws on people who'll hurt only themselves?

Oh, maybe it's because he's got a wacky religion, that'd explain it.

**Hinny** · 13th March 2008, 09:04

Originally Posted by Bikern1mpho

+1

Since when did religion supersede the law? If we allow such madness we will end up letting people off murder because it is part of their 'belief/ faith system'.

We do in this country.
A guy was acquitted of causing grievous bodily harm or attempted murder after shoving a pencil up the eye socket of a woman he was romantically(?) involved with. Pleaded through his American lawyer that he was possessed by a Maori demon. Matuku? made him do it. Nah! maybe not him as he was a cannibal of harsh character, brought up by one his sea-ancestors who taught him the art of making and flying kites.

**Ixion** · 13th March 2008, 10:31

Sikhs are exempt from the helemt wearing law in this country

(8)A person is not in breach of subclause (1) if the person proves that at the time of the commission of the alleged breach he or she was an adherent of the Sikh religion.

**Grub** · 13th March 2008, 10:40

Originally Posted by Steam

Some of you are sounding very PC today.
PC bikers who want to force laws on people who'll hurt only themselves?.

That was my intial reaction too ... and was going to say so. Then I realised that the cost of caring for him in a veg state for years will come donw on ACC who will then pump up the motorcycle levy as a consequence.

So now my view is - nil tollerance. The helmet covers the hair, go into the toilet to take helmet off and put turban on.

**xwhatsit** · 13th March 2008, 11:55

Don't know anything about Sikhs, but if we were really keen on making them wear helmets (not that it seems to be a very important issue, I don't meet many splattered Sikh motorsicklists on my daily commute), could there possibly be a `Sikh-approved helmet' manufactured? I.e., a helmet that qualifies as a turban -- or a turban with a protective lining?

Kind of like a Halal helmet

**Steam** · 13th March 2008, 12:10

This guy should be okay I reckon...
Maybe he has a helmet under there?

**Ixion** · 13th March 2008, 12:13

Yes. That would be quite possible. Back in the days before Sobraon and Aliwal, the Amritdhari of the Khalsa often used to incorporate an iron cap into the turban. For obvious reasons.

But, in fact, the turban is not a religious requirement for Sikhs. It is not one of the 5 Ks. What is required for a "orthodox" Sikh is Kesh, the non-cutting of the hair, and combing with the Kanga, or wooden comb. Because they do not cut their hair, some form of head covering is required.

Guru Gobind Singh said

My Sikh shall not use the razor. For him the use of razor or shaving the chin shall be as sinful as incest. For the Khalsa such a symbol is prescribed so that a Sikh cannot remain undistinguishable from among a hundred thousand Hindus or Muslims; because how can he hide himself with hair and turban on his head and with a flowing beard?

But many (most ?) Sikhs nowdays are not Khalsa. They are Sahajdhari , or non-orthodox Sikhs. Who cut their hair, and in many cases do not even wear the Kara, the iron bangle. So there seems no reaosn why they should not wear a helmet. And, I suspect, most do.