Ugggggggggggggh. I don’t know where to begin. To summarize the article for those to lazy to read it in it’s entirety. Man drives motorcycle on the highway. Man is pulled over for not wearing a helmet and fined according to the laws of this province in the amount of $110. Man protests saying he can’t wear a helmet because he would have to take off his turban. Man goes to the Ontario Human Rights Commission saying his human rights were violated and he didn’t know he has to wear a helmet in Ontario because he didn’t have to in British Columbia, his former home. Man wins the ruling and doesn’t have to pay the fine.
Excuse me, what? Where do I begin? Maybe with how incredibly stupid the Man’s position is? Maybe with how incredibly stupid the Ontario Human Rights Commission is for even allowing to hear what this Man has to say? Maybe with utterly absurd the Man’s lawyer is? Here are some of the things the Man’s lawyer had to say about the ruling:
“Telling [the Man] to choose between his religion or participating in the normal life of Ontario is discrimination”
No, it’s called following the law dipshit. All citizens of this country and their respective provinces are expected to follow the respective laws. If the Man wants to wear his turban in everyday life, I will not stop him, hell, I will fight for his right to do just that, so long as he does not break any laws in doing so. Going to the store? Wear a turban. At your place of work? Wear a turban. Suddenly want to become a police officer? Wear a turban. Why? Because if you take away the turban from this examples, what’s changed? Nothing. Not a thing.
Not wearing a helmet whilst driving your motorcycle on a highway or any road is
a) dangerous b) stupid and c) illegal.
More of what the dipshit lawyer had to say:
"Roads and riding a motorcycle are something that is available to everybody in Ontario provided they wear a helmet. But that condition makes it impossible for [the Man] and everybody of the Sikh religion. That amounts to discrimination."
No that’s called a conflict. A personal conflict. A personal conflict about one’s personal religion. Here is the Man’s choice – wear a turban and run the risking of dying or getting a ticket or take off my turban and wear a helmet in accordance with the laws of one’s province (which by the way is the citizen’s right to determine, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to not follow the law!) and pay restitution to your religion in accordance to your religious laws, in the privacy of your own home or place of worship. The Man made his choice; he wore a turban instead of a helmet, got caught, and must give restitution for his crime albeit a misdemeanor.
Here’s something from the Man:
“In an affidavit entered in court, [the Man] said he had a "sincere" belief that he was obligated under the tenets of his faith to wear a turban at all times when outside his home.
‘We want an exemption for our religion,’ he said outside court.”
Here is what I would say to that:
*clears throat* “No.”
“But your honor, my client is being discrimat-“
“No. He’s not.”
“He has a right to practice his faith-“
“Agreed, but in doing so, he broke the law, a law designed to protect his life, the answer is No.”
My point? If you are in this country, you follow the laws of this country. Religion is a private matter. A completely private matter. The Man made his choice; he chose to follow his religion and took on the risk of being caught of breaking the law to follow his religion. He was caught. Your beef isn’t with the country and its “discriminatory” laws; it’s with your religion and it’s laws altering and keeping you from living the life you want to live.