# Judge Rules Against Sikh Challenge Of Helmet Law



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Finally, some common sense! :clap: :clap: 

A judge in Brampton, Ont., rejected a human rights challenge to an Ontario helmet law, saying on Thursday the law is not discriminatory.

The challenge had been launched by Baljinder Badesha, a Sikh man who wore a turban while riding his motorcycle.

Badesha, a devout Sikh, was wearing a turban when he was charged under the Highway Traffic Act in 2005 with operating a motorcycle without wearing a helmet. He was given a $110 ticket but refused to pay.

Badesha had argued he should be excused from the requirement to wear a helmet because his religion requires him to wear a turban.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission supported the position taken by Badesha. It had said the issue is about religious accommodation under Ontario's Human Rights Code.

Judge rules against Sikh challenge of helmet law


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Basically the Sikh man's argument is "I will put myself in danger, commit a crime by not paying the fine, commit another crime by not wearing a helmet because i believe the world started in a certain way"

*MAKES PERFECT SENSE.*

Next thing you know they're going to want to carry around daggers... oh wait.


----------



## johnb1 (Aug 6, 2006)

*helmet law challenge*

I have nothing against Sikhs or any religion for that matter, but
stupidity doesn't discriminate either
I say, you wanna wear your turban, but not a helmet, go right ahead
but if you crash your bike without wearing a helmet
well, let's just see which protects you better, shall we?
Darwin strikes again, I suppose ...

J B


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Good on the judge for enforcing common sense and the rules of safety.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

johnb1 said:


> I have nothing against Sikhs or any religion for that matter, but
> stupidity doesn't discriminate either
> I say, you wanna wear your turban, but not a helmet, go right ahead
> but if you crash your bike without wearing a helmet
> ...


However if they choose stupidity over knowledge and crash and splatter their heads all over the street, we need to hire people to clean it up. That costs money. Why pay a lot of money if people can just follow simple rules?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

johnb1 said:


> I have nothing against Sikhs or any religion for that matter, but
> stupidity doesn't discriminate either
> I say, you wanna wear your turban, but not a helmet, go right ahead
> but if you crash your bike without wearing a helmet
> ...


That would be ok if we had a private health system, I'm all for stupid people hurting themselves, but I'd rather not see tax dollars used to save this idiots life.


----------



## K_OS (Dec 13, 2002)

I think that he should be allowed to wear his turban instead of a helmet as long as he signs a waiver and agrees to pay for his medical bills when he becomes street pizza otherwise I agree with the judge. Your welcome and have the right to practice your religion as you see fit but when it comes in conflict with the law the law should take precedence.

Laterz


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

K_OS said:


> I think that he should be allowed to wear his turban instead of a helmet as long as he signs a waiver and agrees to pay for his medical bills when he becomes street pizza otherwise I agree with the judge. Your welcome and have the right to practice your religion as you see fit but when it comes in conflict with the law the law should take precedence.
> 
> Laterz


That actually makes sense. I could see that working.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

K_OS said:


> I think that he should be allowed to wear his turban instead of a helmet as long as he signs a waiver and agrees to pay for his medical bills when he becomes street pizza


But that won't help him sell bikes to other Sikhs.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

My religion instructs me to go around kicking people in family jewels who whine about religious freedom.

Religion is a PERSONAL thing. As long as it doesn't change my life, lifestyle, doesn't chew up my tax dollars, doesn't put others in harm, then go for it. Otherwise, too bad, so sad.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> My religion instructs me to go around kicking people in family jewels who whine about religious freedom.


... and regardless of what your Religion entitles i must respect and honour it to the utmost. If i challenge your religion i can be sued for defamation of character.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

K_OS said:


> I think that he should be allowed to wear his turban instead of a helmet as long as he signs a waiver and agrees to pay for his medical bills...


I'd sign one in a minute. And another for seatbelts.

As long as everyone else who engages in risky behavior signs one (smokers, sky divers, extreme sports, whatever). That would also include people who stand up in the bathtub, people who live in polluted cities, etc., etc., etc.

There are far riskier behaviors covered every day by insurance right now than riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

On topic, the judges decision was the correct one. If everyone else has to, so should he.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Black said:


> ... and regardless of what your Religion entitles i must respect and honour it to the utmost. If i challenge your religion i can be sued for defamation of character.


Defamation of character? How exactly?


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Defamation of character? How exactly?


Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation.

Defaming someone due to their Religion (Organization, business) is an offense if you're proven guilty.


However i find this extremely stupid and hypocritical because people can hate you for all kinds of beliefs, however false accusations and Religion are the top reasons for sueing for that.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Black said:


> Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation.
> 
> Defaming someone due to their Religion (Organization, business) is an offense if you're proven guilty.
> 
> Not always involving religion but it's possible.


Okay, now what does that have to do with honoring or respecting someone's religion?


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Okay, now what does that have to do with honoring or respecting someone's religion?


My point was that people can claim to have whatever wild and cooky religion that they want and everyone else has to respect it and if they say anything can be sued for defamation of character. 
Freedom of speech <-- hahaha.

This is unrelated to the thread topic, i was just replying in sarcasm to a sarcastic post of someone else.

Rerail.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> Defamation is written or spoken injury to a person or organization's reputation.
> Defaming someone due to their Religion (Organization, business) is an offense if you're proven guilty.


Imagine, being held accountable for spreading inflammatory lies about an identifiable group of people. Oh the injustice! 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Radio Flyer (Feb 11, 2007)

Hidden in this is a business opportunity for an enterprising Sikh. Make a helmet that can be wrapped in a turban. Seriously, it might meet the safety and religious criteria and make a million $$$.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

It's easier to clean up a smorgasboard of skull fragments, mashed brain, and marinated eyeballs when it's contained in a helmet than having to clean up an entire intersection or something. They could make a tougher turban that'll help contain the mess.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> Imagine, being held accountable for spreading inflammatory lies about an identifiable group of people. Oh the injustice!
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Proven facts are not lies. However certain people like to say that imposing scientific fact is blasphemus and therefore defamation of Religion. This is bogus and unbecoming of humanity as we know it.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> Proven facts are not lies. However certain people like to say that imposing scientific fact is blasphemus and therefore defamation of Religion. This is bogus and unbecoming of humanity as we know it.


Got an example of this? An actual one, not hypothetical.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

It is hard to believe that this is front page news. Who really cares what people wear on their heads? Every time Sikhs win or lose a court case on religious headgear all the intolerants creep out on to the woodwork like a bunch of cockroaches. Is this really going to impact your day? I doubt it. Spend more time worrying about yourself and less about "those Sikhs". Shame on you!


----------



## BikerRob (Sep 19, 2007)

I don't want to debate the validity of helmet laws, but I do challenge those of you who are using the "sign a waiver" "don't want to pay his medical bills" arguement. It's a silly and hipocrital arguement. I'm a non-smoker, and yet I have to pay the medical bills of all your smokers who battle lung disease and all the other related illnesses. I work out regularly and try to watch what I eat, but I sill have to pay the medical bills for all your obese people whose only work out is raising another french fry to your mouth.

If we're going to use the arguement of medical bills for those who choose not to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then let's do it right across the board.

I saw an article in the Ottawa Sun today about the dangers of eating snow (the white kind not the yellow, lol). Turns out there is bacteria in the snow! No kidding!! So now, we want to protect our kids from snow! 

Our world has become far too silly


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

BikerRob said:


> I don't want to debate the validity of helmet laws, but I do challenge those of you who are using the "sign a waiver" "don't want to pay his medical bills" arguement. It's a silly and hipocrital arguement. I'm a non-smoker, and yet I have to pay the medical bills of all your smokers who battle lung disease and all the other related illnesses. I work out regularly and try to watch what I eat, but I sill have to pay the medical bills for all your obese people whose only work out is raising another french fry to your mouth.
> 
> If we're going to use the arguement of medical bills for those who choose not to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, then let's do it right across the board.
> 
> ...


Actually this argument falls flat on a few points:
Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds


> Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday.
> 
> It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.
> 
> ...


I'll add that I saw an article that claimed similar about helmets. Wearing them means more spent on medical care as more survive but are injured profoundly.


----------



## BikerRob (Sep 19, 2007)

I think the point I'm making is simply that we ALL do things that can be considered risky by someone else ... WHO decides which activities are appropriate and which are not? My taxes pay for health care as much as the next guy ...
I've had motorcycles my whole life. And I've even heard some suggest that motorcycles should be outlawed (not just wearing a helmet) because of the "I don't want to pay your medical bills" arguement.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

martman said:


> Actually this argument falls flat on a few points:
> Obese people, smokers cost the health system less than healthy do, study finds


That still doesn't change the fact that the system is spending money on the lazy, the at-fault obese, or people who smoke (among others). Treating those people cost money regardless - money better spent elsewhere had these people made better choices from the start.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Lars said:


> That still doesn't change the fact that the system is spending money on the lazy, the at-fault obese, or people who smoke (among others). Treating those people cost money regardless - money better spent elsewhere had these people made better choices from the start.


Yes it does. Despite the fact you seem to not be able to understand what you read, the gist of the article is this: Obese and smokers spend less in medical expenses than the healthy.

The point is all are going to die and most will get sick first. The healthy folks cost the system more so your argument is wrong and bassed on prejudice and wishful thinking rather than the truth. The obese and smokers SAVE money, making more available to the system. That is the money that can be used to promote healthy choices if you wish. Under your argument there is less money to spend not more.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Lars said:


> That still doesn't change the fact that the system is spending money on the lazy, the at-fault obese, or people who smoke (among others). Treating those people cost money regardless - money better spent elsewhere had these people made better choices from the start.


What money is spent on obese or lazy people as far as health treatment goes? Please, feel free to expand on your comment. I'm sure you have some really amazing insights on the matter.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

dona83 said:


> It's easier to clean up a smorgasboard of skull fragments, mashed brain, and marinated eyeballs when it's contained in a helmet than having to clean up an entire intersection or something. They could make a tougher turban that'll help contain the mess.


Already invented.

KEVLAR.

:lmao:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Forget the waiver. Let him post a $100,000 bond toward the cost of head repairs, should they be needed. If he's willing to fork over the cost of the bond let him exercise his freedom of religion up to and beyond the point of extinction.

Up with Darwin!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> There must be a dangerous way to do baptisms to take care of the home grown nutbars....


:lmao: 
I always chuckle when our resident Harry Potter/Obi Wan Kenobi hybrid talks about the nutbars.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Oh my, and I thought I was harsh. A tip of my hat.

But I must admit there is something to Natural Selection that should not be so easily dismissed.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Just a tidbit.... While I was in Florida last week, there was people driving motorcycles all over the place without helmets.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Well sure they were.

No National health care.


----------



## bgw (Jan 8, 2008)

If the state pays (AKA OHIP) it makes the safety rules. If you pay (US model) you can make the safety rules. If you sign a waver of some sort (not allowed here) you make the safety rules. The judge was right, however I've heard (can someone confirm this) that in B.C. Sikhs can wear turbans instead of helmets?

What we really need is someone inventive (quite likely a Sikh) to create something that can meet the religious and legal requirements.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

iMouse said:


> Well sure they were.
> 
> No National health care.


Again: IT COSTS MORE FOR SOCIETY TO HAVE PEOPLE WEAR HELMETS NOT LESS.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Just a tidbit.... While I was in Florida last week, there was people driving motorcycles all over the place without helmets.


But we WANT Americans to kill themselves off (well, maybe just Republicans).


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MasterBlaster said:


> If the religious fanatics in the middle east want to be martyrs and suicide bombers maybe this sort of thing could be encourage to decrease their numbers.


That is my favorite example of darwinism and natural selection.

Also Christians tormenting their libido, that's pretty comical too.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

martman said:


> Again: IT COSTS MORE FOR SOCIETY TO HAVE PEOPLE WEAR HELMETS NOT LESS.


I think the idea isn't to save money. It's to ensure that citizens don't go around killing themselves off, hence things like seatbelt laws. The government sets up all these programs in an effort to keep the population alive.

When one religious group wants to blatantly defy the government's laws, and in doing so, put themselves at risk of death, I only see two options:

1) Slap them back into line.

2) Cut them off completely like a spoiled child.

If they don't want to wear a helmet, then they get cut off from the free medical health care everyone else WHO FOLLOWs THE LAW enjoy.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MasterBlaster said:


> There must be a dangerous way to do baptisms to take care of the home grown nutbars....


I agree. Perhaps when they flock in droves to see the months-old grilled cheese sandwich in the form of the Virgin Mary, we should encourage them to take a bite! Sort of like the body of Christ type of offering.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

If people do not want to respect laws that keep you safe like wearing a helmet, the government should step in and impose penalties.

For example of something i would do... setup so that if a person dies in a crash he get's labeled as a criminal and a percentage of his money that is left over goes to the government as compensation for using it's health/police services at the time of his pointless death. In the case of head injury i would impose a huge fine and a criminal record that can not be pardoned.

That's probably not going to happen though... because Canada is 'a cultural mosaic', so we have to respect everyone's endangering choices they make (yes we actually HAVE TO respect that). Of course when they say Cultural Mosaic, they actually mean "Country that bends rules for all kinds of people and destroys their own customs by doing so" (See Mountie)


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> I agree. Perhaps when they flock in droves to see the months-old grilled cheese sandwich in the form of the Virgin Mary, we should encourage them to take a bite! Sort of like the body of Christ type of offering.


holy toast virgin mary toast imprint

and not to be out done..

YOUR OWN PERSONAL JESUS TOAST.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

kps said:


> holy toast virgin mary toast imprint
> 
> and not to be out done..
> 
> YOUR OWN PERSONAL JESUS TOAST.


Hilarious!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> How did you come up with that BS?


The "BS" comes straight from your own postings. 

*OBI WAN*


> I consider myself a self styled New Age Mystic. In my previous post I mentioned the Church of Cash. I no longer consider money to be the most powerful thing we can attain. The most powerful thing we can do is increase our Life Force Energy and and cultivate our knowledge and attunement to universal forces around us.


*HARRY POTTER*


> I now incorporate much Wicca, Taoism, and Mysticism into my personal practices and rituals.
> 
> I have discovered by accident that I can do energy healing with my hands. I have now decided to dedicate my life to mastering Healing Arts, Martial Arts, and Occult Arts.


You've posted lots of other gems that back my Obi Wan/Harry Potter statement but this one posting pretty much sums it up.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> The "BS" comes straight from your own postings.
> 
> *OBI WAN*
> 
> ...


Religion fight - Go!

Martial arts, Healing Arts and Occult Arts are *real*. So is your ego.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Black said:


> Religion fight - Go!
> 
> Martial arts, Healing Arts and Occult Arts are *real*. So is your ego.


Black,

I'm Shocked! You're really a believer afterall! 

Martial arts can be real though it has some flaky religious elements in some disciplines. The effects of a kick in the side of the head isn't in question. Healing art and Occult practices though?  

I wonder if the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins would agree with your endorsement of the "reality" of the healing arts and occult? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> The "BS" comes straight from your own postings.
> 
> *OBI WAN*
> 
> ...


Is he offending your overtly Christian/ Catholic sensibilities? Are you not one to turn the other cheek? Your post is bordering on being a little too personal. I'm not sure why you are so threatened by MasterBlaster but can you at least try to keep things civil? It is after all, the Christian thing to do.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> I think the idea isn't to save money. It's to ensure that citizens don't go around killing themselves off, hence things like seatbelt laws. The government sets up all these programs in an effort to keep the population alive.


<sarcasm>that is why there are so many comments about making Sikhs pay a bond to ride without a helmet.</sarcasm>


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> MacGuiver talking about things he hasn't got the intelligence to understand. XX)


But of course, all intelligent people practice the occult and healing people with magic hands. The science is unequivocal. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

MacGuiver said:


> I wonder if the high priest of atheism, Richard Dawkins would agree with your endorsement of the "reality" of the healing arts and occult?


Atheism is not an organisation. As it is not an organisation it has no leader. It has nobody who is seen as 'the master' and has no subordinates who are egocentric and delusional.



MacGuiver said:


> Martial arts can be real though it has some flaky religious elements in some disciplines. The effects of a kick in the side of the head isn't in question. Healing art and Occult practices though?


Martial Arts diciplines the body and puts you into perfect physical form like the human body should be. Relaxes the mind and the muscles. Happy, relaxed, open eyed.

Religion torments the body with abstinence. Threatens the mind with false consequences and therefore weakens the mind. Scared, paranoid, delusional.

Healing art?
The body's physiology changes from one of stress to one of deep relaxation, from one of fear to one of creativity and inspiration.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Black said:


> Religion torments the body with abstinence. Threatens the mind with false consequences and therefore weakens the mind. Scared, paranoid, delusional.


Spoken as one with limited exposure to the many different religions of the worlds, their practices, and the ways in which they are incorporated into a particular believer's life and culture. 

And because you probably don't know my own beliefs well, I'm generally deist, with a belief system that is largely made up but drawn from my parents' beliefs (Jainism), Buddhism, a dash of Tao and some stuff I made up because I think it's cool.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Spoken as one with limited exposure to the many different religions of the worlds, their practices, and the ways in which they are incorporated into a particular believer's life and culture.
> 
> And because you probably don't know my own beliefs well, I'm generally deist, with a belief system that is largely made up but drawn from my parents' beliefs (Jainism), Buddhism, a dash of Tao and some stuff I made up because I think it's cool.


From now on whenever i say Religion i am talking about Christianity. Christianity is too difficult to type for me, Religion is easier.. unless of course i'm being specific. Since we live in Canada it should already be assumed.

About your comment to my exposure, i have been exposed personally to only Christianity and that is why i only speak out largly on Christianity. Example: My grandmother sneaking me away from my parents when i was under 1 year old to attempt to baptise me in the sink because my parent's told her that they were going to let me make my own decisions (Thanks to her i already have). I have never spoken to my Grandmother for being a sneaky Christian.

Actually the funny thing is that when i was about 8-9 i had to go to church with my Grandmother and parents for Christmas-eve. I thought the whole time that they were talking to each other about forgiveness of 'sin' and getting to a good place (As in good friends, good job etc). Later i found out they were talking about a make believe man in the sky who is mute to all 5 senses and is given voice by man himself. From this experience i've concluded that there is no such thing as a Religious child, only Religious other's such as parents, grandparents etc.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> Is he offending your overtly Christian/ Catholic sensibilities? Are you not one to turn the other cheek? Your post is bordering on being a little too personal. I'm not sure why you are so threatened by MasterBlaster but can you at least try to keep things civil? It is after all, the Christian thing to do.


You're right Mr. Jimmy, degrading someone's beliefs is personal. Glad to see you could come to that realization when the victim of ridicule wasn't Christian.:clap: 
You guys just seemed to be having such a good time in your regular anti-christian rants and mockery (as seems to be a favorite pastime on ehmac and the starting point of countless threads) I got caught up in the fun of the moment. 

That said, I'm perplexed by your desire to defend Masterblaster's beliefs. I thought you science and logic types would be equally critical of crystal gazers, reiki healers, spirit guides, spells and other occult/New Age pastimes? Apparently not.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Black said:


> From now on whenever i say Religion i am talking about Christianity. Christianity is too difficult to type for me, Religion is easier.. unless of course i'm being specific. Since we live in Canada it should already be assumed.


No, actually it should not be assumed. Multicultural society, remember? 

I was born and raised in Canada, and had very limited exposure to Christianity growing up... I grew up in a predominantly Jewish neighbhourhood, and though I did attend a rather snooty Anglican high school, there was very little religious education provided during the years in which I attended.  What I have learned about Christianity and how people raised in this tradition interact with religion strikes me as a little odd--things work quite differently how I was raised. 

Even Christianity is practiced in a wide variety of ways... to disparage all religion based on a very narrow exposure to one religion is pretty sloppy logic.

I have no issue with you disparaging all religion per se, but do it based on solid reasoning.


----------



## absolutetotalgeek (Sep 18, 2005)

Awesome! Someone started another thread where religion is involved that has gone completely off topic and has nothing to do with the original topic anymore. :lmao: 

I love it. '_I want to ride on the highway on my motorcycle with no helmet._' What a fu$%kin' moron..... 

Go ahead skippy, and when you get clipped and your sliding along the road trapped under your bike and it collides with a truck and hits the gas tank and your head bursts into flames because it's wrapped in material and not a helmet, well maybe then it'll click into that tiny brain.  :lmao:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

I see that this thread has degenerated into the abyss of bigotry and hatred of the various religions...

I think the judgement will be overturned in appeal. The law as it stands is unconstitutional as it makes the statement that those people who are devoted to a religion will be discriminated against because we will take away their freedom to operate a motorcycle. This goes against the Constitution that provides guarantees of freedom of religion, and does not establish a state church. Helmets should be at the option of the rider, not made mandatory by a draconian law brought into play without the consensus of the majority of the citizens.

To uphold this ruling is to state that the government must discriminate against all religious beliefs, and must impose limitations not only against Sikhs, but must impose limitations across the board. Which would be no surprise, considering that McGuilty is doing everything he can to take away democracy by eliminating Question Period, eliminating Committee meetings, and eliminate the prayers at the beginning of the daily business. It is not too many more steps until he installs an Athesit form of dictatorship, and begins the pogroms against those of faith. But perhaps he is not that stupid, considering that unlike Mr. Tory, he decided not to attack the Catholics of the province with venomous invectives and bigotted provocateering.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

_Please note: With all due respect to helmet shunning Sikhs, sorry to continue derailing! _



MacGuiver said:


> You're right Mr. Jimmy, degrading someone's beliefs is personal. Glad to see you could come to that realization when the victim of ridicule wasn't Christian.:clap:


My goodness! Feeling persecuted are we?



MacGuiver said:


> You guys just seemed to be having such a good time in your regular anti-christian rants and mockery (as seems to be a favorite pastime on ehmac and the starting point of countless threads) I got caught up in the fun of the moment.


Oh yes, we meet every week planning our anti-Christian rants. Anyyyywho, I thought a simple apology would do until I saw you were applying the tenet of an eye for an eye.



MacGuiver said:


> That said, I'm perplexed by your desire to defend Masterblaster's beliefs. I thought you science and logic types would be equally critical of crystal gazers, reiki healers, spirit guides, spells and other occult/New Age pastimes? Apparently not.


A. You have no idea what type I am so you being perplexed is perplexing.
B. I like MasterBlaster. He does not view his beliefs with blinders on. He's willing to accept new ideas and criticism.
C. The occult neither threatens nor frightens me. It's connection to Paganism gives it immense credibility. Oh wait, Christianity stems from Pagan roots as well. Silly me.

Thanks for caring.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MacGYVER (Apr 15, 2005)

Ok, now that this has been won in the courts, can we also change the ruling of Sikh's wearing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Uniform Hats over their turban? Or would that be discriminating against their religion? Hmmmm....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacGYVER said:


> Ok, now that this has been won in the courts, can we also change the ruling of Sikh's wearing the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Uniform Hats over their turban? Or would that be discriminating against their religion? Hmmmm....


Why yes that would be bigotry. Again this has no bearing on you personally except to bring out misplaced hostilities. Frankly who gives a sh*t what a Sikh cops wears so long as it is obvious they are a cop? How does this affect you in actual life other than to remind you of your lack of tolerance?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> How does this affect you in actual life other than to remind you of your lack of tolerance?


I don't view it as a lack of tolerance at all.

What I do view it as, is having zero respect for the uniform and tradition.

If you want to be an RCMP officer, be a real one. If not, find another career where you don't mess with institution.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

It is but another slice in the death of a thousand cuts.

We must hold firm to our values, or we will have none of our own left.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

iMouse said:


> It is but another slice in the death of a thousand cuts.
> 
> We must hold firm to our values, or we will have none of our own left.


:clap: :clap:


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> I think the judgement will be overturned in appeal. The law as it stands is unconstitutional as it makes the statement that those people who are devoted to a religion will be discriminated against because we will take away their freedom to operate a motorcycle.


How is that unconstitutional? There is nothing in the constitution about being allowed to drive one public streets and highways. Sikhs have to make a choice. Adhere to their religion, or give up a portion of their faith to adhere to modern day legal requirements for the privilege of driving.


> This goes against the Constitution that provides guarantees of freedom of religion, and does not establish a state church.


Again, nobody said he can't practice his religion. He just can't do it on a motorcycle.

Let me repeat that: Sikhs cannot practice their religion while operating motor vehicles on public roads. This is no different than a Muslim caught in a traffic jam on the 401. He is not allowed to get out of his vehicle and start his prayers when his religion compels him to. He must adhere to the law, no matter what his religion dictates.



> Helmets should be at the option of the rider, not made mandatory by a draconian law brought into play without the consensus of the majority of the citizens.


That's a different argument. If you want to change the law, go for it. As is, our current laws require helmets.



> To uphold this ruling is to state that the government must discriminate against all religious beliefs, and must impose limitations not only against Sikhs, but must impose limitations across the board.


What an absolute load of BS. Typical whiny "oh, my religion is being discriminated against" crap. If you don't want to adhere to public laws implemented for the sake of public safety, pack up your bags and move to a country that is more to your liking. I hear the US doesn't have helmet laws. They love Sikhs!



> Which would be no surprise, considering that McGuilty is doing everything he can to take away democracy by eliminating Question Period, eliminating Committee meetings, and eliminate the prayers at the beginning of the daily business.


The good ol' "they are trying to kill democracy" line. What do prayers in a public office have to do with democracy? Nothing! But that doesn't matter to you, does it. You just want to whine about the fact that you can't slaughter a goat at the corner of Yonge and Dundas because of religious persecution and discrimination.



> It is not too many more steps until he installs an Athesit form of dictatorship, and begins the pogroms against those of faith.


With constant whining like yours, it's no wonder so many people want to be rid of religion.



> But perhaps he is not that stupid, considering that unlike Mr. Tory, he decided not to attack the Catholics of the province with venomous invectives and bigotted provocateering.


:yawn: You bore me.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I always make sense to me, but sometimes I do manage to make sense to others too.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> I don't view it as a lack of tolerance at all.
> 
> What I do view it as, is having zero respect for the uniform and tradition.
> 
> If you want to be an RCMP officer, be a real one. If not, find another career where you don't mess with institution.


I'm sure you felt the same way when they brought in female officers and officers of colour...
I'll add that the appeal to tradition is a fallacy:
Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition


> Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition
> 
> Also Known as: Appeal to the Old, Old Ways are Best, Fallacious Appeal to the Past, Appeal to Age
> Description of Appeal to Tradition
> ...


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Why would he??

They fit the uniform, so no problem.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MasterBlaster said:


> The story of the Egyptian God Horus is *IDENTICAL *to the Biblical story of Jesus and predates it by *THOUSANDS *of years. To worship Jesus is in fact to worship Horus.
> 
> One of the many reasons I consider modern Christianity one of the biggest global frauds of all time.


LOL! 
Yeah I think they both wore sandals!  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Sure, take the Pagan rituals and bend them to your own needs.

One need look no further then Christmas.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

guytoronto said:


> How is that unconstitutional? There is nothing in the constitution about being allowed to drive one public streets and highways.


By extention, you are saying that people that speak and read French have no right to operate a motor vehicle, because they can't speak and read English. Our Constitution grants wide ranging rights to citizens, freedom of religion is one of them. So the case here is that "Helmet Laws" are unfair because they do not allow for the free practice of religious faith. There is the issue of "public safety", but the laws must align themselves. If the Helmet Laws override the Consitutional guarantee of freedom of religion because of public safety, then all laws must be enforced for public safety, such as a prohibition on the use of cellular phones in cars.

As far as licensing, it is granted as a priviledge, not as a right, so it is within the balliwick of the government to withdraw a license for whatever transgression of the Highways Traffic Act. But in this case, they are singling out a group of people based on their religious beliefs without due relief, which is entirely against the Constitution, and as such, it will be rejected upon appeal. The government will be ordered to rewrite the law so it is not unconstitutional - which is easily done except for the fact that the government in power would prefer to make a farce of the deal and continue to discriminate against the citizens of the province.



> This is no different than a Muslim caught in a traffic jam on the 401. He is not allowed to get out of his vehicle and start his prayers when his religion compels him to. He must adhere to the law, no matter what his religion dictates.


This is a bit of xenophobia. Muslims are only to partake in their rituals when possible, and as such, it is no sin if a Muslim misses a prayer because they are caught in traffic. This is explicit in the Qu'ran and in the Shar'ia.



> As is, our current laws require helmets.


As it is, the law is unconstitutional because it is an act of discrimination, and this is the root reason to why this case is in the courts.



> If you don't want to adhere to public laws implemented for the sake of public safety, pack up your bags and move to a country that is more to your liking. I hear the US doesn't have helmet laws.


You show your bigotry card quite well with the whole "if you don't like it, leave" argument. Even though I am not a Sikh, I fully understand the argument that has been made to the court, and I fully understand the malfeasance of the judge that passed an unconstitutional decision.



> What do prayers in a public office have to do with democracy? Nothing! But that doesn't matter to you, does it. You just want to whine about the fact that you can't slaughter a goat at the corner of Yonge and Dundas because of religious persecution and discrimination.


First, Canada is a nation founded under God; but like the United States, we do not have an established church in order to grant freedom of religious belief. If McGuilty can not make a daily attestation to the people of the province, he is not worthy of holding power at all. And I have never heard of goat slaughtering as being an issue...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> I'm sure you felt the same way when they brought in female officers and officers of colour...
> I'll add that the appeal to tradition is a fallacy:
> Fallacy: Appeal to Tradition


That's where you are dead wrong. I welcomed those changes.

Bottom line is if you want be be an RCMP, be a real one complete with wearing the uniform. Anything less is total disrespect.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

EvanPitts said:


> Canada is a nation founded under God


Your level of ignorance is astounding. And you wonder why so many people have a problem with religion.

British North America Act, 1867 - Wikisource

Search for 'God' anywhere in that document.

Typical fear and hatred mongering from the religious right.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

MasterBlaster said:


> I am actually in agreement with Guytoronto?
> 
> Bite me, I'm dreaming. :yikes:
> 
> Hail Horus!


it just means you are coming around to the truth


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> That's where you are dead wrong. I welcomed those changes.
> 
> Bottom line is if you want be be an RCMP, be a real one complete with wearing the uniform. Anything less is total disrespect.


Be a real one? Total disrespect? LOL.

Frankly, I don't understand why Canada is so bent on pretending to be a sovereign nation, yet clings so tightly to England's apron strings.

Frankly I fail to see why the RCMP cannot expand it's wardrobe to include different customs. The RCMP can have bagpipes and kilts, why the hell can't they have turbans?

Two words: Bull and $hit.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

There is a precendent for this, however. During World War I and World War II, thousands of Sikhs voluntarily enlisted in the British army (India was still a colony then) and wore turbans to fight and die in the trenches instead of the helmets required by the military uniform.

If it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now?

I mean, if they could be real soldiers while wearing a turban, why can't they be real RCMP officers while wearing a turban? If they could fight in the trenches not wearing a helmet, why can't they ride a motorcycle?


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Sonal said:


> There is a precedent for this, however. During World War I and World War II, thousands of Sikhs voluntarily enlisted in the British army (India was still a colony then) and wore turbans to fight and die in the trenches instead of the helmets required by the military uniform.
> 
> If it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now?
> 
> I mean, if they could be real soldiers while wearing a turban, why can't they be real RCMP officers while wearing a turban? If they could fight in the trenches not wearing a helmet, why can't they ride a motorcycle?


There is a fine line between being xenophobia and racism. 

The whole assimilation issue related to one's customs is nonsense. Nothing in this world is absolute. Everything is constantly in flux. When you adamantly hold onto the 'best' of something, you can't help to bring along the worst as well.

Although, I must say that in order to have the freedom to not wear a helmet, you must forfeit something in exchange. Currently, the law exists for a reason.

Other than that, the hat doesn't make the cop, the person does.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Be a real one? Total disrespect? LOL.
> 
> Frankly, I don't understand why Canada is so bent on pretending to be a sovereign nation, yet clings so tightly to England's apron strings.
> 
> ...


I see we have differences of opinions, and that is fine.

We have one other difference:

I don't call your opinions or views Bull $hit.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's where you are dead wrong. I welcomed those changes.
> 
> Bottom line is if you want be be an RCMP, be a real one complete with wearing the uniform. Anything less is total disrespect.


Bottom line is they are wearing an RCMP uniform. The total disrespect is coming from you not the Sikh community. Nowhere have I seen ANY complaints about the quality of work Sikh RCMP officers do. The real disrespect is a refusal for people like you to see this. Shame on you.


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

martman said:


> Bottom line is they are wearing an RCMP uniform. The total disrespect is coming from you not the Sikh community. Nowhere have I seen ANY complaints about the quality of work Sikh RCMP officers do. The real disrespect is a refusal for people like you to see this. Shame on you.


Yea so you should go to foreign countries and change their traditions. Go ahead, first try Iran, i dare you. In Iran it is forbidden to wear shorts. Go out jogging in a pair of short shorts. I seriously want to see you do it to keep you from being a hypocrite. You wouldn't do it, so they shouldn't be allowed to here.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Black said:


> Yea so you should go to foreign countries and change their traditions. Go ahead, first try Iran, i dare you. In Iran it is forbidden to wear shorts. Go out jogging in a pair of short shorts. I seriously want to see you do it to keep you from being a hypocrite. You wouldn't do it, so they shouldn't be allowed to here.


:clap: :clap: 

Nice to see a young person stand up for tradition. There may be hope in the future.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

mrjimmy said:


> Although, I must say that in order to have the freedom to not wear a helmet, you must forfeit something in exchange. Currently, the law exists for a reason.


True, and I have to admit I'm still making up my mind about where I stand on this issue. Wearing helmets is a safety issue.

But apparently other countries with publicly funded health care and helmet laws allow Sikhs to ride just wearing the turban. For example, this is true in the UK, and while we are different nations, our laws and values do not differ _that_ greatly. If Canada prides itself on being such a multicultural nation, why does the UK permit this when we do not?

So for me, it comes down to a question of what do we, as Canadians, value more--a multicultural society, or a government that safeguards the health of its people? Obviously, there are times when one must supercede the other, but I am not yet sure which one takes priority here.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> There is a precendent for this, however. During World War I and World War II, thousands of Sikhs voluntarily enlisted in the British army (India was still a colony then) and wore turbans to fight and die in the trenches instead of the helmets required by the military uniform.
> 
> If it wasn't an issue then, why is it an issue now?
> 
> I mean, if they could be real soldiers while wearing a turban, why can't they be real RCMP officers while wearing a turban? If they could fight in the trenches not wearing a helmet, why can't they ride a motorcycle?


It's called the necessity of war. Especially during wars of attrition. Sikh volunteers also fought in Nazi uniforms during WWII, made them very dashing with a little "hakenkruis" on their turbans.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Black said:


> Yea so you should go to foreign countries and change their traditions. Go ahead, first try Iran, i dare you. In Iran it is forbidden to wear shorts. Go out jogging in a pair of short shorts. I seriously want to see you do it to keep you from being a hypocrite. You wouldn't do it, so they shouldn't be allowed to here.


Let me get this straight. Iran is intolerant so this justifies your bigotry? This is the lamest argument I hear. What you are saying is it is worse somewhere else and this justifies our shortcomings. I don't buy this line of reasoning for one second and it too is a fallacy:
Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right


> Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right
> 
> Description of Two Wrongs Make a Right
> 
> ...


I'll add that when women were let in to the RCMP they felt they had to change the uniform for them too but I don't see you complaining about that. In fact women ware different hats than men in the RCMP. Who is the hypocrite here? All I see here is a phobia of those with a religion different than yours or the majority.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 12, 2003)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

martman said:


> I'll add that when women were let in to the RCMP they felt they had to change the uniform for them too but I don't see you complaining about that. In fact women ware different hats than men in the RCMP. Who is the hypocrite here? All I see here is a phobia of those with a religion different than yours of the majority.


True, but there are "dress uniforms" and field uniforms. A dress uniform may include a turban or a skirt, but a field uniform may include a helmet.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Black said:


> Yea so you should go to foreign countries and change their traditions. Go ahead, first try Iran, i dare you. In Iran it is forbidden to wear shorts. Go out jogging in a pair of short shorts. I seriously want to see you do it to keep you from being a hypocrite. You wouldn't do it, so they shouldn't be allowed to here.


I thought we were talking about Canada. Please explain why I should be up in arms about Iran's culture when I live in Canada.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> True, but there are "dress uniforms" and field uniforms. A dress uniform may include a turban or a skirt, but a field uniform may include a helmet.


The operative word being *MAY*


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Upholding tradition seems to be mediocre cammoflauge for bigotry.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Upholding tradition seems to be mediocre cammoflauge for bigotry.


BINGO!
:clap: :clap:

Also notice how selectively it is used. It is OK to design new hats for women in the RCMP but it is not OK to do so for Sikhs. It is OK to create blue uniforms for RCMP so they don't have to keep wearing the red "traditional" uniforms but it is not OK to design a different hat so Sikh officers can wear a turban. The reality is those appealing to tradition don't even really mean it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

martman said:


> The operative word being *MAY*


Point being...when you're involved in ceremonial duties welcoming the Queen, you'd wear your dress uniform, but if you're on the RCMP anti-terrorist squad, you'd better trade in your skirt for fatigue pants and your turban for a kevlar helmet.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> Point being...when you're involved in ceremonial duties welcoming the Queen, you'd wear your dress uniform, but if you're on the RCMP anti-terrorist squad, you'd better trade in your skirt for fatigue pants and your turban for a kevlar helmet.


Perhaps a kevlar turban is in order here...


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> It's called the necessity of war. Especially during wars of attrition. Sikh volunteers also fought in Nazi uniforms during WWII, made them very dashing with a little "hakenkruis" on their turbans.


Could you please provide a link to back this up? I can't find any info on this and I'd love to see a photo...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

martman said:


> Perhaps a kevlar turban is in order here...


What makes you think pagri can be made of kevlar? That's very insensitive of you.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

martman said:


> Could you please provide a link to back this up? I can't find any info on this and I'd love to see a photo...


It's well documented. Even on WiKi under "Indische legion"

But here's a BBC link 

BBC NEWS | Europe | Hitler's secret Indian army

Believe it or not they were placed under the Waffen SS.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

mrjimmy said:


> Upholding tradition seems to be mediocre cammoflauge for bigotry.


Correct.

Oh, you aren't taking about the suppression of women, are you??



kps said:


> What makes you think pagri can be made of kevlar? That's very insensitive of you.


Well obviously there are rules involved, or they could just wear the equivalent of a yarmulke under their helmet.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> It's well documented. Even on WiKi under "Indische legion"
> 
> But here's a BBC link
> 
> ...


Interesting. All I found when I searched was a similar setup with the Japanese who also recruited Sikhs from POW camps to "liberate" India from British rule. Your link even had a photo. Excellent!

I put liberate in quotes because I don't think trading British for Japanese or Germans of this era would actually constitute liberation.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

kps said:


> What makes you think pagri can be made of kevlar? That's very insensitive of you.


To be honest I don't know the rules about this. Do you know of a reason why they can't be made out of kevlar? Is there a rule about materials? I wouldn't call it insensitive but ignorant may be the correct word...


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

I was half pulling your leg, I honestly don't know if there are any religious restrictions on the material.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

:lmao: :clap: 
Good one!
:clap:


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

The  hirsute reason for the problem.

Maybe charge him with cutting hair without a licence?

This thread will never have a resolution, so I throw up my hands, and move on.

Have fun.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

martman said:


> Interesting. All I found when I searched was a similar setup with the Japanese who also recruited Sikhs from POW camps to "liberate" India from British rule. Your link even had a photo. Excellent!
> 
> I put liberate in quotes because I don't think trading British for Japanese or Germans of this era would actually constitute liberation.


Once again we come to the necessities of war. There are few rules and loyalties come into question when ulterior motives are presented. Such as freedom from the Raj.

I've seen photos of Sikh soldiers in Waffen SS uniforms more than 30 years ago, I don't understand the so called secrecy mentioned in the BBC article.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

I have no problems with Sikhs wearing their turbans instead of the traditional Mountie headgear. Replacing one traditional piece of clothing with another in this situation is fine. But there does have to be a fine balance between accepting religious differences, and respecting traditions.

Religion IS a tradition in a way. So while those of religious beliefs may demand respect for their religious beliefs, they should also accept our demands they show respect for our traditional beliefs.

Sikhism is only about 500 years old. What gives one belief priority over another? At what point does an illogical (and oh yes, all religions are illogical) belief and tradition get priority over secular traditions?

Sikhims -> I wear a turban (dastar) because ancient scripture instructs me to
Mounties -> I wear traditional headgear because Mountie Dress Code instructs me to

Sikhs -> The turban represents my beliefs of honor, self-respect, responsibility, and courage
Mounties -> Ditto for my headgear

Sikhs -> I need to wear my turban because of religious beliefs
Mounties -> I need to wear my headgear because it is dress code and part of the job

WINNER: RELIGIOUS BELIEFS! Why?

If not wearing a turban means a Sikh is not adhering to the articles of his faith, how is not wearing the traditional Mountie headgear not a sign of disrespect and not adhering to the articles of being a Mounted Police?


----------



## gnatsum (Apr 10, 2005)

guytoronto said:


> If not wearing a turban means a Sikh is not adhering to the articles of his faith, how is not wearing the traditional Mountie headgear not a sign of disrespect and not adhering to the articles of being a Mounted Police?


Personally, there is nothing wrong with Sikh dress in the forces. It is equally as formal (culturally), handsome, smart and respectable. They wear the correct colours of the force and in the police force they even weave a red band in. So I think that the adaptation is equally as respectable and also shows the acceptance from BOTH parties.

But on the topic of helmets vs. religion... If you want to spend your life devoted to something, what good is it if you are dead? Stay alive!


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

guytoronto said:


> I
> 
> If not wearing a turban means a Sikh is not adhering to the articles of his faith, how is not wearing the traditional Mountie headgear not a sign of disrespect and not adhering to the articles of being a Mounted Police?


Not necessarily in both cases. One can be a Sikh and not wear a turban as much as one can be a mountie without the traditional red tunic. 



> If I don't wear a turban, can I still be a Sikh?
> 
> Yes, but you will not have the identity of a Sikh, so how will people know you are Sikh?
> Wearing a turban takes courage. If you do not want to wear a turban, be very clear in yourself what your reasons for this are: Societal or peer group pressures to conform? Comfort? Uncertain if you want to live as a Sikh? Are you afraid and if so, of what? Answering these questions in yourself is important to knowing your resistance to wearing a turban.


Source

Interesting videos here:
How to tie the turban


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

martman said:


> Let me get this straight. Iran is intolerant so this justifies your bigotry?


You claim that i am a bigot. Why is this? You don't even know me.

I am only defending Canada's tradition. Not once have i insulted their customs or their race. Not once have i proposed hate.

If you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a bigot, then you sir are a hypocrite and a bigot.

I've also noticed that you and others have used insults like 'bigot' instead of debating a point. You try and make the person you are opposing feel like a bad person instead of debating like someone who knows something. We have customs, they're getting covered up by other people's customs, don't be surprised when we get upset.

People here who are against them having their customs override us in OUR country are not hating them, are not telling them to stop their customs. We are for their customs if it doesn't override ours. We never said they couldn't practice their own beliefs in any way. You assume too much of the worse and make an argument of it, don't.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Black said:


> You claim that i am a bigot. Why is this? You don't even know me.
> 
> I am only defending Canada's tradition. Not once have i insulted their customs or their race. Not once have i proposed hate.
> 
> If you treat everyone who disagrees with you as a bigot, then you sir are a hypocrite and a bigot.


Sorry but this is a load. What tradition? The red uniforms they no longer wear? Or do you mean the hats they designed for female officers? Perhaps you mean the blue uniforms they now wear? 

<sarcasm>Yes I treat everyone who disagrees with me as a bigot.</sarcasm>

No you just go around appealing to a tradition that doesn't even exist to explain your discomfort around Sikhs in the RCMP. 

As for hypocrisy, My earlier posts show who the _real_ hypocrites in this tread are.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Black said:


> I've also noticed that you and others have used insults like 'bigot' instead of debating a point.


This is simply not true. I called you a bigot then presented my argument to show you why. I have not replaced an argument with my accusation.


martman said:


> Let me get this straight. Iran is intolerant so this justifies your bigotry? This is the lamest argument I hear. What you are saying is it is worse somewhere else and this justifies our shortcomings. I don't buy this line of reasoning for one second and it too is a fallacy:
> Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make a Right
> 
> 
> I'll add that when women were let in to the RCMP they felt they had to change the uniform for them too but I don't see you complaining about that. In fact women ware different hats than men in the RCMP. Who is the hypocrite here? All I see here is a phobia of those with a religion different than yours or the majority.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Black said:


> People here who are against them having their customs override us in OUR country are not hating them, are not telling them to stop their customs. We are for their customs if it doesn't override ours. We never said they couldn't practice their own beliefs in any way. You assume too much of the worse and make an argument of it, don't.


What I am getting out of this very hard to understand paragraph is that you are fine with other people's cultures as long as nothing here changes.

We live in an officially multicultural country. This means our "culture" is in a state of flux. I think before you appeal to tradition you need to define the tradition you are appealing to because, as I've shown, the one you are appealing to doesn't even exist. If it did RCMP would still all look like this:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

and not like this:







[/IMG]


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

or this:


----------



## Black (Dec 13, 2007)

*facepalm*


----------

