At issue is the running battle between a Sikh motorcycle rider and the province of Ontario. The province has a law that mandates motorcycle riders to wear helmets. "I don't want to wear a helmet," says the Sikh. "It clashes with my turban, which my religion demands that I always wear."
The Ottawa Citizen's take? "A helmet-less Sikh motorcyclist should be a symbol of a society whose flexibility makes it stronger."
CRAP!
A helmet-less Sikh motorcyclist is a symbol of preferential treatment under the law (some might even call it pandering). Welcome to Canada's version of the caste system, wherein certain elements of a society are treated better or worse than other elements. It is another word for discrimination.
If Mr. Sikh-with-no-helmet has an accident with his motorcycle and bangs his head, is OHIP required to pay for his treatment? Is it discriminatory if Mr. Sikh-without-a-helmet's insurance company cancels his policy because of increased risk of serious injury or death?
Why can't you wear a helmet over top of a turban or vice versa?
So what's next on the appeasement file? If I create a organization (let's call it a religion) whose rules say I "must not pay unto Caesar", then am I permitted to not pay taxes, at any level? Think that the government would allow that to stand?
How about a religion that states that I must read the Ottawa Citizen (punishment I am sure) but not pay for it. Would it be discriminatory for the Citizen not to deliver a free paper to me?
Time to grow up, Canada!
No comments:
Post a Comment