I am often amazed at the claims that so-called experts make, even in a court of law. For example, the government of Ontario recently defended its policy that Sikhs riding motorcycles should wear helmets (not a requirement in BC or Manitoba) by claming that turbans would unravel in the breeze, thus posing a risk to other motorists.
 |
|
Born to be wild |
… the Crown declared that an expert it had hired proved that turbans unravel rapidly in 100 km/h winds. The Crown’s test had been carried out by a professional engineer who purchased a mannequin head, mounted it on a stick and then placed the assemblage in a wind tunnel. [Link]
<
p>Say what? Turbans unravel at 60 mph? Have they ever seen a Sardar riding a motorcycle? Or riding a roller coaster? Or even sticking his head out of a moving vehicle? The paag stays on tight my friend.
<
p>To test this claim, the plaintiff, Baljinder Badesha of Brampton (can you say that 10 times fast?), tried to replicate the study. He drove down the Cayuga Speedway at … gasp, 110 kmh. Did his turban unravel and flutter into the wind like a wayward plastic bag? Ummm … no. It was fit to be tied.
Mr. Hutchison [Baljinder Singh’s lawyer] was unable to find a documented case anywhere in the world where a Sikh motorcyclist’s turban had unravelled. Skeptical, he persuaded the OHRC to authorize its own test. After he confronted the Crown with the dramatically different test result, prosecutors conceded that their engineer had grossly miscalculated the force of the wind he had generated to batter the imitation head, Mr. Hutchison said.
In fact, the device had been subjected to a 300 km/h wind. [Link]
<
p>That’s right – they used 180 mph winds in their test, more of a gale than the stiff breeze you get at 60mph. And even so, I’m not entirely convinced. I’ll bet if they used a real person with a real turban going 180 mph, it might still stay on. But in any case, given that driving at 300 kmh is illegal, the point is moot.
<
p>So now the Crown is switching arguments. Instead of defending this policy in terms of the danger to others that turbans pose (those huge swooping turbans flying around the freeway, covering up windshields!) they’re arguing that helmetless motorcycle riders will cost the taxpayers more:
… its main argument is now based on increased costs to the health system, should helmetless Sikh motorcycle riders end up suffering head injuries. [Link]
<
p>The problem is that if you accept this argument, why are they allowing anybody to ride on a motorcycle at all, given that it’s far riskier than driving a car. In fact, they should only allow people to drive safe, slow, sober sedans like the Ambassador.
…a study … concluded that, assuming half of all Sikh motorcyclists wear turbans, the increase in serious injuries would be between .43 and 2.83 Sikh riders a year.
The study also projected that medical treatment for traumatic brain injuries would … [lead to] a .00005-per-cent overall increase in the province’s annual health-care budget.
Mr. Hutchison told the court that the province already licenses motorcycle riders in spite of the fact that they have far more accidents than automobile drivers. “Clearly, the decision to allow motorcycles to be used at all recognizes and accepts a significant degree of risk and concomitant social cost,” he said. [Link]
<
p>I realize that Canada is not a very libertarian country, but where they draw the line between acceptable risk (riding a motorcycle vs. riding in a car) and unacceptable risk (riding a motorcycle with a turban vs. riding a motorcycle with a helmet) is clearly determined by social preferences rather than public health. You can’t be penny wise and pound foolish and then say you’re acting out of frugality, it wont wash.
reality check.
I’m so happy to learn that.
Hold your horses, it’S a little more complicated than that ..
While the Eastern Ontario Health Unit strongly recommends the consumption of only pasteurized milk products, in Ontario, people who make unpasteurized cheese on their farms can possess and eat what they make. However, selling or distributing such cheese – which includes even giving it away – is illegal under provincial legislation.
The story notes that unlike raw milk itself, which has been illegal to distribute in Canada since 1991, cheese made from raw milk – as far as Health Canada is concerned – is “allowed for sale and considered safe because the manufacturing process for cheese helps to eliminate many pathogens found in raw milk.”
So sistributing unpasteurized cheese is provincially illegal (but not criminal), but feds have no law on the topic. No suprise that the raw-milk-cheese problem in Ontario is localizes to eastern Ontario, on the Quebec border. The clandestine mobile-cheese-maker? She comes from Quebec. I’ve known her a long time, she’s qualified and she knows what she’s doing,” Chartrand said .. She’s also discreet, and Mr. Chartrand did not want to disclose her identity to a reporter….
Franco-Anglo culture clash?
When some helmetless bozo inevitably finds his head pasted to a windshield i bet the court will find contributory negligence, exemption or no exemption. I’m sure insurance premiums will go up for those who ride helmetless as well. In that context, i’d support the choice. Hopefully higher premiums would be enough of a disincentive.
And again, sort of an aside, just because I think it’s absolutely ridiculous, look at the picture in the globe & mail. The guy is riding in a business suit in the winter! That’s asking for a lot of lost skin.
When some helmetless bozo inevitably finds his head pasted to a windshield i bet the court will find contributory negligence, exemption or no exemption.
Interesting point. To draw an analogy with accident victims who do not wear a seat belt, the state law in the US is split on whether the non-use can be taken into consideration at all or as contributory negligence or as a mitigation of damages principle.
Please folks. Respect other readers by keeping your handle names short.
39 · ShallowThinker said
ShallowThinker, i’m going off the assumption you weren’t joking around…. if you were please understand that i have no sense of humor… There are two types of hockey: ice hockey and field hockey. Both are played with sticks but ice hockey has a puck which is a small black disk about the size of your palm and players wear skates. That’s the one that was referred to in the thread. Field hockey is played on grass with sticks and a ball.
The thing you’re referring to is called curling. Its sort of like shuffle board but the brooms aren’t used to make sure there’s no dirt; rather they’re used to make the rock slide farther.
Please folks. Respect other readers by keeping your handle names short.
Its disrespectful to other readers if the id is too long aka Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery (formerly Al_Chutiya/Mujahid_for_debauchery) Are you being facetious?
yes, it forms an eyesore on the sidebar and it is kind of diva-ish.
No, beta. When papa loves mommy very much, it is the game that his tonsils play with her tonsils. And because papa really, really loves mommy, he can’t help but suck while playing hockey and give mommy a hickey.
Ikram the cheese-hatah sez
this must be an Ottawa thing. this side of the civilized world we enjoy our cheeses from France, new France and Ontario. In fact, I decided to step out and get a slab of Baluchon to direct some pungent odor to go with a heap of withering scorn. sniff
moral of the story: You dont need a helmet to ride the paneer wheel.
47 · Ennis said
I think you are conflating two separate issues:
1) Is the law requiring helmet usage sensible?
and
2) Should Sikhs be given an exemption from this law because of their religious beliefs?
If the law is not sensible and then it should be repealed. If it is sensible then it should apply to everyone.
I believe helmets do save lives but I would prefer to let the individual decide. Then again I would prefer not to pay for a national health service that forces me to subsidize other people’s foolishness. I generally don’t like these paternalistic laws but I am also leery of making special exemptions from the law for certain religious groups.
Yet that’s commonplace. Take school holidays, for example. Everybody gets Christmas off, whether they want it or not. Yet Jewish kids can also take off the high holy days even though other students cannot simply absent themselves on those same days for non-religious reasons.
the diva and eye-sore exclusion clause would make at least three-quarters of us ineligible to mutiny. myself included, of course.
[this is portmanteau]
64 · where is the love? said
Port, it’s not the usual suspects so much as the more “creative” entrants we’ve seen and addressed today, i.e. entire sentences for handles. I assure you “Portmanteau” is both elegant and eligible, just like the holder of that handle is, IRL.
Port, it’s not the usual suspects so much as the more “creative” entrants we’ve seen and addressed today, i.e. entire sentences for handles
I dont believe Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery(formerly Al_Chutiya/Mujahid_for_debauchery) is a sentence. The other day someone was asking me about whether I was Chutiya. The ID is an upfront disclaimer about past ids and not disrespectful or diva-ish as the SM Intern has suggested. In fact I have posted with a similar id for a while sometime back. Oh well!
Peace.
63 · Ennis said
But context matters. Missing a day of school for religious observance doesn’t carry the risk of severe injury. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet does. Would that not be a sensible place for the boundaries of religious exception to be placed?
Well, Al pagal admi mujahid, I actually consider you one of the “usual suspects”. 🙂 I really think it’s handles that were created (and removed) today which were problematic (though if I’m wrong, I know the intern will let us know…I haven’t been here all day). I appreciate that you try and clue people in to your past incarnations, to make sure it’s all less confusing! It’s nice of you.
Let’s not get side-tracked, this isn’t personal, we love you all, especially those of you who have been with us for years. Back on track, mutineers-who-need-not-worry-about-this one.
So you do agree for the need for exemptions rather than uniform rules, just with a boundary based on “common sense”
Why is it OK for the state to burden the cost of smoking, in the name of personal freedom, but it wont absorb the cost of a non-smoker riding without a helmet, in the name of that same freedom? Answer, look at who smokes and who rides without helmets.
Your notion of reasonableness has to do with what you would do. That’s a dicey standard. I’m sure many people don’t think it’s reasonable for a student to cut school, perhaps missing exams, and fast all day. Yet you’re willing to create an exemption for that.
What we think is reasonable often reveals a huge cultural blind spot.
69 · Ennis said
Smokers are regulated as to where they can smoke and pay heavy taxes for each packet of cigarettes they buy to offset the burden their smoking places on society. Obviously standards such as reasonableness, are
oops hit the post button to soon, continued…
Obviously standards such as reasonableness and common sense are often arbitrary and have no clear bright lines. In the US the standards for religious exemptions are constantly changing. Typically officials consider whether the burden of the law on the religious group ouweighs the harm to the greater public interest in granting said religious group an exemption. Using this criteria the Supreme Court has given the Amish the right to disenroll their children from schools at the age of 14 (Yoder) but also denied Native Americans exemptions to smoke illegal drugs for religious purposes (Smith). Religious groups are constantly asking for exemptions and pushing the boundaries to get even more exemptions. Unsurprisingly decisions are made on a case by case basis and the law gets very fuzzy at the edges. Even the judges admit that there really is no clear jurisprudence in this area
The case law is such a mishmash anyone can point out the inconsistencies and claim discrimination if their demand for exemption is denied. But this doesn’t mean that the government is obligated to give in to whatever demands are made. Clearly there is a line somewhere that marks the boundaries of what is reasonable. We all can think of demands for religious exemptions which should be denied. To point out inconsistencies in how exemptions are given and then claim that entitles you to an exemption is not very persuasive.
Reasonableness is an often arbitray criteria but in the end the government (whether through courts or officials) has to make the call. The alternatives are granting all demands for exemptions which is anarchy or granting no exemptions (which in my opinion is more ideal).
FYI – the province introduces evidence that sikhs consider the turban to be optional – while swimming, through war and while serving in the army.
See also a sikh helmet.
There are two ways to look at it. 1. This is a sikh guy who is fighting for a fundamental right for his community. 2. This is a guy who is fighting for his right to ride without a helmet and is using the religion as an excuse.
I fall in the second camp. It REALLY pisses me off he is using the OHRC and the charter of rights and freedoms to get his rocks off.
The crown has backed off the latter argument. There is a disagreement within the Sikh community on this issue, and there is a sizable group within who argue that their interpretation of scripture is correct on this and are consistent in their behavior. We don’t expect all Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists or Christians to agree on what are the rules governing their religious behavior, why would you expect that from Sikhs?
That said, if you ask any Sikh, they’ll tell you that this isn’t some spurious argument without a theological or historical premise. Sikh soldiers in many wars, including those fought for the UK, eschewed helmets. This is not new.
Let’s not get side-tracked, this isn’t personal, we love you all, especially those of you who have been with us for years.
We love you too and that is why we refuse to leave 🙂
of course there is disagrement among the sikh community. because a lot of people see the unreasonableness of it all. this dilutes the effort and passion a lot of us invest in fighting for the rights for ALL ontarians. to use the charter as a catch-all dilutes its import. it was meant for situations like meher arar’s deportation, for disabled people to travel comfortably through canada, not for such situations.
the most rational proposition is to dismantle the mandatory helmet law and I do not see how that is a net positive for the province. also the hrc is publicly funded and i do not appreciate them investing this much time and effort into this.
the lower court has already judged that regardless of whether this guy wins or not, this will not constitute a change in the law. the next guy driving without a helmet will get slapped with a fine anyway.
btw – there are precedents. recently there was a kerfuffle about extending public funding to all religious schools. that was a merry pickle and the cons lost that argument. to date only the catholic school board received public funding and that’s likely to get pulled. i know it seems discriminatory but the catholic schools offer some of the best education around here – and it isnt just because of the money. it seems like a dog in the manger situation. then there was the sharia law. the premier had to personally intervene when it seemed like it would go through. listen! i am immensely proud of where i live and the fundamental sense of fairplay among ontarians – but this issue just bugs the heck out of me.
The HRC’s involvement will probably get more attention after the main issue dies down/is resolved. Coming so soon after the Levant/Mohammed cartoons fiasco, HRC’s might be under evern more scrutiny now.
I think it’s ridiculous too. It does technically fall within their broad mandate, but you’re right, this has to be near the bottom of the list in terms of importance.
Ennis, I’m not sure your smoking analogy question is quite fair. I think the appropriate analogy would be why do we allow the public health costs of smoking vs. the public health costs of riding motorcycles. In both cases the government does in fact agree to absorb many of these costs. In both cases, it also passes laws of general application to try to mitigate against certain undesired risks and associated costs (controlling second-hand smoke issues with prohibitions against smoking in certain areas; banning certain types of tobacco; motorcyclists must posess a special license, helmets must be worn to minimize head injury, which is considered far more devastating in long-term impact than road rash or broken bones).
Let’s use another example. If safety regs specify that you cannot wear loose long hair when working with or near a certain piece of industrial equipment (to avoid the somewhat unsavoury effects when the hair gets caught in the operating machinery and physics decides to take matters into its own hands) is that because the government decided a) to pick on women, because many women have long(er) hair and see it as an integral part of their gender identity or b) because it didn’t really think women were important in the manufacturing workplace context so it was culturally predisposed towards making such recommendations? I’m guessing that a large number of people would say that it was c) the government was pursuing a sensible course in mitigating the risks of using the equipment without outright banning the equipment itself because it felt that by doing so it could significantly reduce the potential risk of harm.
I think something more has to be shown on the part of the government before these types of allegations are supported by a decision-maker. I agree with suggestions that the HRCs appear to have been on a roll regarding really stretching the elasticity of their mandate and I agree (and hope) that there will be some general public backlash (but hope it isn’t so large as to cause them to be disbanded alltogether). Regardless, I think this was a great topic to raise and I appreciate hearing the varied viewpoints and I thank you for raising this issue.
I have ridden motorcycles both with and without helmets. Have had a crash at a low speed- the helmet saved my life. Dont plan to have one at a high speed. Helmets can be worn under a patka – ask any number of Sardar Cricketers. As to whether it is safe, I dont know.
In any case I dont think this is a fight worth having.
Meena – kudos to the Dutch government. I wish the Australian government had the courage to do this. Not likely under KRudd.
Its simple really-ban all religion from public ANYthing. Keep it home. Everywhere else we should all wear the same clothes, behave the same way, follow the rules that really smart people made up and there will be no trouble.
79 · baingandabhartha said
Bienvenue en France.
79 · baingandabhartha said
Baingan bbro, I see your angst – but there is a point to making trouble, kicking up a fuss and sticking it to the man. this just doesnt seem a worthy battle. coincidentally I posted about this on another forum yesterday. It is topical and reminded me that there is merit to doing the wrong things for the right reasons.
Yo Khoof! I’m going to threadjack for a second to thank you for this. For a while, I had been seriously considering no longer posting since the mass exodus of some of my favorite bloggers and commenters (Manish, ADS, Siddharta, Mr. Kobayashi, Shruti, DesiDancer, Neha, Cheap Ass Desi, and, of course, hairy_d. cough) I still gots mad love for the rest of y’all who still frequent my favorite diveblog, but with my crew gone, it just hasn’t been the same. Thanks for the respek knuckles, means a lot and feeling’s mutual. I’m sticking around for now.
One more thing: I’ve a got secret for you. That story you love? I totally pulled a James Frey and made up about 90 percent of it. My mom’s nothing like that- she hardly even speaks English with a desi accent. We did happen to be watching that show together and the ensuing awkwardness was truly glorious, but just like A Million Little Pieces and the moon landing, it’s mostly fiction.
(And, for the record, I’ve never walked in on the ‘rents but I’m sure your video would be an apt metaphor.)
Back on topic. Though I’m not entirely sure how I feel about this issue, one thing is for sure: Baljinder looks like a badass.
I find all this discussion of Baljinder’s sincerity and whether this is a minor debate really presumptuous. My father never once wore a hard hat on a construction site. Probably 95% of Amritdhari Sikhs and a plurality of Keshdahari sikhs would agree with Baljinder Singh. There are reasons why there are no helmet laws applying to Sikhs in the UK, India, and BC. Sikhs in many countries doing construction are exempt and Sikhs in many armed forces as well.
Yes, there are some Sikhs who would wear a patka and a helmet. That doesn’t mean that a sizeable chunk of Sikhs, perhaps a majority, strenuously object on deeply held religious grounds.
If you are so concerned with the safety of motorcyclists, here’s a simple suggestion – make sure all motorcyclists drive only stone cold sober, not a single drink. That would save many lives and much public money. But that’s an unacceptable infringement on public freedom. But turbans, that’s a fringe issue.
What’s ticking me off is the way in which people are being totally dismissive of other people’s religious beliefs, and making assertions about their sincerity, despite the predominant weight of evidence which says otherwise.
Disagree sure, but show a little bit of respect. This is why I usually bite my tongue about such issues, I get tired of dismissive remarks from people who aren’t listening. While I was pleased that this discussion was very polite, I really can’t say I’m encouraged.
I think, Ennis, there are two issues here… one is specifically regarding SIKHS…and many desis (I perhaps naively hope) support Sikh rights and respect Sikh religious beliefs…unfortunately many don’t and that can come through in the comments sometimes. But overall I think most SM readers do.
The other issue, I think, that is clouding this and which people on this thread seem to be struggling with, is people from ANY religion, asking for special privileges based on their religious beliefs. And this is where I can understand where some people are coming from. If “Joe Smith” starts a religion and his followers demand X,Y,and Z privileges based on their sincerely-held beliefs, that could still be deemed a problem by society.
But I do agree that there are all sorts of cultural biases in these rules. But then that goes back to my first point, about supporting SIKH rights (as opposed to Joe Smith followers’ rights).
So then what do you say to Jehovah’s Witnesses, who, when brought in for emergency medical treatment, feel they are religious obligated to reject many procedures that doctors would consider reasonable, life-saving, sensible, etc.?
khoof, this is misleading. The argument (among Sikhs) is not over whether or not the requirement is unreasonable, but rather, how to accommodate religious observance while participating in other activities. I think a good analogy is the hijab. Wearing the hijab does not mean a woman can’t participate in contact sports, or swim, or ride a scooter. However, there are accommodations in how you wear the hijab (e.g., how tightly you wear it, or what material of cloth it’s made of), or the venue in which you wear it (the zenana versus public, co-ed groups). The areas of negotiation among Sikhs are VERY similar. Again, the disagreement is not on whether the turban is required; it’s about how to preserve wearing the turban while also engaging in activities when the nature of uniforms, equipment, etc., changes in different communities. If someone wants to design a pagh-friendly helmet, I think folks would be more excited than resistant about it.
Are you being sarcastic?
And what makes Sikhism any more valid than Joe Smith’s religion? To myself and other atheists, each has as little credibility as the other. Look, I’m all for freedom of religion – but followers can’t go around demanding exemptions for every little thing. Btw there is a market here for a new product – compare with the Muslim female lifeguards in Australia who make use of the special ‘burqini’.
Camille – the comparison with Jehova’s witnesses doesn’t fly. It’s not as though once a Jehova’s witness can refuse a life-saving blood transfusion, other people will demand the same right. Unlike the case with motorcycles.
Meena, with all respect, I don’t buy that argument. Other people DO refuse life-saving blood transfusions and access to specific treatments for a variety of religious and non-religious reasons. If someone says, “but that Sikh guy says he CANNOT wear a helmet, so I don’t wanna!” then that’s their problem. In my view, it doesn’t reduce the need for working either towards compromise or towards collaborative solutions. Like I said before, I don’t think Sikhs are unreasonable. If someone wanted to collaborate on a policy or on a product that would meet the needs of both groups, I think folks would welcome that. Part of the issue (and this is also related to how many courts operate in general, so it may be an institutional limitation) is that people pass “all or nothing” legislation and then pick combative black-or-white stances.
Meena Jee, I agree with you on one thing; nothing makes Sikhism any more valid than any other made-up set of rules and called “x” religion. Most of the time I waver between agnosticism and atheism-however, being born into a Sikh family gave me a good perspective and hence belief into its non-deity aspects-particularly their devotion to the principles of ‘charhdi kala (optimism), sarbat da bhala (wanting the best for all of creation/mankind) wand chakna (share what you earn). They are no different than most other religions in a broad sense. Most atheists fall into a similar category-they want to do the right thing, just dont want to be told to beleive in God. However, they want that right protected at all costs, innit? All religions want the same thing-‘rights protected’. Some of those ‘rights’ logically speaking might be unreasonable in a modern or post modern socienty. Thats where it gets tricky, hence all the discussion. There is no easy answer.
Camille, yes I was being sarcastic. The implication being that then we are destined to live in a dull, monochromatic, conforming world.
I agree with you. My contention is that it is not clear to me that this person speaks for his religion. I can see a fair number of workarounds. A cloth headwrap as what the cricketers use. A smaller turban. A helmet with space for a topknot. etc. but i find badisha’s stance just unreasonable to the point of obduracy. If the consensus was reached that it is a non-negotiable issue (on the size, the cloth of the turban, or in the use of the helmet) for the community to speak as one, or for a Jathedar to come out with a statement laying down the law – then that would be a different matter. We wouldnt need to get into actuarial analysis or legalese to work this out in Ontario courts. most ontarians (and I) respect emotional needs and the basic rights of a religion without turning to beancounters. But i am not convinced that moral impasse was ever reached. A counter-argument could be offered that the sikh population is too diverse to arrive at a consensus on this matter. my point would be that it is not fair to use the ontario legal system to figure this out. reasonable accomodation must work both ways.
btw, your words have deep significance in the canadian context. fyi – take a look at the background on ‘reasonable accomodation’.
I think the laws for religious accomodation might have to be revisited in the United States and maybe the West in general. It is becoming more and more burdensome for businesses and the government to accomodate the ever increasing demands of religious groups. My parents are devout Muslims and I have no problems with Muslims but the current religious accomodation laws are being severely tested by the demands of Muslims in the US. Raised platforms for practising ablution in restrooms, 2-3 prayer breaks in a 8 hour work day, covering the face, ears or head for license/passport pictures, not touching pork at a check out counter, not taking dogs in cabs as cab drivers, wanting days off for Muslim holidays, gender segregation in various places and situations, seperate lunch break hours during Ramadan, hijab where no head covering is allowed, beard where no facial hair is allowed, halal meat in prisons, vacation for Hajj and so on….
Add to this demands of all other religious groups like Christians being against sex education and evolution in public schools, Sikhs wanting to carry lethal daggers, to Jews wanting Kosher food in prisons and not working on Saturday to Native Americans demanding to smoke weed, to Amish not sending their kids to school, to Jehova Witnesses not wanting to give medicines to their kids….
….its enough for an atheist like me to scream out and say ENOUGH!
^exactly. Society will fall apart at the seams if all laws are made such as to accomodate all religious groups that possibly exist.
But then all you’re doing is imposing atheism on others. You’re just as intolerant as any religious bigot.
The communists did a good job of suppressing religion and religious practise as part of their groovy rationalist atheist ideology.
If the key to a balanced society is reciprocal and reasonable accomodation of all people including minorities, then atheist commie-fascist bigots squealing about society coming apart at the seams if too many Orthodox Jews or observant Muslims do this or that are not part of the solution. If minorities have to be reasonable in their requests, and be flexible and tolerant in their practise, then so do atheists bigots and other intolerant people who’d have religious minorities herded into the shadows and ghetto so they can have their pristine athetist society.
The reverse argument is that society is falling apart because we are mushing everyone together and not giving people the opportunity or time to explore/express/practice/honor their own faith and culture.
Many of the traditions and beliefs listed by Pagal Aadmi developed for specific reasons — reasons which are often beneficial to the people involved, and not just on a religious level. Rules about diet? Developed as a response to moral codes, but also as a response to “what can we eat that won’t make us sick?” And in the age where tainted meat is sent out to prisons and schools, insisting on a particular diet seems more than reasonable.
Keeping sex ed out of schools isn’t necessarily a bad thing (my high school sex ed was abysmal). Nor is occasionally smoking marijuana. Nor is carrying a kirpan, symbolic or actual (we regularly carry guns, after all). It isn’t even necessarily bad to keep kids off of antibiotics, though I have to admit that’s a slippery slope — but even in that case there’s something to be said for letting life be life and not trying to manipulate it, if that’s what you believe.
And there’s nothing wrong with taking time to pray/rest/go to services, except that it’s inconvenient to other people.
I agree whole-heartedly with Pagal Admi at #90. Society will not start to fall apart if people are not allowed to light fires for their havan ceremonies, or wear a giant tilak to work or some such thing. Neither can it be considered an atheist takeover because many people who support and participate in religious traditions do not agree with such demands. A sincere person can find solutions without expecting to be accommodated. Call me a cynic, but I’m convinced that it is usually the mischief makers that look for accomodations and not the sincere practitioners.
I don’t think that anyone expressed a desire for an atheist-ruled utopia…
Non-Muslims also object to dogs driving cabs.
Blue, I think your comment misses the point. Everybody would agree that reading books or taking an afternoon siesta is good for your mental development, but somehow it is not considered reasonable to expect workplaces to give me an hour long break after lunch to indulge in either. Make this a dictate of Rahooliganism, however, and it is a whole ‘nother ballgame. I agree with PAfD, I don’t read his comment as a blanket ban on all things religious, but more that things do not become automatically acceptable merely because they are mandated by religion. That attitude, while it might have been appropriate for a tribal or monocultural society, does not work in a world where it would be impossible to have a society that satisfies the lowest common denominator of all its constituent elements.
That said, I don’t think there is an epidemic of turbandits roaming the highways of Canadia, so I don’t see why the state does need to make such a point of this particular exception (and this could of course be revisited if there is evidence to the contrary, or if it implies more problematic accommodation for Sikhs or followers of other religions in the future). What next? I am sure there is a non-zero risk of beard hair being blown up into your nostrils when driving at high speeds, thereby causing uncontrolled tickling, and manic laughter induced crashes, which also affect others on the highway. So, should all Sikh males post puberty need to report to the nearest police station every 3 days to ensure that mustache hair does not exceed the width of the upper lip area, and any beard hair that can inch up towards the nostrils is snipped?
But they don’t mind if you eat lunch in your cube while working and take care of the book/siesta during your afternoon “free” (formerly “lunch”) hour. Companies have even installed napping pods for this purpose. ^__^
AahoJi! And we love you too. dont go away.
Here’s another vid for you. And that’s a metaphor for the love life this side of the 49th.