February 15, 2008
TTC Expands Service, Sikh Doesn't Want To Wear Helmet, and the Leafs Get Smacked Around
TTC promises more buses, new routes, candy. Okay, they're not promising candy, but over the next year there will be gradual extra service along all of the TTC's major routes to lessen the impact of crowding. In 2009: possibly we get candy.
Speaking of the TTC, Dalton McGuinty wants to bring it under provincial control as part of the Metrolinx regional transportation authority. Bypassing the fact that "Metrolinx" is a terrible, terrible name for the moment, let us consider the pros and cons. Pro: more money for Toronto to spend on things other than transit, which is the giant bear of municipal expenditures. Con: it's Dalton McGuinty proposing this, and nobody likes him much, making the proposal seem much less cool.
Linda Keen seeking judicial review of her firing by the Conservative government. The former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission seeks to argue that she was unlawfully removed from her job. The Tories will counter-respond with "sucks to be her."
Ontario Human Rights Commission comes to aid of Sikh who doesn't want to wear a motorcycle helmet. Their argument boils down to "it is his essential human and religious right to die unnecessarily and drive up everybody else's insurance rates."
Mitt Romney endorses John McCain. This will assist McCain in getting the crucial android vote, which Romney carried handily.
And the Islanders smacked around the Leafs.
Photo by arcticlamb from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
|
Linda Keen was probably not expecting the Conservative's Judge Dredd response:
"I am the law!"
Wow, it's been a while since I've seen that film (because it sucks) and man, I forgot just how awful it was. Way to slur out iconic dialogue, Stallone.
No wonder with each passing year I become more of Hardcore, Strict Atheist, why should any Religious dogma preside over rule of Law? Gets more ridiculous everyday, how can an a supposedly educated society tolerate such absurd ignorance? Religion should be banned from any exclusion to the rule of law and and lose all tax exemptions. People should be allowed to believe what nonsense they want, but it should not be sanctioned in any manner by a Secular Government. Human rights just allow the you to deceive yourself and do it from any government intrusion and not for your dogma to intrude into governmental affairs based on your delusions. I was happy when they actually got around to talking about getting rid of the Lords prayer, one step forward, two steps back. I don't care what the persons religion is, they are just as inane as the next, full of lies, bigotry, delusions, deceit and ignorance.
As a hardcore strict atheist, I support his right to die from a crushed cranium while expressing his rights and freedoms riding around on a motorcycle.
Right about now, there are a dozen or so insurance agents typing Mr. Badesha's name into their system to see if he's covered by them. If he is, he probably won't be for much longer.
Not his Cranium I worry about, its the poor person should another be involved. They may walk away fine, but if they are considered "at fault" and he dies the law will still hold the person accountable for the fools death and all the other ones like him. And the personal anguish of the poor soul who may happen to get in an accident with this or any person who flouts our laws based on this utter foolishness. It affects others why it bothers me, if he had the road to himself be a fool but he is not on the road alone.
I don't understand how someone else would be at fault if there's a crash where the motorcycle rider isn't wearing a helmet. Would I be at fault if I got in a car accident and the other guy got maimed (or worse) and they weren't wearing a seatbelt? Because that doesn't sound right.
May not sound right, but if he is legally not wearing a helmet he is not breaking the law, which if this ruling goes in his favour would do. So the law would only then apply as if he or she was.
> Religion should be banned from any exclusion to the rule of law
I am inclined to agree except for the use of certain drugs.
If your religion uses mind altering substances as a sacrament, like many religions do, I don't see why you (or anybody else, really) should face jail time.
@9: That seems slightly arbitrary -- might you clarify with your reasoning?
Or is the next party I crash going to be a "religious gathering"?
Peyote is used as a sacrament in some Native American religious practices. In the States, federal law, as well as many state laws protect the right of native tribes to use peyote as a sacrament in religious ceremonies.
I love it, Android vote :)
Re: “Ontario Human Rights Commission comes to aid of Sikh who doesn't want to wear a motorcycle helmet.” Is there some sort of ‘law’ that this issue of Sikhs wearing turbans in inappropriate situations has to come up ever decade or so?
Let me make this clear: my comments are not based on race, but nationality. If you choose to be Canadian, you also choose to abide by the laws of this land, regardless of your ethnic origins. The laws set down by the Ministry of Transport state that a motorcycle helmet is required in Ontario, period, so why is this even an issue? Helmets not only save the lives of the rider, but others using the road as well. Anyone who has even been on a motorcycle knows just how much fun it is when a bee or a hornet crunches into your helmet, and the potential disaster that could occur if the insect stung you in the face, causing you to wipe-out and endanger others.
I remember the whole ‘Sikh Mountie wearing a turban’ issues of 1990, when new recruit Baltej Singh Dhillon chose to fight for his ethnic rights rather than his country: Canada. This issue infuriates me. By joining the RCMP, you are made aware of the uniform. By riding a motorcycle in Ontario, you are likewise made aware of the rules and regulations surrounding the privilege (yes, privilege) of operating a motorcycle in this province.
Anyone born in another land who came to Canada brings with them rituals and rites from their native country. While we must respect those rites and traditions, others must respect the laws of this province.
The Mountie outfit looks just as good with a turban — some days, I think it looks better. There's no public safety issue either way in that case, and your hyperbolic assertion that the guy is a traitor for not wearing a hat makes me seriously question your sanity and/or sincerity.
Jesus Murphy, fight for his country?
I'll bet that you got all exercised over turbans-in-the-Legion, too — I hear they keep a little Jerry troll up there that spies on our boys.
ErisSmith: Did I use the word 'traitor' anywhere in my comment? If anyone needs his sanity question, Eric, you're at the top of the list. There are reasons uniforms are called uniforms, and its obvious you've never worn one, save perhaps for a McDonald's hat and shirt!
You did imply that by wearing a turban these men have divided loyalties, and they can stand up for their culture or their country, but not both. Sounds like an accusation of treason to me.
Why are today's supposedly countercultural youth even more politically correct and oversensitive than your typical hippie/yuppie Drama teacher types?
The laws of Ontario are made in the Parliament of Ontario, not by the Ministry of Transport. They are debated and voted on by the Members of Provincial Parliament whom we elect. Motorcycle helmet laws are among these and I don’t see this as a cultural issue as much as a legal one. These laws were made not only to protect motorcyclists like the gentleman in question, but also our society on the whole. He undoubtedly has a family that would miss him, a job that would lose him, and a health-care system that would have to care for him. If he doesn’t want to wear a helmet, he should take the bus or car. Or better yet, invent a new helmet. We certainly should not have to pay for his injuries if our elected parliamentarians have made laws to prevent them.
That said, with regards to the silly debate about turbans and divided localities, here is my contribution. If you study Commonwealth history, you will quickly learn there is something on the headdress more important than the ‘hat’ itself - the cap badge. When Sikh soldiers in 19th century India received their colours and cap badges from the Crown, they took up their responsibilities with all the honour and effort worthy of them. I’m sure this has not changed for the 21st century Sikh-Canadian police officer. Furthermore, whether it's a Sikh-Canadian army officer, air cadet, Mountie or OPP, they wear a cap badge on their turban which represents the real honour, power and authority of the uniform. Yes, our hats are important but the Stetson replaced the forage cap, which replaced the pillbox and pith helmet. Uniforms, like laws, change with time and that’s the beauty of the ever-evolving Canadian way. Turbaned Mounties are part of our national fabric and are not 'out of uniform'.
Should we pay for the treatments lung cancer-riddled smokers need if they started smoking under the legal age? Something that's also part of our Canadian way of life is universal health care. Start making arguments about not having to pay for things people do to themselves and eventually what you end up with won't be so universal.
Hey mapleavenue,
Here's a thought for you: when you can dig up a photo of one of my Jewish brothers serving in the Sikh army wearing a yarmulke, we'll talk. Until then, realize a uniform is a uniform, period.
It's also 'in regard to,' not 'in regards to.'