The producer of a local TV news program called me this morning asking if I would like to go on air to discuss the case of Baljinder Badesha.
He's the devout Sikh who is challenging the law that forces motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. Badesha says his religion requires him to wear a turban.
Anyway, the producer wanted to me to take part in a debate, where my role would be to oppose Badesha's stand.
I declined for one simple reason: Badesha's in the right. He shouldn't be forced to wear a helmet. He should be allowed to wear a turban or a bonnet or a beanie cap or whatever he wants.
It's not question of religious freedom but of individual freedom.
The state has no business telling us what to wear; it has no business protecting us from ourselves.
We should have the right to make our own choices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
That's to sensible a comment
I totally agree with the idea that we shouldn't have a government body try to keep us so darn safe and infringe our freedom to be stoooopid.
What I do not agree with is them making exceptions to law based on religion. Soon what other laws will other religions be exempt for? What ever happened to keeping religion and the state separate?
Gerry,
I agree with you that people should have the right to make our own choices. However, the helmut law is currently in effect, and should therefore be followed by everybody. If you don't like the law, then challenge the law as a violation of your personal freedom, but don't suggest that some people should be given special status under the law.
If Mr. Badesha is allowed to ride without a helmut, it should not be granted because of an exception based on religious reasons. If he's allowed that freedom, then we all should be allowed that freedom, not just Sikh's. Whatever laws we have, whether your agree with them or not, should be applied consistently.
Now, I happen to think people should wear a helmut when riding a motorcycle. Not because I care about the safety of some other idiot, but because in our public healthcare system, my tax dollars will be used to pay for any head injuries.
If one chooses to not use the available safety equipment, then he should pay the associated costs, whether that be higher insurance premiums to reflect risky behaviour or medical bills that could have been avoided.
If you want the freedom to make choices, you must also accept the personal responsibility to pay for those choices. You can't have it both ways!
helmit shmelmit...let him ride without one for all I care... We can all get a good laugh when we read about him in next years Darwin awards
If Mr. Badesha is successful he won't be granted a special exemption - the law would be struck down. The only way there would be different rules for different people would be if the politician responded by passing a law stating that everybody except Sikhs was required to wear a helmet.
*
"matt says... he won't be granted a special exemption"
you mean like the special exemption for aboriginals in caledonia... you know, to terrorise the town's citizens and confiscate local developer's private property?
yeah... premier mcslippery would never allow that.
*
This is a court challenge. At this point McGuinty's opinion doesn't really matter.
I don't have a problem with people not wearing helmets, as long as that if they get injured, we are not required as taxpayers to pay for their health care costs.
A better solution would be to make helmets mandatory, but if one doesn't want to wear one, they can sign a waiver stating the government will not pay for their health care costs.
And I should note even in the US where health care is privately covered, most private insurers won't cover those not wearing a helmet.
here is an idea, start making helmets that look like turbans, then let the laws of economics take there course!
Post a Comment