Opinion

Turbans vs. Motorcycle Helmets. Religious Freedom vs Safety?

Published

7 years ago

5 minute read

Should safety trump religious freedom?
That sensitive topic may need to be visited by our Alberta provincial government if it prepares to debate making turban-wearing Sikhs exempt from current motorcycle helmet laws. They will likely need to discuss exemptions for motorcycle riders and also side-car occupants. There are jurisdictions that have these exemptions. Sikhs are allowed to ride without a helmet in British Columbia and Manitoba.
Ontario, after serious study, decided not to allow turban-wearing Sikhs to ride a motorcycle without wearing a helmet, a decision the Canadian Sikh Association called “deeply” disappointing.
Premier Kathleen Wynne of Ontario had also struggled with striking the right balance between public safety and religious accommodation. A bill was brought to the Ontario legislature years ago requesting an exemption. After much thought and consultations it was not supported.
“After careful deliberation, we have determined that we will not grant this type of exemption as it would pose a road safety risk,” she wrote in a letter to the Canadian Sikh Association. “The association has been a strong advocate for an exemption and presented “compelling arguments,” Wynne wrote. “However, the Ontario government has carefully monitored, and considered, the soundness of accommodating your position, drawing on relevant academic research, key legal decisions, and consultations with caucus and the community.”
“Ultimately, the safety of Ontarians is my utmost priority, and I cannot justify setting that concern aside on this issue.” The same would be said in Alberta.
The mandatory helmet law is based on extensive research that shows the high risk of injury and death for motorcyclists who ride without a helmet. Mortality rates have gone down 30 per cent and head injury rates down 75 per cent in jurisdictions with such laws.
Courts have also found that Ontario’s law doesn’t infringe on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Ontario Human Rights Code, so Alberta would not have to worry, then, if a court challenge was to be launched.
So should safety trump religious freedom? That is a tough one, but so is the rights of individuals as a whole. There is a fine line between the wishes of the few versus the needs of the community.
The turban issue is also complicated by it’s history and it’s geographical relevance. If the turban can be altered to identify nobility, carry small weapons and for various castes and events, why could it not be altered for safety measures.
I found this information on the internet’s wikipedia: All Sikh Gurus since Guru Nanak have worn turbans. However, covering one’s hair with a turban was made an official policy by Guru Gobind Singh, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs. The main reasons to wear turban are to take care of the hair, promote equality, and preserve the Sikh identity. Sikh women may wear a turban if they wish.
Sikhs do not cut their hair, as a religious observance. The turban protects the hair and keeps it clean. As Sikhs only form 2% of India’s population, their turbans help identify them, also. When he institutionalized the turban as a part of the Sikh identity, Guru Gobind Singh said, “My Sikh will be recognized among millions.”
If a turban was institutionalized as a personal hygiene measure and as an identification and recognition factor then it should allowed to be covered temporarily for safety factors, but I am not an expert, but just as a questioner.
How our current provincial government deals with this issue could set off some debate beyond the rights of religious rights. How about human rights? Should I be ordered to wear a helmet because I am not of a certain religion?
There will be discussion about allowing the exemption on smaller highways and urban streets, but a head injury at 60 km/h is still severe. An exemption to an exemption, would make less sense. If they wear a helmet on Hwy 2 then they can wear a helmet on residential streets.
If the facts bear out that helmets do not prevent or lessen head injuries and mortality rates then do away with mandatory helmet laws. But if the facts show they do prevent or lessen head injuries and mortality rates then no exemptions.
That is just my thoughts.

Follow Author

Prime minister’s misleading capital gains video misses the point

COVID-19 / 7 hours ago

Tucker Carlson and NFL star Aaron Rodgers discuss Bill Gates, COVID-19, US Deep State

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 18 hours ago

The PM as Leaf’s coach

Economy

Prime minister’s misleading capital gains video misses the point

Published on May 19, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

According to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians”

This week, Prime Minister Trudeau released a video about his government’s decision to increase capital gains taxes. Unfortunately, he made several misleading claims while failing to acknowledge the harmful effects this tax increase will have on a broad swath of Canadians.

Right now, individuals and businesses who sell capital assets pay taxes on 50 per cent of the gain (based on their full marginal rate). Beginning on June 25, however, the Trudeau government will increase that share to 66.7 per cent for capital gains above $250,000. People with gains above that amount will again pay their full marginal rate, but now on two-thirds of the gain.

In the video, which you can view online, the prime minister claims that this tax increase will affect only the “very richest” people in Canada and will generate significant new revenue—$20 billion, according to him—to pay for social programs. But economic research and data on capital gains taxes reveal a different picture.

For starters, it simply isn’t true that capital gains taxes only affect the wealthy. Many Canadians who incur capital gains taxes, such as small business owners, may only do so once in their lifetimes.

For example, a plumber who makes $90,000 annually may choose to sell his business for $500,000 at retirement. In that year, the plumber’s income is exaggerated because it includes the capital gain rather than only his normal income. In fact, according to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians” with an “average income of $1.4 million a year.”

But this is a misleading statement. Why? Because it creates a distorted view of who will pay these capital gains taxes. Many Canadians with modest annual incomes own businesses, second homes or stocks and could end up paying these higher taxes following a onetime sale where the appreciation of their asset equals at least $250,000.

Moreover, economic research finds that capital taxes remain among the most economically damaging forms of taxation precisely because they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest. By increasing them the government will deter investment in Canada and chase away capital at a time when we badly need it. Business investment, which is crucial to boost living standards and incomes for Canadians, is collapsing in Canada. This tax hike will make a bad economic situation worse.

Finally, as noted, in the video the prime minister claims that this tax increase will generate “almost $20 billion in new revenue.” But investors do not incur capital gains taxes until they sell an asset and realize a gain. A higher capital gains tax rate gives them an incentive to hold onto their investments, perhaps until the rate is reduced after a change in government. According to economists, this “lock-in” effect can stifle economic activity. The Trudeau government likely bases its “$20 billion” number on an assumption that investors will sell their assets sooner rather than later—perhaps before June 25, to take advantage of the old inclusion rate before it disappears (although because the government has not revealed exactly how the new rate will apply that seems less likely). Of course, if revenue from the tax hike does turn out to be less than anticipated, the government will incur larger budget deficits than planned and plunge us further into debt.

Contrary to Prime Minister Trudeau’s claims, raising capital gains taxes will not improve fairness. It’s bad for investment, the economy and the living standards of Canadians.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Alex Whalen

Associate Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

COVID-19

Tucker Carlson and NFL star Aaron Rodgers discuss Bill Gates, COVID-19, US Deep State

Published on May 19, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Stephen Kokx

The star quarterback argued that Dr. Anthony Fauci was financially incentivized to suppress COVID treatments like ivermectin, adding that Americans should have compassion on those who were convinced by the ‘full-court propaganda.’

NFL quarterback Aaron Rodgers has not been shy about his opposition to the COVID shot in recent years. During many public appearances on television, he has strongly denounced mandates, lockdowns, and government and media officials who pushed the jab. Now, he’s striking a somewhat different tone.

“How do we call these people forward, in love and acceptance… to step into the truth?” Rodgers asked Tucker Carlson in reference to Americans who bought into the “full-court propaganda” and received the shot.

Aaron Rodgers pic.twitter.com/sYBCtOVNU2

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) May 14, 2024

“They went through all the mass-formation psychosis that we all did… and are now going, ‘Oh s***. Maybe that wasn’t the best. Maybe they lied to us. Maybe this wasn’t safe.’”

Rodgers spoke with Carlson earlier this month in a timely, two-hour long interview on his The Tucker Carlson Show. As previously reported by LifeSiteNews, they touched on an array of subjects related to how global elites control the world, including blackmail and pedophilia.

There are “a lot of really interesting secret societies, not just the Skull and Bones at Yale, which has produced all those presidents and Freemasonry at its highest level,” Rodgers said. “There is a sexual component, I think, to a lot of that.”

Rodgers won Super Bowl XLV with the Green Bay Packers in 2010. A sure-fire Hall of Famer, he was one of the highest profile professional athletes to push back against the shot at the time. During an appearance on ESPN’s Pat McAfee Show in January, he courageously argued that Dr. Anthony Fauci had a financial incentive to vilify alternative treatments like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, zinc, vitamin D, and vitamin C. He made similar points with Carlson.

“If we’d called this ‘gene therapy,’… maybe we thought it was about 5 to 10 percent of people that might take this. We call it a ‘vaccine’ then that brings in all the potential [of] being canceled as an anti-vaxxer, because that’s what they did to me and you as well,” he said.

READ: Bill Gates predicts mRNA ‘vaccine factories’ worldwide and $2 vaccines for every disease

“There’s a top line in a lot of those organizations that are actually at their core anti-American and are not doing things that [are] in the best interest of our people,” Rodgers said. “[Trump] had four years to do it and didn’t drain the swamp, and whether he just got scared because of what he learned when he was in there, I think it’s very plausible.”

Rodgers and Carlson also discussed COVID propagandist Bill Gates.

“I think there’s some people that want depopulation… Bill Gates… if you look at his track record and what he’s done around the world,” Rodgers said, referring to Gates’ vaccine activism in Africa.

“I think he’s strongly pro-death,” Carlson replied.

“I think he’s not the only one. I think there are a lot of other people. I don’t understand what that motivation is… but I think those are some of the evils that we’re up against,” Rodgers commented.

Rodgers revealed that he has done a seven-day fast to improve his health and encourages others to try it as well. He also explained that he doesn’t eat a lot of sugar because cancer cells thrive off of it. He then pointed out that there has been a proliferation of ailments developed by children in recent decades, seemingly hinting that he believes that is a result of the massive increase in vaccines they receive.

Although raised in a Christian home, Rodgers told Carlson it is possible religion is a tool to “control” people. At the same time, he said there is a “demonic” element to UFOs and that, regarding the COVID shot, he thinks “evil kind of overstepped a little bit too far. And now that the tides are turning.”

“There’s a battle that’s going on between the seen and the unseen world, between good and evil, between the powers that we can see and the powers that we can’t see,” he stated.

At one point in their conversation, Carlson asked Rodgers, “do you know anyone who didn’t get the vax who’s upset he didn’t get the vax? Does anyone regret that decision?”

“No,” Rodgers replied.

“Right. Not one person, ever,” said Carlson.