It starts

[Mogz]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/03/07/turbans-hardhats060307.html

We allow daggers in school, now they're trying not to have to follow the labour code of Canada. I have an easy solution for this. If I was a manager my ultimatum to them would be:

"Wear a hardhat or find another job".

It's not discrimination, it's labour law. But they'll win, just like with the kirpan, because they're a minority. They'll not have to wear hardhats, and then they'll find something else they can be excused from. And so on and so on. Hence the moral decay of Canadian society. Wicked.

 

[I think not]

Considering the rulings coming out of your Supreme Court lately, I am relatively certain they will favor this "group" over the individual......again.

 

[Jersay]

It is interesting. Would like to know how it turns out.

 

[FiveParadox]

I agree, Jersay; however, I would urge the Sikh Canadians seeking to have this regulation struck down to reconsider the gravity of what they are asking — one provision that I would be in favour of, if they would wish to have the Supreme Court of Canada strike down the requirement, would be that anyone who refuses to wear a hardhat would have to waive any liability that their employers, or the Worksafe program might have, in relation to impact head injuries.

 

[Jersay]

Agreed.

 

[I think not]

So let me get this straight Five. You have no problem when they carry a weapon around in school, but you have a problem when they could potentially hurt themselves? :?

 

[FiveParadox]

That is correct, I think not — there is a much higher risk of someone hurting themselves on the job without a hardhat, then there is of someone being injured by a kirpan in school; I am in high school at the moment, and I have never felt threatened by anyone, in particular due to the presence of a ceremonial dagger. It is simply a non-issue, I think that you would find an overwhelming majority of students feel the same way I do (in regards to the kirpan issue, anyway).

 

[Jersay]

No, he said that they can wear their turban but they should be careful with regards to safety pay.

 

[I think not]

Re: RE: It starts

That is correct, I think not — there is a much higher risk of someone hurting themselves on the job without a hardhat, then there is of someone being injured by a kirpan in school; I am in high school at the moment, and I have never felt threatened by anyone, in particular due to the presence of a ceremonial dagger. It is simply a non-issue, I think that you would find an overwhelming majority of students feel the same way I do (in regards to the kirpan issue, anyway).

Is it just me or is there something wrong with this view? :?

Why aren't you quoting the Charter now? I'm really curious.

 

[FiveParadox]

I am not sure what you mean, I think not; both of these things (i.e., the right to wear a kirpan in a public place, in a safe manner, and the right to wear a turban in a place of work) could be deemed to be under Section 2(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (better known as the religious protection of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). However, the liability of an employer for such an exercise could be, in my opinion, applied using Section 1 of the same.

 

[I think not]

They are both safety issues Five anyway you slice it, whether or not you feel safe isn't the issue. I have read posts from other Canadians your age, on other forums, and not all of them share your views. In this case I would imagine you would take the same position, and yet somehow your thinking has shifted.

 

[FiveParadox]

My thinking hasn't shifted; in both cases, I am in favour of religious freedom. I have been, in my opinion, quite consistent.

 

[I think not]

You've been consistent with your views on religious freedom, what I fail to understand is why you would think hurting themselves is "riskier" than bringing a dagger to school.

Example, you mentioned they should sign waivers in the event they get injured, what about students in school that may get injured whether it be an accident or intentional?

 

[FiveParadox]

I think not, injuries have happened in workplace environments, with or without hardhats; however, an injury has never been reported in any school in Canada involving a kirpan; there are appropriate restrictions in place on the possession of the ceremonial dagger in public, such as size restrictions and restrictions on visibility where the Government of the area deems appropriate, so I don't have a problem with the kirpan.

 

[Mogz]

such as size restrictions and restrictions on visibility where the Government of the area deems appropriate

Eh, those restrictions conradict Canadian Law.

1. The kirpans are to be concealed, hence making them a concealed weapon. A law Sihks are allowed to break.

2. The minimum length for a Kirpan is 4 inches. The Criminal Code of Canada says the legal length of a blade to be carried is 3 inches. Once again, they can bend the laws to their own liking.

Go Supreme Court :roll:

 

[Lotuslander]

Five paradox wrote:

I agree, Jersay; however, I would urge the Sikh Canadians seeking to have this regulation struck down to reconsider the gravity of what they are asking — one provision that I would be in favour of, if they would wish to have the Supreme Court of Canada strike down the requirement, would be that anyone who refuses to wear a hardhat would have to waive any liability that their employers, or the Worksafe program might have, in relation to impact head injuries.

There is no doubt that Sikhs who refuse to wear hard hats or bike helmets do assume some liability for injuries suffered as a result of not wearing protection. However, this would not excuse the "owner" or "contractor" of a company from negligence but, a contractor could argue that if proper safety measures had been taken (wearing a hard hat for example) the injury would have been less grave and hence compensation could be reduced. I also think that Sikhs who refuse to wear proper protection run the risk of being discriminated against by employers who are hiring. Employers may not want to hire them because of the increased risk of injury they assume. I do not know if this would be classified as dicrimnation based on religion as there are considerable legal ramifications to be considered as well as perhaps increased insurance premiums. Can one be accused of discrimination for not hiring a worker because that worker is going to disproportionately hurt the comapny's bottom line? I don't know but would be interested in what others have to say.

Personally, while I sympathise with Sikhs' rights to follow their religion I think it is fool hardly for them to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, likewise work construction without a hard hat. At some point they need to ask themselves is it worth the risk?

 

[..35]

Re: RE: It starts

I think not, injuries have happened in workplace environments, with or without hardhats; however, an injury has never been reported in any school in Canada involving a kirpan; there are appropriate restrictions in place on the possession of the ceremonial dagger in public, such as size restrictions and restrictions on visibility where the Government of the area deems appropriate, so I don't have a problem with the kirpan.

Right from the horses mouth.

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=4825

You are fooling yourself if you think nothing will ever happen.

 

[Doryman]

Re: RE: It starts

Right from the horses mouth.

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=4825

You are fooling yourself if you think nothing will ever happen.

It has to be sharp for religious purposes, though, so it's racist to not allow them to grind the blade into a razor.....

:roll:

 

[Colpy]

The whole damn debate on the meaning of the kirpan is ludicrous....the REASON it is carried is that Sikhs take an oath to always be armed.....thus they carry the kirpan.....thus the kirpan is a weapon.

Linear thought, anyone?

Geez.

Now, I have to say this again.....the very people that absolutely, definitely INSIST that the Sikhs have a right to run around everywhere armed because of their tradition, would simpy pee themselves if a white Anglo-Saxon male insisted that he had a centuries-old recognized RIGHT to keep and bear arms......despite the fact THAT is documented.

Makes me sick.

 

[Alberta'sfinest]

I'm not too worried about some sikh kid cutting me with a dagger, and people are making a big deal out of nothing. I could break off a chair leg, use a broken mop handle, or even use a snapple bottle to kill someone. These are things that I could acquire when I was in school. Other options would be a tennis racket, baseball bat, a rock, or even a bike chain with a lock on one end. I'm also trained in martial arts, so I could kill another person with just my hands and feet too. It would be way more likely for someone to recieve a head injury, than to be injured in a fight, even if a weapon is used. I think that they should just write the laws so that if you refuse to wear a helmet on a bike, or a hard hat on the job, you don't get any coverage for injuries. Don't take jobs that require a hard hat, and don't ride a bike if you don't want to take the risk.