|
Precedents buoy Sikh’s turban
fight, lawyer says
WSN Network
 BRAMPTON:
Helmet
laws are designed to protect those who ride motorcycles and save
millions in public health-care spending, a Crown attorney has argued
in a controversial case in Brampton.
But laws in
other jurisdictions should persuade a judge to toss out a ticket
against a Sikh man wearing a turban instead of a helmet, says a
lawyer who has researched the law as it relates to Sikh culture.
"There has to be a basic commitment to observe the common law," said
Sat Gosal, a Mississauga lawyer, who has followed Baljinder
Badesha's case in the media. "There is enough historical religious
precedence to say his belief is genuine."
Badesha –
supported by the Ontario Human Rights Commission – has been fighting
a $110 ticket he received in September 2005 for wearing his turban
instead of a helmet while riding his motorcycle. Badesha, a married
father of four, said he feels his religious beliefs require him to
wear a turban outside of his home and prohibit him from wearing a
helmet.
"I think he will
win," said Gosal. Some believe the turban is not a religious
requirement, but baptized Sikhs make a commitment to wear it at all
times outside the home, he said. It identifies the wearer "as
someone who is committed to these sets of religious beliefs." Case
law supports Badesha's case, he said. The Supreme Court of Canada
ruled in 1990 that Baltej Singh Dhillon, an CMP officer, would be
allowed to wear a turban on the job. More recent cases have led to
exemptions for Sikhs who ride motorcycles in British Columbia,
Manitoba, England and India. To rule against Badesha would be like
asking those jurisdictions, "Why did you codify the law?" Gosal
said.
Although Gosal
acknowledges the issue of safety – Crown attorney Michael Dunn has
argued helmet laws protect from head injuries and wasted health-care
spending – the only person at harm is Badesha. Badesha, 39, has said
he understands the risks of riding without a helmet and is willing
to take them for his religious beliefs. Dunn has said Badesha's
beliefs are not being contested, but he remains unconvinced by the
argument that denying access to riders without helmets violates
constitutional rights. "There is no suggestion that riding a
motorcycle is a protected religious belief," he said last week.
"Riding a motorcycle, that is significantly different than the
interests that have been found to be violated ... in other cases."
Justice James Blacklock has reserved his decision until March 6.
27
February 2008
|
Read Also