Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Opinion

Turbans vs. Motorcycle Helmets. Religious Freedom vs Safety?

Published

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.

2025 Federal Election

Liberal MP Paul Chiang Resigns Without Naming the Real Threat—The CCP

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight     Dan Knight

After parroting a Chinese bounty on a Canadian citizen, Chiang exits the race without once mentioning the regime behind it—opting instead to blame “distractions” and Donald Trump.

So Paul Chiang is gone. Stepped aside. Out of the race. And if you’re expecting a moment of reflection, an ounce of honesty, or even the basic decency to acknowledge what this was really about—forget it.

In his carefully scripted resignation statement, Chiang didn’t even mention the Chinese Communist Party. Not once. He echoed a foreign bounty placed on a Canadian citizen—Joe Tay—and he couldn’t even bring himself to name the regime responsible.

Instead, he talked about… Donald Trump. That’s right. He dragged Trump into a resignation about repeating CCP bounty threats. The guy who effectively told Canadians, “If you deliver a Conservative to the Chinese consulate, you can collect a reward,” now wants us to believe the real threat is Trump?

I haven’t seen Donald Trump put bounties on Canadian citizens. But Beijing has. And Chiang parroted it like a good little foot soldier—and then blamed someone who lives 2,000 miles away.

But here’s the part you can’t miss: Mark Carney let him stay.

Let’s not forget, Carney called Chiang’s comments “deeply offensive” and a “lapse in judgment”—and then said he was staying on as the candidate. It wasn’t until the outrage hit boiling point, the headlines stacked up, and groups like Hong Kong Watch got the RCMP involved, that Chiang bailed. Not because Carney made a decision—because the optics got too toxic.

And where is Carney now? Still refusing to disclose his financial assets. Still dodging questions about that $250 million loan from the Bank of China to the firm he chaired. Still giving sanctimonious speeches about “protecting democracy” while his own caucus parrots authoritarian propaganda.

If you think Chiang’s resignation fixes the problem, you’re missing the real issue. Because Chiang was just the symptom.

Carney is the disease.

He covered for it. He excused it. He enabled it. And now he wants to pose as the man who will stand up to foreign interference?

He can’t even stand up to it in his own party.

So no, we’re not letting this go. Chiang may be gone—but the stench is still in the room. And it’s wearing a tailored suit, smiling for the cameras, and calling itself “leader of the Liberal Party.”

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

PM Carney’s Candidate Paul Chiang Steps Down After RCMP Confirms Probe Into “Bounty” Comments

Published on

Sam Cooper

 

Just after midnight Monday, Liberal MP Paul Chiang announced he is stepping down as the Liberal candidate in Markham–Unionville — hours after Canada’s federal police confirmed it was “looking into” allegations that he endorsed handing a political rival to a foreign government in exchange for a bounty.

“This is a uniquely important election with so much at stake for Canadians,” Chiang wrote in a late-night statement. “I do not want there to be distractions in this critical moment. That’s why I’m standing aside as our 2025 candidate.”

The announcement followed a day of escalating controversy, triggered by The Bureau’s Friday report and a series of breaking developments over the weekend and Monday, detailing Chiang’s remarks at a January meeting with Chinese-language media.

At a January news conference with Chinese-language media, Chiang suggested that Joe Tay’s criminal charge in Hong Kong would create a “great controversy” if he were elected to Parliament, according to the Ming Pao newspaper. He then reportedly crossed into territory that Hong Kong rights groups have asked the RCMP to investigate — potentially amounting to counselling kidnapping and violating Canada’s foreign interference laws — by suggesting that Tay, a Canadian citizen wanted under Hong Kong’s National Security Law, could be “taken” to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto to claim a HK$1 million bounty.

The UK-based human rights NGO Hong Kong Watch filed a formal letter to RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme on Monday morning, requesting a criminal investigation. The letter alleged Chiang’s comments may amount to “counselling to commit kidnapping” under Canada’s Criminal Code, and potentially violate the new Foreign Interference and Security of Information Act.

By late evening, the RCMP confirmed it was “looking into the matter,” citing the serious and growing threat of foreign interference and transnational repression. While no criminal charges have been laid, and no details about potential protective measures have been released, the federal police said it is working closely with intelligence and law enforcement partners.

Chiang did not reference the controversy directly in his resignation statement, instead framing his decision as a step to protect the broader interests of the Liberal campaign. He expressed pride in his record and gratitude to his community.

“For the past three-and-a-half years, it has been the greatest honour of my life to serve the people of Markham–Unionville as their Member of Parliament,” he wrote. “Every single day, I served with integrity and worked to deliver results.”

The move comes after mounting calls for Chiang’s removal, including from more than 40 Hong Kong diaspora groups and international human rights advocates who said his remarks endorsed Beijing’s tactics of transnational repression. Joe Tay, the Conservative candidate targeted in the remarks, revealed Monday that he had contacted the RCMP for personal protection even before the comments were made public.

Chiang had previously apologized for what he called a “terrible lapse in judgment,” but had retained the backing of Prime Minister Mark Carney — until Monday night.

More to come on this breaking story.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Support a public interest startup.
We break international stories and this requires elite expertise, time and legal costs.
Continue Reading

Trending

X