Of all the potential hazards that may confront me as a motorist, the possibility of encountering a helmetless motorcyclist probably ranks near the bottom of the list. Therefore, I have a difficult time getting worked up by the idea of some people being granted the freedom to ride helmetless.
However, it begs the question of why governments are granting this freedom to a select few, while simultaneously taking a firmer line when it comes to mandating helmet use for others. Either helmets are so important that we must pass and enforce laws mandating their use, or they’re really not that big a deal — it can hardly be both.
Last week, the Alberta government announced that it would follow the lead of B.C. and Manitoba and grant an exemption to the province’s motorcycle helmet law to turban-wearing followers of the Sikh faith.
The importance of the turban to the Sikh community should not be doubted, and it seems absurd that there was ever any controversy about Sikh-Canadians being able to serve our country as members of the armed forces or the RCMP while still wearing their turbans.
WATCH BELOW: Sikh organization applauds new Alberta helmet law
But given the rhetoric from government as to the urgent need to ensure that Canadians are sufficiently protecting their precious craniums, one could mount an argument that this demonstrates a callous disregard for the well-being of the Sikh community. Are they not worthy of protection? Or is individual choice worthy of taking precedence now and then?
Consider, for a moment, the glaring contradiction in B.C., a province that has a mandatory helmet law for all cyclists. Not just riding a motorcycle, which is an inherently risky activity, but riding a bicycle — an activity that is clearly not inherently dangerous (one need only look to the Netherlands, where bicycle helmets are rarely used and where cycling is incredibly safe).
The province of B.C. takes safety so seriously that a consenting adult is in violation of the law for riding a bicycle without a helmet, but so enthusiastically embraces the concept of individual choice so as to bestow upon certain individuals the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet.
In Alberta, this very same provincial government brought in a law last year to make helmets mandatory for off-highway vehicles (ATVs, dirt bikes, and snowmobiles). At the time, Alberta’s minister of transportation declared, “This government has made a commitment to improving safety on Alberta’s transportation network (…) this will keep riders safe.”
WATCH ABOVE: Alberta NDP proposes law making helmets mandatory on ATVs
We can’t bear the thought, it seems, of someone riding helmetless. Except for those who really, really want to.
While this is obviously a religious accommodation issue, let’s be clear: this is not a religious freedom issue. If a law is a violation of religious freedom, the proper response would be to strike it down altogether, not to carve out a narrow exemption. This is something the courts have been clear on.
There have been various constitutional challenges of various helmets laws and hard hat requirements, and the courts have rejected these arguments. Moreover, a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2009 rejected the argument from an Alberta Hutterite colony that it be granted an exemption from the requirement that a photograph be included with a driver’s licence (members of the colony believe that photographs are a “graven image” and therefore against their religion).
It remains the case, then, that those Sikhs with designs on working in the construction industry, or with aspirations of playing hockey or football, must consider whether their religious devotion takes precedence over the requirement to adopt head protection in order to participate. I would imagine those would be difficult decisions.
It’s understandable why Sikh groups have asked for this exemption, and it’s not a decision that ultimately affects anyone other than those brave (reckless?) souls who hit the open road without a helmet. It’s not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that governments have sought to curry favour with Sikh Canadians.
There is a danger here, though, that decisions intended to demonstrate respect for the Sikh faith could end up fostering resentment among some Canadians who might view these decisions as granting special treatment and special rules to a particular group.
The bigger concerns, however, are the mixed messages from government and the willingness to allow political calculations to undermine their own safety initiatives — and in the process, fueling public cynicism about such matters.
Rob Breakenridge is host of “Afternoons with Rob Breakenridge” on Global News Radio 770 Calgary and a commentator for Global News.
Comments