A tradtition of lying?

I am sure I am treading on thin ice, and I fully expect the howls of "racist" and "bigot" to follow, but I have to ask if lying is an integral part of the Sikh religion? Two recent cases have only reinforced my opinion that religious Sikhs see no problem lying to non-Sikhs. The first, and most recent example, involves the motorcyclist in Ontario trying to fight his $110 fine for riding without a helmet. The Ontario Human Rights Commission argued "the provincial helmet law discriminates against Badesha because it violates his constitutional rights". One can only assume it was his right to religious freedom that they based that argument upon. But the turban is NOT a symbol of religious Sikhism (unless it is convenient for Sikhs).

In Canada Sikhs claim the turban is a religious requirement and expect exemptions. In France, under their new religious symbols law, the The Sikhs "insist that the turbans their men and boys wear over their uncut hair are not religious symbols but essential to their dignity" as the traditional way of keeping their religiously-mandated uncut hair neat and tidy.

So which is it? Well, from Wikipedia the five symbols of faith are: Kesh (uncut hair), Kanga (wooden comb), Kaccha (specially-designed underwear), Kara (Iron bracelet), & Kirpan (strapped sword). Please note that the Turban is not listed as a religious requirement. Representing it as such is a lie. Thankfully, the judge in the Ontario case ruled against Mr. Badesha.

The second case involved Laibar Singh, the paralyzed failed refugee claimant who keeps defying Canada Border Services' attempts to deport him. Mr. Singh came to Canada on a forged passport, claimed refugee status, had some sort of medical problem (different Sikh leaders give differing stories, aneurysm, stroke, whichever sounds worse on that day I presume), and became partially paralyzed. His refugee claim was denied and he was scheduled for deportation. Since then he has claimed sanctuary in the temple in Abbotsford, been arrested when he left sanctuary to go to the hospital, been released on bond, promptly re-entered sanctuary defying his bond conditions, and forfeited that bond on Monday when he failed to present himself to CBS as required.

His supporters have variously claimed they will pay his medical bills if allowed to stay in Canada, a bill over $500,000 so far, and then claimed that raising a $50,000 bond was an onerous imposition (Harsha Walia in interview with Bill Good on CKNW, sorry no link) and refused suggestions that they pay his bills in an Indian hospital, which would be cheaper for equivalent care. They have claimed he cannot get proper medical support in India and then silenced a supporter who found differently on a recent trip to India. All in all it is one lie after another.

These two cases demonstrate a real difficulty with truthiness in the Sikh community and it bothers me. It doesn't bother me that Sikhs wear turbans in the army or the RCMP and this isn't about that, it is about institutional lying to gain benefit at the expense of Canadian society. These people depend on the anti-racist groups silencing any dissent, any opposition, by calling them racist. We must not allow that, we must seek the truth, not just what benefits an insular community at odds with Canadian society and Canadian laws.

UPDATE

More lies here. Quote: "Badesha's religion forbids him from putting on anything over his turban while outside his house." Really? Do the reporters ever fact check? Look at the Wikipedia article I posted, under the History section. What's that you see? Why yes, it's a SIKH HELMET. I guess Sikhs can wear a helmet when it suits them.

Oh, And the Supreme Court has ruled that requiring Sikhs to wear hardhats does not discriminate if the requirement is a bona fide safety issue. Are there any Sikh soldiers? Do no Sikhs work in construction? How about Sikh Firefighters? Despite this ruling many provincial HRCs and arbitration councils still find in favour of Sikh clamimants. Sorta puts the boots to the whole "the court can over-rule the HRC" argument, doesn't it? We have a solid precedent setting rulling and it is ignored!