What part of no does the BC Human Rights Tribunal not understand? These guys have acccepted a case regarding Sikhs, turbans, and hardhats, despite the ruling of the Supreme Court that bona fide safety concerns trump religious rights. I know that a recent mediation between Sikh longshoremen and the Port of Vancouver allowed a compromise where Sikhs don't work in areas requiring hard hats, but at what point does accommodation become favouritism? We know from several sources that Sikhs can and do wear modified turbans with helmets, that there is no prohibition in the Sikh religion against wearing helmets (despite a lie from another recent complainant), and that the turban is not a symbol of the Sikh religion. How much more clear cut can this be?
Frankly, I do believe that the state imposes too many restrictions on Canadians in the name of safety. If someone wants to do something stupid, well, the Darwin Awards await. But if the State is going to legislate safety, exemptions based on religion and especially falsehoods spread by religious groups to gain special status, should be disallowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment