Sikh gets cash from Wonderland

[HelloHockeyFans]

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...6088a9&k=50763

Gurcharan Dran bought tickets for the Speed City Raceway attraction but was not allowed to ride because of a helmet use regulation, the Ontario Human Rights Commission reported last week.

As part of the settlement, Paramount Canada's Wonderland agreed to request an exemption to the helmet requirement for Sikhs from the Ministry of Government Services and the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. Both parties are in the process of reviewing the request, said Tom Ayres, a lawyer with the organization.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by HelloHockeyFans

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...6088a9&k=50763

Gurcharan Dran bought tickets for the Speed City Raceway attraction but was not allowed to ride because of a helmet use regulation, the Ontario Human Rights Commission reported last week.

As part of the settlement, Paramount Canada's Wonderland agreed to request an exemption to the helmet requirement for Sikhs from the Ministry of Government Services and the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. Both parties are in the process of reviewing the request, said Tom Ayres, a lawyer with the organization.

That's fine as long as if any of them get injured they are exempt from recieving any compensation from either the park or the province.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

That's fine as long as if any of them get injured they are exempt from receiving any compensation from either the park or the province.

And they are personally responsible to pay all medical bills associated with any injuries.

[ricosuave]

exactly.

[jolinar of malkshor]

What a fricken joke....this country is getting pathetic.

[CaptainCrunch]

Its funny, but I have no problem with the exemption as long as thier willing to sign a waiver removing injury responsibility from the park.

I was in the forces when they did the great experiment with the first Sikh was allowed an exemption on his uniform requirements both in terms of haircuts and wearing the standard head dress and haircuts. He was willing to serve in a military that was probably angry that they had been forced to change certain standards for him. Unfortunately I don't think that his career lasted too long once he hit the field and his gas mask and combat helmet couldn't be worn.

[Burninator]

I have a hard time believing that even if someone signed a waiver and got hurt on the ride, they still wouldn't seek money. I can almost guarantee that if they got hurt they wouldn't pay for it out of there own pocket. But I wouldn't expect them to pay for it anyways, but I would expect them to avoid such a situation in the first place.

What I don't understand is, why, Sikhs would want to put themselves in harm in the first place. I would guess your chances of getting hurt on bumper cars is pretty low, but why risk it? Is going on bumper cars that important to you that it is worth the risk of scrambling your brains? Same with a motorcycle. The risk of sustaining a serious injury is pretty high if you crash a bike. Take that helmet off and I am sure the fatality rate is through the roof. And CC if they are dumb enough to actually not what to wear a helmet in combat, I'd say let them because obliviously they don't have anything to protect anyways. I'm kidding of course, actually I wouldn't want someone that wouldn't wear a helmet in the military, they would probably just be a liability to everyone in their squad anyways.

I don't like how religious beliefs/practises trump all. There is no way someone would be able to challenge this helmet rule if it wasn't backed by religion. But for whatever reason religion is put above all safety, reason, and logic to accommodate.

[lifer]

when I was younger and they gave the Sikhs a special exemption to the bike helmet law in B.C., I got pretty upset about it. I was one of these guys "they live in this country, they should live by this country's laws".
I've since changed my opinion, and it is more in line with some mentioned above. If they don't want to wear a helmet for religious or cultural reasons, that's fine. I just don't want to be paying for any damage they do to themselves, others, or property. If they try to sue for damages or anything after they've had an accident, it should be thrown out and they should pay the court costs.

I guess my point is this, if it doesn't negatively effect me personally, I couldn't care less what anybody wears on their head on bumper cars, or a bike.

That said, I think it should be an individual decision for the businesses whether or not they want to permit a Sikh or anybody else on the track without a helmet. The fact that this guy was awarded financial damages for this incident seems ######ed to me. If a company's policy says you must wear a helmet for safety reasons, it is not discrimination to hold everybody up to the same rules and standards. In fact, I would say it is the opposite of discrimination.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I have a hard time believing that even if someone signed a waiver and got hurt on the ride, they still wouldn't seek money. I can almost guarantee that if they got hurt they wouldn't pay for it out of there own pocket. But I wouldn't expect them to pay for it anyways, but I would expect them to avoid such a situation in the first place.

What I don't understand is, why, Sikhs would want to put themselves in harm in the first place. I would guess your chances of getting hurt on bumper cars is pretty low, but why risk it? Is going on bumper cars that important to you that it is worth the risk of scrambling your brains? Same with a motorcycle. The risk of sustaining a serious injury is pretty high if you crash a bike. Take that helmet off and I am sure the fatality rate is through the roof. And CC if they are dumb enough to actually not what to wear a helmet in combat, I'd say let them because obliviously they don't have anything to protect anyways. I'm kidding of course, actually I wouldn't want someone that wouldn't wear a helmet in the military, they would probably just be a liability to everyone in their squad anyways.

I don't like how religious beliefs/practises trump all. There is no way someone would be able to challenge this helmet rule if it wasn't backed by religion. But for whatever reason religion is put above all safety, reason, and logic to accommodate.

The whole safety and liability movement is a North American creation that hasn't hit every place in the world yet. Go on vacation to many parts of the world as evidence of this. Anyway, if these Sikh's are somewhat new to the country than it makes sense that they aren't overly concerned about safety. Also their headwear being a religious custom and all would probably have them more worried about honoring their religion than the risks of life on Earth.

However that being said, why is it the rest of us that have to accomodate them as opposed to the whole them avoiding situations in which would compromise their religion. Afterall many western religions call for abstainance of many things readily available in western society. Those people are forced to avoid those situations. Why is that too much to ask Sikh's to do as well?

[Bobblehead]

Mr. Dran could not be reached for comment but Kevin Fox, his lawyer, said Mr. Dran "thinks [Paramount Canada's Wonderland] could have handled it a bit better when they told him to get off."
Mr. Fox said he did not know the details of the confrontation, but said Mr. Dran was in his fifties at the time.

I wonder if the whole issue boils down to what was said at the time?
Perhaps the real issue was in how the employee dealt with the issue?

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by lifer

when I was younger and they gave the Sikhs a special exemption to the bike helmet law in B.C., I got pretty upset about it. I was one of these guys "they live in this country, they should live by this country's laws".
I've since changed my opinion, and it is more in line with some mentioned above. If they don't want to wear a helmet for religious or cultural reasons, that's fine. I just don't want to be paying for any damage they do to themselves, others, or property. If they try to sue for damages or anything after they've had an accident, it should be thrown out and they should pay the court costs.

I guess my point is this, if it doesn't negatively effect me personally, I couldn't care less what anybody wears on their head on bumper cars, or a bike.

That said, I think it should be an individual decision for the businesses whether or not they want to permit a Sikh or anybody else on the track without a helmet. The fact that this guy was awarded financial damages for this incident seems ######ed to me. If a company's policy says you must wear a helmet for safety reasons, it is not discrimination to hold everybody up to the same rules and standards. In fact, I would say it is the opposite of discrimination.

Actually he wasn't awarded anything. He came to a settlement with the park behind closed doors. My guess is the park just didn't want to deal with it anymore. Chances are they may not have to.

Although they are trying to change the laws...
As part of the settlement, Paramount Canada's Wonderland agreed to request an exemption to the helmet requirement for Sikhs from the Ministry of Government Services and the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. Both parties are in the process of reviewing the request, said Tom Ayres, a lawyer with the organization.

However later down it talks about insurance...
Peter Primdahl, underwriting director at K&K Insurance Group in Mississauga, said he would be very reluctant to insure an amusement ride business if they allowed some patrons to ride without helmets -- even if the helmet law is amended.

If they can't get insurance for the ride, chances are they will stick with helmets being mandatory, or just get rid of the ride all together.

[lifer]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Actually he wasn't awarded anything. He came to a settlement with the park behind closed doors. My guess is the park just didn't want to deal with it anymore. Chances are they may not have to.

Although they are trying to change the laws...
As part of the settlement, Paramount Canada's Wonderland agreed to request an exemption to the helmet requirement for Sikhs from the Ministry of Government Services and the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. Both parties are in the process of reviewing the request, said Tom Ayres, a lawyer with the organization.

However later down it talks about insurance...
Peter Primdahl, underwriting director at K&K Insurance Group in Mississauga, said he would be very reluctant to insure an amusement ride business if they allowed some patrons to ride without helmets -- even if the helmet law is amended.

If they can't get insurance for the ride, chances are they will stick with helmets being mandatory, or just get rid of the ride all together.

Ok. I guess I misunderstood that. Just so I'm clear, he did get some money right? My problem is that nobody should have to worry about a public backlash, court-costs, or anything like that as a result of asking a person to wear a helmet for a ride where EVERYBODY HAS TO WEAR ONE.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The whole safety and liability movement is a North American creation that hasn't hit every place in the world yet. Go on vacation to many parts of the world as evidence of this. Anyway, if these Sikh's are somewhat new to the country than it makes sense that they aren't overly concerned about safety. Also their headwear being a religious custom and all would probably have them more worried about honoring their religion than the risks of life on Earth.

Whatever someone thinks about safety or taking risks doesn't really matter in this case. It's not up to them to decide what is safe or what isn't. That's the parks job, and they follow those rules based on the law of this land. I don't think we disagree, I am just saying.

However that being said, why is it the rest of us that have to accomodate them as opposed to the whole them avoiding situations in which would compromise their religion. Afterall many western religions call for abstainance of many things readily available in western society. Those people are forced to avoid those situations. Why is that too much to ask Sikh's to do as well?

I often wonder that too. Now I am not a immigrant, I was born here and so where my parents and their parents and I've lived here all my life. So I don't know what it's like to take on another countries customs etc. (outside of short vacations). Now if I am moving to another country I would understand that there are some customs and ways of life that I would have to adapt to. I wouldn't expect to go somewhere in Asian, for example, where you must take off your shoes before you go into a certain building, and refuse to. Would I go the government and demand that I be allowed to wear shoes? I mean, I don't have buildings here where I have to take off my shoes. Obviously it would be unreasonable of me to expect that. Oh unless in my spiritual book it was required that I wear shoes inside buildings, then I can do whatever I want and make people change. That of course is a pretty crude example, but you get the idea.

Not everyone has the same reasons to move to another country. But I am sure most of them centre around change. You want a change. Whether it be work related, living conditions or other means (war etc). Why would want to make your new country just like your old one? I suppose Canada has done this to itself by being accommodating to changing things for peoples beliefs. And of course it is not just limited to immigrants, I just ran with that because we were talking about other countries safety standards (or lack there of).

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by lifer

Ok. I guess I misunderstood that. Just so I'm clear, he did get some money right? My problem is that nobody should have to worry about a public backlash, court-costs, or anything like that as a result of asking a person to wear a helmet for a ride where EVERYBODY HAS TO WEAR ONE.

He filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights commission, but it did not go to tribunal until last week. Last October he settled with the Park for an undisclosed amount of money.

[ken0042]

Perhaps they should post a sign:

"All riders must wear a helmet. We are happy to supply a variety of them for you to use if you would like; however if none of ours fits you, you must provide a CSA approved helmet of your own."

That way if a Sikh wants to drive the bumper car- he can do so without having to impact the rest of the customers.

[Calgaryborn]

I would like to see laws that would limit or eradicate a persons ability to sue when the majority of the responsibility for the injury rests on the claimants shoulders. If ignorance of the law is no excuse why can't the court demand a reasonable level of common sense from everybody as well?

If you ride the bumper cars without the recommended helmet you shouldn't expect to be covered by insurance.

[Flames09]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Whatever someone thinks about safety or taking risks doesn't really matter in this case. It's not up to them to decide what is safe or what isn't. That's the parks job, and they follow those rules based on the law of this land. I don't think we disagree, I am just saying.
I often wonder that too. Now I am not a immigrant, I was born here and so where my parents and their parents and I've lived here all my life. So I don't know what it's like to take on another countries customs etc. (outside of short vacations). Now if I am moving to another country I would understand that there are some customs and ways of life that I would have to adapt to. I wouldn't expect to go somewhere in Asian, for example, where you must take off your shoes before you go into a certain building, and refuse to. Would I go the government and demand that I be allowed to wear shoes? I mean, I don't have buildings here where I have to take off my shoes. Obviously it would be unreasonable of me to expect that. Oh unless in my spiritual book it was required that I wear shoes inside buildings, then I can do whatever I want and make people change. That of course is a pretty crude example, but you get the idea.

Not everyone has the same reasons to move to another country. But I am sure most of them centre around change. You want a change. Whether it be work related, living conditions or other means (war etc). Why would want to make your new country just like your old one? I suppose Canada has done this to itself by being accommodating to changing things for peoples beliefs. And of course it is not just limited to immigrants, I just ran with that because we were talking about other countries safety standards (or lack there of).

Wearing shoes is a part of your religion???? If it isn't then I guess you should have no problem with removing your shoes (same way in Temples here in Canada you must remove your shoes and cover your head when entering). If it is a part of your religion then go fight for it, Canada isn't a melting pot, and as long as I'm not being harmed in any way I really don't care if they wear a helmet or not, it's not like them not wearing a helmet is like smokers smoking in public, one affects me directly the other doesn't.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flames09

Wearing shoes is a part of your religion????

What? That was just an example I made up.

[Flames09]

Originally Posted by Burninator

What? That was just an example I made up.

Sorry I submitted enter a little to early haha, no I'm just saying wearing shoes isn't a part of your religion, and if it is then fight for it, otherwise take em off.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Flames09

Sorry I submitted enter a little to early haha, no I'm just saying wearing shoes isn't a part of your religion, and if it is then fight for it, otherwise take em off.

I don't think you got my point.

But what if I say that it is part of MY religion? Then that Japanese building (or whatever) should be ok with me leaving my shoes on? Is there some sort of rules where is states what your allowed to push on to people and what your not?