It's an intriguing dilemma in a multicultural society: what happens when the rights of an individual clash with the laws of society? The latest dilemma revolves around a Sikh man named Baljinder Badesha (pictured). He was ticketed in 2005 for not wearing a motorcycle helmet as he cruised the streets near his Brampton home.

But he wasn't being lazy, defiant or forgetful. Instead, Badesha claimed his faith mandates that he wear only a turban and that nothing should touch it, including a motorcycle helmet. He was fined $110, a punishment he's now fighting in court with the backing of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Commission agrees that the father of four is being discriminated against.

"The reason he can't wear a helmet is that he wears his turban, as you can see," said attorney Mel Sokolsky. "This is a very profound and sincere religious belief of Mr. Badesha as a devout Sikh."

"My religion says we cannot put anything over the turban," Badesha stresses.

But at a Friday hearing into the controversial case, the Crown insisted the fine remain in place.

The Ontario Safety League, (O.S.L.) agrees, noting that a brain injury as a result of not wearing a helmet could cost the public health care system anywhere from $300,000 to millions.

"Wear a helmet or don't ride a motorcycle. That's the law in Ontario. And that's the law that should stand as a result of this," argues Brian Patterson of the O.S.L.

"The military requires you to wear a military helmet at all times," he continues. "And in the labour side, you've got to wear appropriate headgear when operating forklifts or heavy equipment or on construction sites. That's been challenged, and the helmet side won."

Exceptions to the rule have been made in B.C. and Manitoba. And the commission claims losing the case wouldn't be a disaster for prosecutors, because future exceptions would still have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The dispute has raised new concerns about the need for safety vs. the freedom of religion. Many believe the latter should come first and that it's in the public interest that the law mandate people protect themselves while indulging in activities that could leave them facing severe injury.

But others contend that the man in question is an adult and he should be able to make his own decision in the name of his faith. Human Rights Commissioner Barbara Hall agrees.

"Rights like freedom of religion are not absolute, but there is a requirement if people request accommodation to explore whether or not it makes sense," she explains. "And it means going through ... scientific tests ... [to determine] what happens to a turban at high speed, to determine where is the risk, and is it an acceptable level of risk? ... There are a number of situations where people in Ontario currently have exemptions from the Highway Traffic Act."

But callers to Citytv's CityOnline disagree, calling it a foolish precedent. "I think this is a totally ridiculous thing," criticizes a woman named Andrea. "It's safety first. It's nothing to do with religious aspects. If you have to wear a helmet, this is Canada. It's in Ontario. It's in the Highway Act. What happens if he gets hit by a car? Is his turban going to protect his head more than a helmet would?"

IRONMAN

Dude!! Unless you are an aboriginal!! Whats the hell makes you think this is your country??? The aboriganals owned this country b4 anyone did!! "Our country"...relax yourself...

Evidence suggests whites settled Americas First

The remains of probably the oldest North American ever found have been recovered in Washington State. The 9,300-year-old skeleton is 90 percent complete and belongs to a Caucasoid male.
By Louis Beam
(Originally published in the SPOTLIGHT, 10/13/1997)

One of the most complete prehistoric skeletons ever unearthed in the Americas was discovered near Kennewick, Washington in July of 1996. It was dubbed "Kennewick Man."

Now it is the subject of a court battle between anthropologists who desire to learn all they can about it, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which wants to cover it up, both literally and figuratively.

The Corps of Engineers wishes to turn this remarkable find over to American Indian tribes who want it reburied without further study based on the claim the skeleton is an "Indian" and therefore should not be desecrated by being studied.

The discovery of a 9,000-year-old Caucasoid in the United States has led to a breaking down of "an iron curtain of silence" which had existed in the news media and among some archaeologists and anthropologists.

It turns out at least six other Caucasoid skeletons, older than any Mongoloid Indian remains known in North America, have been found. These include the nearly 10,000-year old mummy of a Caucasoid male found in Spirit Cave, Nevada, and the skeletal remains of a nine-year-old Caucasoid female child found in Nevada of equal antiquity.

From their graves, men, women and children are speaking to us, and their tale is that of an ancient culture, stretching at the least from Arizona to Washington state. Their story, long unknown, now partially uncovered, rushes to greet us from the misty depths of the past - a sensational story of life and death in America BC.

Interestingly enough the Kennewick Man had imbedded in his pelvic girdle a two-inch Clovis spear-point of gray volcanic rock evidently thrown by an enemy with probable intent to kill. Kennewick Man survived the attack but the spear- point remained imbedded in his hip.

There is little proof there was a single Indian of Siberian extraction in the entire Northwest when Kennewick Man lived, hunted and fought there. The present Indians in that region are believed to have been there less than 1,000 years, which makes them the invaders. Kennewick Man and his people are the "native Americans" of the Northwest, for whatever that is worth.

In fact, such terms as "first," "original" and "native" really have no scientific or historical context in this time period, as so little is known (and if the federal government has its way little will be known) of the era.

But such terms are convenient and useful for present-day social engineers to provide preferential treatment to one class at the expense of another.

As one lawyer involved in the court case stated, "A lot of their [Indian] pride and claims might not be true, and that might impact them in financially adverse ways."

This may explain in part the veil of secrecy that has surrounded the other ancient Caucasoid people found, as well as attempts to prevent further studies, among the most important of which, for proper classification of remains, would be DNA testing.

In southern Idaho the skeletal remains of a 10,600-year-old woman, found in a gravel quarry near the town of Buhl, were reburied in December, 1991.

The Shoshone-Bannocks - believed by many scientists to have moved into the area less than 1,000 years ago - claimed the remains were those of a dead ancestor.

Tribal officials exercising authority newly granted them by the federal government refused permission for archeologists to perform DNA tests and chemical analyses that would provide clues as to the racial origin of the skeleton, as well as other valuable information.

WHERE DID THEY COME FROM?

Most Americans, taught the Bering Strait theory as an explanation for the peopling of America, are unaware it is no longer seen as the sole explanation for the presence of man on these continents.

Archeological finds in South America, on the Eastern Seaboard of the United States and elsewhere show conclusively that there were several distinct and separate migrations of different racial groups to the Americas.

Recent studies point to the hypothesis of a "North Atlantic Crescent" which existed between Europe and North America, with both water and ice serving as a "bridge" between the two continents.

It is clear also from genetic DNA sequencing that there was more than one migratory event. Indeed, as one DNA study bluntly stated, "The notion of a homogeneous Amerindian genetic pool does not conform with these and other results."

Mummies of Caucasoid nobles buried in temples were found in ancient cities of South America.

As ruins continue to yield their secrets it now appears many of the ancient pre-Columbian civilizations were seafaring peoples with a long tradition of open-sea sailing.

Rather than walking 10,000 miles from Mongolia to Chile, it now seems the "first Americans" may have sailed. And where they came from is yet to be firmly resolved.

Peru, Chile and Ecuador are all revealing long-forgotten cities of ancient peoples classified as racially Caucasoid, such as redheaded mummies in pre- Inca graves in Peru. This is not the history taught in the public schools.

NEW IDEAS

Pre-Columbian tombs are shattering the adage that "dead men tell no tales."

The exciting tales they relate will force the rewriting of pre-Columbian history. Shattered will be the myth of "Indians" as the first Americans.

Also shattered will be the credibility of those who view the advancement of mankind as a series of events and developments independent of outside influence from distant cultures. This is a school of thought that became popular in American universities in the 1960s along with "progressive socialism" and bell-bottom pants.

Such thinking mutated in the once hallowed halls of academia into a form of politically correct archaeology that has greatly hindered the interpretation and understanding of American prehistory.

Great steps in understanding the origins of the American past are being made, and they are being done so over the academically dead bodies of fearful, politically correct, social historians, who now find themselves haunted by the long-dead bodies of stone-age Americans.

Some archeologists have built empires based upon theories resembling in magnitude the Mayan citystates just before their collapse. They see for themselves now an uncertain future in their chosen field where their long-held notions are increasingly seen as relics. When the DNA lab returns are in they will be out for job retraining.

Precedents buoy Sikh's turban fight, lawyer says

Judge may consider law in other jurisdictions, past rulings on turbans
Feb 20, 2008 04:30 AM
Tracy Huffman
Staff Reporter

Helmet laws are designed to protect those who ride motorcycles and save millions in public health-care spending, a Crown attorney has argued in a controversial case in Brampton.

But laws in other jurisdictions should persuade a judge to toss out a ticket against a Sikh man wearing a turban instead of a helmet, says a lawyer who has researched the law as it relates to Sikh culture.

"There has to be a basic commitment to observe the common law," said Sat Gosal, a Mississauga lawyer, who has followed Baljinder Badesha's case in the media. "There is enough historical religious precedence to say his belief is genuine."

Badesha – supported by the Ontario Human Rights Commission – has been fighting a $110 ticket he received in September 2005 for wearing his turban instead of a helmet while riding his motorcycle.

Badesha, a married father of four, said he feels his religious beliefs require him to wear a turban outside of his home and prohibit him from wearing a helmet.

"I think he will win," said Gosal.

Some believe the turban is not a religious requirement, but baptized Sikhs make a commitment to wear it at all times outside the home, he said. It identifies the wearer "as someone who is committed to these sets of religious beliefs."

Case law supports Badesha's case, he said. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 1990 that Baltej Singh Dhillon, an RCMP officer, would be allowed to wear a turban on the job.

More recent cases have led to exemptions for Sikhs who ride motorcycles in British Columbia, Manitoba, England and India. To rule against Badesha would be like asking those jurisdictions, "Why did you codify the law?" Gosal said.

Although Gosal acknowledges the issue of safety – Crown attorney Michael Dunn has argued helmet laws protect from head injuries and wasted health-care spending – the only person at harm is Badesha.

Badesha, 39, has said he understands the risks of riding without a helmet and is willing to take them for his religious beliefs.

Dunn has said Badesha's beliefs are not being contested, but he remains unconvinced by the argument that denying access to riders without helmets violates constitutional rights. "There is no suggestion that riding a motorcycle is a protected religious belief," he said last week. "Riding a motorcycle, that is significantly different than the interests that have been found to be violated ... in other cases."

Justice James Blacklock has reserved his decision until March 6.