CdnbMatt Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I came across a story today that may not be hot off the presses, but interesting nevertheless. Apparently on July 9th a Sikh man was awarded an undisclosed amount of money from an incident some time back when he refused remove his turban to wear a helmet on the Go-Karts. I believe that at the time the operator refused to let the man ride. Which in my opinion was a good move. I am not sure what words were exchanged but I find it funny that Wonderland would even consider giving this man money from the details I am reading. This has even sparked Wonderland to request a change in regulations to allow Sikhs to ride without helmets. I really hope to not offend anyone but I feel that regardless of religion if you cannot follow the safety rules for any attraction you should not participate...period. Some may argue that modifications could be made to accommodate a turban such as larger helmets, but wearing a too large helmet defeats the purpose. Any thoughts? If you want to read the story http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=325bc24f-4b3f-4c55-95f8-53d2606088a9&k=50763 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shavethewhales Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 (edited) *Deleting this post years later because I've grown up and realized I was an idiot. Edited February 19, 2020 by Shavethewhales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bovinejumpsuit Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Just another case of dark-age eastern thinkers trying to force their way on westerners. Or perhaps westerners not understanding and being sympathetic to a persons personal beliefs. In my opinion he should have accepted that the park needed him to wear a helmet to comply with insurance requests. This sounds like just another case of the north American sue-culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
307 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 This is awful and sets a bad precedent for future incidents. It's one thing for Wonderland to respect the man's religion, but if he cannot safely ride the go-karts or any other ride with the turban, then he should not be allowed to. He should respect the park's safety rules as the park should respect his religious rights. If he were to have been allowed to ride without a helmet, and suffered a head injury, who would be at fault? It would be Wonderland's fault for allowing him to ride without the proper safety equipment. This is crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginzo Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Where is the issue? If the guy refuses to comply with the safety regulations, he doesn't ride. His individual rights are NOT being trampled on just because he can't ride some stupid go karts. This case is such a waste of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnbMatt Posted July 29, 2007 Author Share Posted July 29, 2007 This is awful and sets a bad precedent for future incidents. I could see Wonderland paying this guy off just so there wouldn't be a big commotion, especially with such a large middle eastern population in southern Ontario. That being said, I agree with you. This opens the door for all kinds of similar issues. What is Wonderland going to say next time a Sikh wants to ride the go karts....they certainly can't continue to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roasted_marshmallow Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I think what they're trying to do is allow the Sikhs to wear their turbans, however have them sign a waiver saying that because they have refused to wear a helmet, Canada's Wonderland will not be responsible for any damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnage Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 I could see Wonderland paying this guy off just so there wouldn't be a big commotion, especially with such a large middle eastern population in southern Ontario. Yeah, that's what I was figuring as well. Sounds pretty much like a political decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 Just another case of dark-age eastern thinkers trying to force their way on westerners. Wow... just... wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterviper Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 If he were to have been allowed to ride without a helmet, and suffered a head injury OMG its go carts not the Indy 500! Wait a helmet? I never had to wear a helmet on any go carts my whole life. If I knew I had to wear a helmet on a go cart I wouldn't go on it in the first place. First off they dont go fast enough to require a helmet. Second I been in many bang ups riding go carts and I never once hurt my melon. I personally think wearing a helmet for go carts is overkill IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coastrfreak2000 Posted July 29, 2007 Share Posted July 29, 2007 ^Amusement devices (go karts included) in Canada have particularly strict rules from the Technical Standard and Safety Authority (TSSA). It is most likely their policy for go karts to have helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldogmom Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I agree that he should have had to wear a helmet like anyone else- rules are rules. They are meant for safety, not discrimination- as are the rules that people of extreme size can't safely fit into some rides. Although the idea about him signing a waiver is not a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Just another case of dark-age eastern thinkers trying to force their way on westerners. I'm sorry, but how dip-**ited is this? The attendant was right to tell him had to follow regulations just like everyone else. If the man had a problem, too bad, that's all this should have come to. I'm outraged that CW went this far to cover their asses, it truly shows how much it costs to be completely politically correct towards extremists. Give me a break, just because someone comes from the middle east doesn't mean we should all just bow down to them. Typical Westerner who doesn't know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vekoma Fan Boy Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 If he were to have been allowed to ride without a helmet, and suffered a head injury OMG its go carts not the Indy 500! Wait a helmet? I never had to wear a helmet on any go carts my whole life. If I knew I had to wear a helmet on a go cart I wouldn't go on it in the first place. First off they dont go fast enough to require a helmet. Second I been in many bang ups riding go carts and I never once hurt my melon. I personally think wearing a helmet for go carts is overkill IMO. Even a low speed colision can do a LOT of damage. I remember on Rescue 911 there was a case where a kid was riding Go Karts, got into a crash with the barrier, and laserated (Tore, or cut, for people who don't speak Doctor) his damn liver-almost in half! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dethklok878 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Just another case of dark-age eastern thinkers trying to force their way on westerners. I'm sorry, but how dip-**ited is this? The attendant was right to tell him had to follow regulations just like everyone else. If the man had a problem, too bad, that's all this should have come to. I'm outraged that CW went this far to cover their asses, it truly shows how much it costs to be completely politically correct towards extremists. Give me a break, just because someone comes from the middle east doesn't mean we should all just bow down to them. Typical Westerner who doesn't know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. I'm sorry, I didn't see him use either noun in his entire post, I believe it is you who is forcefeeding the misinterpretation. While I don't agree with the language of the post, it is absolutely right. If he does not wish to comply with the regulations, it is merely that simple; he does not ride. It doesn't have to go beyond that. The man's religion is not the object here, it was his choice not to comply with what is, evidently, law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeemerBoy Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Geesh, it's all clearly explained on Wikipedia. Research, people. Research. Five K's of the KhalsaThe Sikh religion or Khalsa recommends its followers keep these five K's: kesh, kada, kirpan, kangha, karts [unshorn hair, the steel bracelet, the short-sword, a comb, and demanding to be exempt from normal regulations regarding go-kart safety in Canada.]. In India we can see many sikhs with these five K's which easily help recognize who is a Sikh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnbMatt Posted July 30, 2007 Author Share Posted July 30, 2007 So if they can't remove their turbans... Do they get measured from their turbans on the ride...? That is not fair Good question! I believe that they would be measured from their turbans.....I can't see the turbans being removed for height measurement...and no, that is not fair. If a child who was measured from his turban falls out of a ride and it is determined that he was indeed too short to ride...who do you think will be in big trouble??? One guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larrygator Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 Just another case of dark-age eastern thinkers trying to force their way on westerners. I'm sorry, but how dip-**ited is this? The attendant was right to tell him had to follow regulations just like everyone else. If the man had a problem, too bad, that's all this should have come to. I'm outraged that CW went this far to cover their asses, it truly shows how much it costs to be completely politically correct towards extremists. Give me a break, just because someone comes from the middle east doesn't mean we should all just bow down to them. Typical Westerner who doesn't know the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. I'm sorry, I didn't see him use either noun in his entire post, I believe it is you who is forcefeeding the misinterpretation. While I don't agree with the language of the post, it is absolutely right. If he does not wish to comply with the regulations, it is merely that simple; he does not ride. It doesn't have to go beyond that. The man's religion is not the object here, it was his choice not to comply with what is, evidently, law. 1) - He refers to a Sikh as an extremist 2) - He implies that Sikhs are from the Middle East I stand by my comment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hemmy Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 God I hate the justice system. Yes this isn't in the United States but apparently Canada is crazy just like us. I was just reading about some guy who mooned a family with a 14 yr old boy and now he could face 15 YEARS in prison and have to register as a sex offender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shavethewhales Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 1) - He refers to a Sihk as an extremist 2) - He implies that Sihks are from the Middle East I stand by my comment! I hate to turn this into a culture debate, but... 1.) - You don't think Sikhs can be extremists? I've met a lot of very nice Sikhs, but I call little incidents like the one in question pretty extreme. I know it's not the extreme most people think of when thinking of religious extremes, but it's pretty extreme none-the-less. I've seen things like this happen in airports over and over again, and the rows that hold everyone up for 20 mins. aren't pretty. 2.) I said they were from the east. India is in the east from me... oh wait, I did mention the middle east in the last sentence, but that was more toward all the other incidents similar to this that I keep hearing about. Anyway, the point of my post, however blunt and hurried it was, was that religious customs shouldn't allow a given person the power to change basic rights and rules that everyone else has to follow. If you can't take the basic rules we've set out, then don't try to blunder through them as if everyone will just ignore you just because you have a demanding religion to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
307 Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I see no reason for this to turn into a religious debate, from either side. It's basically - follow the park's posted safety rules that you should've known about when you entered the park, or don't ride the rides. It's an open and shut case from this guy's point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoasterScott Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 So what do you do in the following situation: You are the Construction Manager of a project just outside Toronto. An outside engineering firm sends a worker to the site who is Sikh. He refuses to either wear just a hard hat or put his turban on above the hard hat. You're insurance regulations say everyone onsite must wear head protection, safety glasses, hearing protectors, and steel-toed boots. The laws of Canada say he is entitled to work free from religious prosecution, and the Sikh religion is specifically mentioned in the statue. If you let him work, you might get fired. If you stop him, the government might shut down your whole construction project, in which case you also might get fired. What do you do? Scott, this was a true situation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnage Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 ^ Bomb his country into the ground using a thin excuse of WMDs. Oh wait, you said Canada. I don't know then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginzo Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 ^ Bomb his country into the ground using a thin excuse of WMDs. Oh wait, you said Canada. I don't know then. You mean "liberate" his country with a bunch of bombs. Now I'm off to go eat some freedom fries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goliath513 Posted July 31, 2007 Share Posted July 31, 2007 Where is the issue? If the guy refuses to comply with the safety regulations, he doesn't ride. His individual rights are NOT being trampled on just because he can't ride some stupid go karts. This case is such a waste of resources. With all the safety related incidents occurring these days, if one refuses to comply with the rules, they should not to be allowed to participate and NOT be compensated for sake of "religious purposes" if that is what the reason was. Think about it, if they had allowed him to ride without the helmet and he did get hurt, the park would end up paying even more money. So this guy got the park into a situation where he is taking advantage of this restriction to make some quick cash. I wish this guy would get nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now