«« Intégration et religion

Safety first

Pluralism in a modern liberal democracy such as Canada means accommodating differences. It does not mean anything goes.

Some Sikh parents in Calgary have confused the two. They are pressing the Alberta government to exempt their children from new bike-helmet legislation, on the grounds that it violates their religious freedom because in practice it prevents them from wearing the turbans required by Sikhism.

Bicycle helmets save lives. In 1990, 106 adults and children died in bicycle accidents in Canada. In 2000, just 42 did, thanks to the growing use of bike helmets. Eighty per cent of bicycle deaths are from head injuries. No wonder Alberta has joined the four other provinces (Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) that require children to wear helmets while on their bicycles. (The last three provinces also require that adults wear helmets.) Like seat-belt laws, helmet laws create a simple change in behaviour that saves lives.

The Sikh parents say their right to religious freedom comes first. "We are very much concerned about our kids' safety as well," says the group's spokesman, Happy Mann, "but sometimes [we] have to make choices."

If he is correct, a family's constitutional right to make personal choices based on religious belief trumps society's right to pass laws in pursuit of its legitimate objectives. But where does it stop? Does it stop with the Church of God, whose members in Aylmer, Ont., have been in trouble with child-protection authorities because they believe the Bible requires them to hit their children with objects to discipline them? Does it stop with Jehovah's Witness families who object to blood transfusions for their children, even where a life may be at stake?

The state has an overriding interest in protecting all Canadian children. This must sometimes be done against their parents' objections. As a matter of law and politics, no one's children may be exempted from basic safety concerns. That would be discriminatory, a statement that some children's lives are expendable while others are not.

This issue is far different from others in which Canadian Sikhs, and other minorities, have pressed for accommodation. On the question of whether Sikh children may wear kirpans (ceremonial daggers) to school, in spite of objections most recently in Quebec, the Sikh parents are right. Anti-weapons policies should not be applied to kirpans when they are carried in a sheath sewn shut and worn beneath the clothes. No incident of violence involving a kirpan in a Canadian school has been documented in 100 years. The overriding principle is that the public schools must be open to all. Any rules that have the effect of limiting a group's religious or cultural freedom must be justified on the evidence.

The issue of whether RCMP officers could wear turbans was one of symbolism. If Canadian symbols were so unyielding as to exclude certain Canadians from participating in the nation's life, those symbols would cease to reflect Canadian values. Similarly, Legion halls that banned turbans and other religious headgear had the effect of banning observant Sikhs and Jews from their premises, even though members of both groups fought for the Allies in both world wars. If the goal of the policy was to create respect for veterans, it did so by showing disrespect for some veterans.

Canadians are legally and morally bound to make reasonable accommodations -- defined by the courts as anything up to "undue hardship" -- but the country need not shrink from its core values. In this case, the cost of accommodating the beliefs of Canadian Sikhs would be borne by their children in extra deaths and brain injuries, and that would be intolerable.