REPORT: Notley Government Exempts Sikhs From Requirement To Wear Helmets While Riding Motorcycles

The province will still force other residents to abide by the helmet requirement.

In a dubious move, the Alberta government has decided that the requirement to wear a helmet while on a motorcycle will no longer apply to Sikh residents.

As reported by CTV, “Effective April 12, 2018, Sikhs over the age of 18 will be permitted to operate or be a passenger on a motorcycle without a helmet in Alberta. The exemption follows similar amendments to traffic safety acts in British Columbia and Manitoba. “The Sikh community has urged us to grant this exemption in recognition of its civil rights and religious expression,” said Brian Mason, Alberta’s Minister of Transportation in a statement. “Our government is committed to these principles.”‘

Meanwhile, the rules will still apply to everyone else.


This is obviously a blatant double standard, and goes against the idea that all citizens should be granted the same rights as everyone else.

Personally, I would have no problem with this exemption – if it also applied to everyone else in Alberta. The reasons given by members of the Sikh community for opposing the mandatory helmet rules are actually pretty reasonable, and they shouldn’t be forced to wear it. But neither should anybody else.

Either everyone should be required to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, or nobody should be required to. Having a double-standard for some is outrageous.

It’s totally unacceptable that the rules are being applied to some people, but not others.

If we are all supposed to be equal citizens, then we should all be treated the same in the eyes of the law and the government. Anything less makes a mockery of what Canada is supposed to stand for.

Spencer Fernando

Photo – YouTube

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Agree totally, I worked twenty years in an Emergency Ward, after seeing the people from motorcycle accidents, I would not get on one, they are horrific, helmet or not.


Fine. Go ahead. But, if these turban-only bike riders get into an accident and sustain head injuries, they MUST pay for their own medical care. If they get exemptions from our mandatory helmet laws, then the taxpayers must be exempt from paying for their hospital and all other related expenses through Alberta’s “free” healthcare.


Excellent … 100% agree !!

Ben Eby

All Albertans agree. They pay for their own medical expenses! People who wear turbans, please know, that YOU are being duped, this is for your vote only. It has nothing to do with consideration for your religious beliefs!

Tommy Hawk

And she does this for what reason?

The obvious reason — the Sikh vote — politics 101 — carries with it a ‘no shame and no blame’ paragraph — or, did she, on the sly, sign an agreement that if and when they might be injured in an accident, they can sue the government (taxpayers) and be guaranteed a win?


I know I probably shouldn’t say this, as it’s not politically correct, etc. BUT — if that’s what Sikhs wish, then so be it — and realistically, if we can argue about the right to free speech, the right to carry guns, the right to defend ourselves, hey, then let those daredevils, from whatever nationality, choose to smash open their cranium so they can feel the wind beneath their scalp…… it should always be an equal opportunity scenario.


I thought the religious rights were secondary to other BASIC rights such as safety and care. But look, if the Sikhs want to die riding motorcycles or be paralyzed for life, that’s fine with me. When there is enough of them who die and get hurt, they wont be able to blame anyone but themselves. And they wont be able to sue the government or anybody else.


It is only recently that young Sikh males in Canada started wearing turbans. Before there was a large community centralized in B.C., ( ie. in the ’70’s) the males usually cut their hair and removed the turbans in order to integrate. So is Notley saying that a Sikh who doesn’t wear a turban still doesn’t have to wear a helmet|?? They can ride bare headed? Do people really know what the turban represents? When the British moved the Sikhs out of the Punjab ( they are called Punjabis) leaving the Sikhs feeling homeless and displaced, they decided to start a… Read more »

Major Tom

I smile with sadness………..Sikhs….a warrior class….whom I respect. and whom I served with……are permitted to wear their kirpan…..their ceremonial sword as part of their dress…….it is a weapon for self defense….. At the Last Supper…..Jesus Christ, my saviour….told his disciples….”If you do not own a sword…..sell your cloak and buy one.” My Lord put personal protection before personal comfort….because he saw the conflict ahead…..Yet, in politically correct Canada……to my knowledge…not one Christian church advocated for Christians to carry a weapon as the Sikhs are allowed to do…..I expect that is the price we pay for the Marxist pacifistic influence that… Read more »


So, basically, minority groups have more freedom under the law than the majority.


Kamloops Pastafarian fights for his right to ride with colander

Jill Ward

there is a WAR on the horizon here in the former ‘canada” as RACE VS. RACE AND RELIGION VS RELIGION are being fed by every one of our so called political representatives who have all forgotten WHO PAYS THEIR SALARIES, WHOSE COUNTRY THIS IS AND WHOM THEY ARE ELECTED TO SERVE AND PROTECT. Oh well, they’re too busy feeding the hate for WE CANADIANS AND EVERYTHING CANADIAN while handing big cheques off to all who arrive every hour of every day to vote for them as they sit back and count the money we Canadian slaves have to fill their… Read more »

Ray Decorby

Mildly off topic…did you know that if you’re tradition is to have your face covered with a Nqaab or Burka, that you can qualify and access a Firearms Licence (PAL), without your photo on it! All you need is a letter from your imam…suppose you could also just pas the Licence around to your friends as well.