[BartSimpson]

No sh*t.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/02/07/bann ... s-as-pets/

Quote:

This is how it happens, folks. Little by little. Law by law. The proponents of sharia get themselves elected to positions of power – and then, before too long, they start trying to subject the rest of us to it, bit by bit:

Hasan Küçük, Hague councilor for the Islam Democrats, says dogs should be banned as pets in the city, reports De Telegraaf. The Muslim party says that the animals belong in nature, not inside the house. Küçük says that keeping dogs is animal abuse and should therefore be criminalized.

Needless to say, Hasan Küçük’s concerns have nothing whatsoever to do with animal abuse – and everything to do with the fact that Islam considers dogs to be impure. Like women, Jews, and gays, dogs are on the front line of the confrontation in the West between sharia-observant Muslims and the rest of us. When you see Muslims making trouble over dogs, you can bet that it’s just the beginning of all kinds of trouble over all kinds of things that run afoul of Islamic religious law.

To be sure, Küçük’s suggestion – which came in response to a proposal by animal-rights advocates that The Hague be made more dog-friendly – was immediately shot down by other members of the city council. Küçük was undoubtedly not surprised. He knows these things don’t change in a day – they change over time, by a gradual process of wearing down. People like Küçük are exceedingly patient. And they trust in their own patience and intransigence – and in our weakness, our distraction, our readiness to give in, eventually, under steady pressure, on what may seem to us like small matters that are not worth fighting over.

Küçük’s proposal is nothing new. For years now, the Western media have featured, with some frequency, news stories about blind people with guide dogs being refused taxi rides by devout Muslims cabdrivers, being thrown off buses because of complaints by Muslim passengers, or being refused access to stores by devout Muslim shopkeepers. Daniel Pipes has been assiduous in cataloging such cases, some of them dating back to the 1990s, in places ranging from Milwaukee to Melbourne.

The Muslims in these cases invariably argue that their religion commands them not to be around dogs. But it’s not just about dogs but about pretty much every little detail of daily life. The same people who object fiercely to the presence of dogs in their shops or cabs also maintain that their religion commands them not to do, or touch, or say, or see, or be in the vicinity of a great variety of things that are commonplace in the Western world. And once they’ve gotten their way with regard to dogs, they’ll move on to another thing – and then another, and another – at which they take offense, and once again spell out exactly how they expect non-Muslims to change their behavior in order to keep the peace.

It’s the logic of conquerors. But many authorities in the West have bowed to it. In British Columbia, cab drivers whose “honest religious belief…precludes them from transporting certified guide dogs” have been exempted from having to do so. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport has alsoworked out a “compromise” between blind people and Muslim cabbies. In Britain, in response to Muslim complaints about “sniffer dogs” used to identify terrorists at airports, authorities limited the dogs’ activities out of “cultural sensitivity.” When sniffer dogs are taken into mosques or Muslim homes, moreover, they’re fitted with “leather bootees” to avoid giving offense.

Generally speaking, as the Muslim percentage of a city’s population climbs, the demands for appeasement grow more and more aggressive. Last year,reports Soeren Kern, Islamic groups in the Catalan city of Lérida – which is 20% Muslim – called for a ban on dogs on public transport and in certain public spaces on the grounds that their presence violates Muslims’ “religious freedom and their right to live according to Islamic principles.” The city’s refusal to introduce such a ban was succeeded by a series of dog poisonings. No surprise there: this is precisely the kind of development that one can expect after a certain point in this process, when demands and pressure haven’t turned the trick.

To treat Muslims’ complaints about dogs as if they deserve serious and respectful consideration is, of course, absurd. But over time, even the absurd becomes familiar. That’s one thing these people are counting on. They’re counting on their ability to wear the rest of us down gradually, accustoming us to ideas, beliefs, and “sensitivities” that, at first blush, strike us as ridiculous. They’re counting on our ultimate willingness to compromise our values, one by one, out of fear of conflict and a misguided ardor for social harmony. They’re counting on our readiness to tell ourselves that we’re not surrendering or being submissive but are simply being good, respectful, cooperative neighbors.

It’s precisely in this way that sharia law is being introduced, step by inexorable step, into the West. The only way to put a halt to it is to ensure that everyone in a position of power in the West is aware of exactly what the Hasan Küçüks among us are up to, and is willing to stand up to them every step of the way – knowing that it’s not about dogs, but about dogma; not about puppies, but about power.

[Freakinoldguy]

And here I thought the only loonies on the planet who thought that way were good old Pamela rotten crotch and her PETA pals.

I don't see anywhere in the Quran where it says that you have stop having dogs as pets. I somehow can't help but think Hasan Küçük is a little over the top with his desire to stop animal abuse.

Quote:

The Quran strongly enjoins Muslims to treat animals with compassion and not to abuse them. The Qur'an states that all creation praises God, even if this praise is not expressed in human language.[1][2] In verse 6:38, the Qur'an applies the term ummah, generally used to mean "a human religious community", for genera of animals. The Encyclopaedia of the Qur'an states that this verse has been "far reaching in its moral and ecological implications."[10]

There is not an animal (that lives) on the earth, nor a being that flies on its wings, but (forms part of) communities like you. Nothing have we omitted from the Book, and they (all) shall be gathered to their Lord in the end.

—Quran 6:38

Maybe he should be working more on the humaninty of the radicals in his religion rather than on letting dogs go feral. Of course dogs are easier to control than radicals since they haven't been known to enjoy stoning, infidels, women, adulterers and non believers.

[Canadian_Mind]

Should take a look at how humanely they treat their animals in other muslim countries first. -.-

[ShepherdsDog]

I'd sooner see someone make the proposition that the Dutch ban Muslims that don't like dogs. I know quite a few Muslims that have dogs for pets. Well now that I think of it, if they're for banning purse rats, I can agree with that.

[GreenTiger]

I have to make a vest for my dog with the words: INFIDEL AND PROUD OF IT.

[maldonsfecht]

To the proponents of this idea: GTFO! Go back to wherever the hell this is not an issue for you, because we sure as s**t won't trade man's best friend for (**edited by me before typing to preserve membership)

[herbie]

Note to Muslims: DOGS are bred to be pets. Wild dogs like dingoes, wolves, coyotes belong outside and free, and they are.
Note #2: PIGS make extremely good pets too.

[Brenda]

He can propose whatever he wants. Not going to happen. Ever.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda wrote:

He can propose whatever he wants. Not going to happen. Ever.

Don't be so sure of that. Muslims in the USA have managed to effectively ban guide dogs for the blind from Muslim owned stores, and Muslim taxi drivers in New York City and Minneapolis are notorious for not allowing guide dogs in their cars...all despite our omnibus ADA law that prohibits this kind of discrimination.

Seriously, this kind of thing is just the first flexing of the Muslim colonial muscle in the localities where they've passed that magical 10% of the population mark.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

Brenda wrote:

He can propose whatever he wants. Not going to happen. Ever.

Don't be so sure of that. Muslims in the USA have managed to effectively ban guide dogs for the blind from Muslim owned stores, and Muslim taxi drivers in New York City and Minneapolis are notorious for not allowing guide dogs in their cars...all despite our omnibus ADA law that prohibits this kind of discrimination.

Seriously, this kind of thing is just the first flexing of the Muslim colonial muscle in the localities where they've passed that magical 10% of the population mark.

You know, seems a few non-Muslims also don't always obey our anti-discrimination laws - heck, sometimes, in Canada at least, people discriminate against Muslims. If you feel you've been wronged, you've gotta speak up. Otherwise all the laws in the world won't help you.

As for Muslims effectively banning guide dogs from their stores, what does that mean?


So does this mean that a blind Muslim will not be able to enjoy the benefits of a guide dog?



Reminds of me of a joke:

Blind guy with his dog walks into a store. Picks up the dog by the tail and starts swinging him around in a circle. Clerk runs up "can I help you sir?" "No thanks, I'm just looking around."

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Fire the cabbies and it'll be the easiest fight against the HRC in its history.
Religion is NOT an excuse to be derelict in the duties of your job. We have some of the same shit going on up here with cabbies and it thoroughly disgusts me.
These are also the same ignorant fuckers that will sit on their lazy assess while you load the trunk up with groceries, sit on their lazy asses while you unload the groceries at home, then complain loudly when they don't get a tip.

[Brenda]

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Religion is NOT an excuse to be derelict in the duties of your job.

Unfortunately, that is not true. If you, as a town government clerk (or official, or whatever that is called), marry people, and you have religious or moral problems with gay marriage, you can refuse to marry gays. We call them "weiger ambtenaren" (literally "refuse officials").

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

You know, seems a few non-Muslims also don't always obey our anti-discrimination laws - heck, sometimes, in Canada at least, people discriminate against Muslims. If you feel you've been wronged, you've gotta speak up. Otherwise all the laws in the world won't help you.

If you're being wronged by a group that is more equal than your group then you'll get nowhere with your complaint.

andyt wrote:

As for Muslims effectively banning guide dogs from their stores, what does that mean?

Meaning they're smart enough not to post a sign on their door saying 'no guide dogs allowed' but no one stops them from telling blind people to GTFO.

andyt wrote:

So does this mean that a blind Muslim will not be able to enjoy the benefits of a guide dog?

If so, f*ck 'em.

andyt wrote:

Reminds of me of a joke:

Blind guy with his dog walks into a store. Picks up the dog by the tail and starts swinging him around in a circle. Clerk runs up "can I help you sir?" "No thanks, I'm just looking around."

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

If you're being wronged by a group that is more equal than your group then you'll get nowhere with your complaint.

So NY is not enforcing the laws?

BartSimpson wrote:

andyt wrote:

As for Muslims effectively banning guide dogs from their stores, what does that mean?

Meaning they're smart enough not to post a sign on their door saying 'no guide dogs allowed' but no one stops them from telling blind people to GTFO.

Are the blind people complaining and still NY won't enforce the law?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Brenda wrote:

PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:

Religion is NOT an excuse to be derelict in the duties of your job.

Unfortunately, that is not true. If you, as a town government clerk (or official, or whatever that is called), marry people, and you have religious or moral problems with gay marriage, you can refuse to marry gays. We call them "weiger ambtenaren" (literally "refuse officials").

That's an inconvenience for the couple. Being late for important appointments, work etc is a little more important than waiting a few minutes for another clerk.
Canadian Rights dictate you cannot discriminate against disabled people for ANY reason. Genuine allergies to dogs notwithstanding.

Of course, this can easily backfire on those drivers if more people get smart and tell the taxi dispatcher they have a dog with them (even if they don't). Guaranteed the little Muzzy drivers will acquiesce when they stop making money.