Anti-dhimmitude in British Columbia -- but only so far. By Brian Hutchinson for the National Post:
VANCOUVER - A blind man denied service from a Muslim taxi driver for "religious reasons" has been awarded $2,500, the result of a B.C. Human Rights Tribunal discrimination settlement reached on Friday and made public yesterday.Bruce Gilmour estimates that Vancouver taxi drivers have passed him over "a hundred times, maybe 150 times" since he acquired his first guide dog in 1984. But an incident one evening last year with North Shore Taxi Ltd. was "the straw that broke the camel's back."
It was cold outside, and raining. Mr. Gilmour was attempting to return home after spending time with two friends at a West Vancouver coffee shop. The trio had just spent an active weekend at Whistler; Mr. Gilmour remains an avid skier despite being blinded in a 1977 car accident.
A taxi was called. On arrival, the driver would not allow Mr. Gilmour's golden retriever, Arden, into the car. An argument ensued and the cabbie then drove off, without his two passengers.
Mr. Gilmour complained to North Shore Taxi the next day.
He was told that the driver's Muslim faith prohibits him from associating with dogs, hence his refusal to provide service.
It was the first time Mr. Gilmour had ever heard such an excuse, and he said it made his blood boil....
Mr. Gilmour decided to fight back. He hired a lawyer, himself a Muslim, and filed a formal complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination.
Taxi driver Behzad Saidy and North Shore Taxi applied to have the complaint dismissed. Mr. Saidy filed a statement from a Muslim cleric, claiming that "Islam holds some restrictions toward certain animals, including dogs." The statement did not elaborate, and the tribunal denied the application to dismiss the discrimination complaint.
Mr. Gilmour consulted with his cleric. Imam Syed Jaffri leads the Az-zahraa Islamic Centre in Richmond, a Vancouver suburb. He "spent long hours on this," Mr. Gilmour said. "He provided an unbiased interpretation of the Koran that indicated there is nothing saying that one must refuse service to another person because of the fear of contamination by a dog."
On the other hand, Muslims who come into contact with dog saliva or dog hair are required to repeat their daily ablutions, washing their face, arms, hands, and feet, according to an expert in Islam whom the Vancouver Province interviewed last year.
The tribunal was to hear Mr. Gilmour's case on Monday; however, a settlement was reached last week with Mr. Saidy and his taxi company. "The parties have agreed to resolve Mr. Gilmour's complaint by balancing the rights of persons with seeing-eye dogs to obtain taxi service with the rights of Muslims to follow their religion," the settlement reads.
In the future, North Shore Taxi drivers with an "honest religious belief (Muslim) which precludes them from transporting certified guide dogs" must still respond to calls from blind people such as Mr. Gilmour. But they may ask their dispatch operators to send "the next available cab" to cover the service request.
...another small but significant victory....and small victories lead to big victories....
ban Muslim Immigration...
I'd take a dog over a Mohammedan any day.
And I'm much more of a cat person.
That's funny - they think they're too good for dogs! I guess they have to feel superior over something!
The important thing to me is, that if a dog's hair or saliva touches a muslim, all he needs to do is clean himself...so the problem is? Is it the same if they touch pork? It is long past time to put an end to this foolishness. Knocking on wood, black cat crossing your path, walking under a ladder, and daily ablutions are all the same. And they have the nerve to call this superstitious cult a religion.
Why would a god ask you to wash your face, arms, hands, feet, and the snot out of your nose 5 times a day and then pray to him? Just asking.
F*#k PC!!!
Robert,
This is NOT a "victory." This is Dhimittude! When I read this article I was livid -- outraged. They are conceding to these Muslim cabbies. How can anyone accept this? So it is OK to let handicapped people be discriminated against?? Is that acceptable in your world? It is NOT in mine!
To discriminate against a person who is handicapped is MORALLY OFFENSIVE. To have the person wait for another cab??? WHY?? Again, it's utterly unacceptable. And it's yet another concession by DHIMMIS to Muslims. Enough already. I'm fed up with this crap.
Well pass the word - refuse to use a muslim driven taxi, i for one do not and will not get into one, same as i won't use our local corner shop. Don't use them, they go out of business and hopefully go back to where ever they came from. I mean you don't really know exactly where the money is going either do you?
Right on J.S.,
Blind individuals with guide dogs are STILL being discriminated against. So what will happen when there is only one muslim taxi driver that will tolerate a guide dog in his hack? Will these people have to wait longer than a sighted person? It is discrimination. The only good thing is that the word or this is spreading and people are getting pissed.
BTW, the saliva of a cat's mouth is one of the most bacteria ridden things around. The saliva of a dog's mouth is pretty sterile in comparison. Again, a superstition based on the so-called prophet's dislike for dogs. Perahps old Mo didn't like dogs becuase they could sense what an evil creep he was.
With many muslims, dogs represent Western Civilization. It has nothing to do with cleanliness.
My grandma always told me never trust a man who prefered cats to dogs. And she never met a muslim.
Dhimmitude in Canada eh? The blind person should have been awarded $25,000 not $2,500. Ban Islam in Canada and exclude in from Canada's Charter of Rights!
This explains the brutal treatment of dogs in Afghanistan and Irag, as told to me by some soldiers. I agree, Darcy, give me a dog any day over a filthy muslim.
The poor fellow in Iran looking for his pup was warned by the police to "go home, dog-keeping is for infidels." (They sure have a lot of police officers in Iran.)
Could this happen in Minnesota? I hear all sorts of denials are made to passengers needing cabs.
My dogs tell that they are insulted by Islam and its pedophile warlord founder, so I will not insult my canine friends by patronizing anything Muslim anywhere at anytime.
Until they renounce their doggeral.
What century is this?
I would appreciate your not making any further against-cat comments, whether from your "grandma" or not, never_submit.
I have known many males, including my husband, who prefer cats to dogs, and believe me, you can "trust" them. Both my husband and my father love cats and they are the two most trustworthy males I've ever known. And they are, of course non-Mohammedan males. So, I really do resent your grandma's ridiculous superstitious statement and ask you to keep it to yourself.
The topic is about Mohammedans and their stupid feelings of superiority over dogs.
Gimme Rin-Tin-Tin over Abdullah any day!
BTW, human mouths are the most "bacteria-ridden things around." Now, can we get back on topic?
Demvaril - so, you think I should stop patronizing the nearby BP for gas and inside sundries? Jordanians own it. I Know this because I asked them once where they were from and "Jordan" was their reply.
I'm really serious - stop patronizing there because "you don't know exactly where the money is going?"
Whoa, FYI, check this out, never_submit. Dogs have the most bacteria.
http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2002/Projects/J1311.pdf
Revised message to United States citizen jihad watchers:
I started posting this request at Jihad Watch only two days ago, and we’re already up to 16 volunteers.
I'm looking for at least two people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase a copy of Robert Spencer's Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it to one of the senators in your state. I'm organizing an effort to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message.
If we get more than two people per state, we’ll also send copies to the House of Representatives.
If you’d like to be involved, please write to me at traehnam@yahoo.com under the subject heading “Senate,” and tell me the state your senator represents, an email address where I can reach you, and a nickname. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.
Over at www.jihadawareness.blogspot.com you can leave comments other volunteers will read, and you can see the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I’ll try to update the list at least once a day.
Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.
Right before we do the mailing, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.
Hey wait a second ... they can ask to be bypassed for the next available cab? When it came to Christian marriage commissioners referring gay couples to another commissioner for their marriage in Canada, that was dismissed as pandering to Christian bigots. How about a double standard!
"In the future, North Shore Taxi drivers with an 'honest religious belief (Muslim) which precludes them from transporting certified guide dogs' must still respond to calls from blind people such as Mr. Gilmour. But they may ask their dispatch operators to send 'the next available cab' to cover the service request."
The second sentence cancels out the first.
So Muslim taxi drivers must respond to a blind person's call ...
...but they don't have to drive a blind person and his dog anywhere if it's against the drivers' religion; in that case, they can tell the dispatcher to send another cabbie.
That's because it is against the law to discriminate against blind people and their dogs and the taxi company would get into trouble for screening them out over the phone.
But what happens if a second driver shows up, 20-30 minutes later, and he, too, refuses out of religious reasons? And the next, and the next? How long will a blind person have to sit or stand and wait for a cab?
This Human Rights Tribunal decision is a start but it doesn't deal with the issue once and for all.
Cities control who gets a licence to operate cab companies and individual cabs are licenced as well. An easy fix for this problem is to lay down the law: If you want to operate a cab in this city, you will not refuse service to anyone based on your personal religious, cultural or ethnic preferences. Don't want to comply? Just return the licence and get out of the cab driving business. I understand that a cabbie might want to refuse service to someone who looks like they might just try to rob him, but a blind man with a seeing eye dog would hardly fit that profile.
Second drivers refusing also -- well, is that relevant?? The FIRST DRIVER DISCRIMINATES by refusing to pick up a handicapped person. Period.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- under the Equality of Persons Provision reads as follows:
"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."
Agree with JS. There is nothing in the above story that tells the taxi drivers that they can't pick and choose their customers. So what if a business owner should choose to refuse to do business with Muslims? Is CAIR Canada going to stand for that?
It's not just because the next available cab can be accessed. If they aren't prepared to service anybody, their licenses should be revoked. Indeed, it's high time that the terms of their contracts get reviewed.
The appropriate punishment would be to have any Taxi company which refuses to pick up a fare (or turns around and drives off) -- for however long the handicapped person waits -- it will be a thousand dollars a minute in fines to said company. Under the company either picks up the fare or is run out of business (due to fines and penalties).
You can hold what ever religious beliefs you want , they just should not be able to be detected from space or cause other people problems
Capitulation!
Dhimmitude!
Milk blooded, servile moral anemia!
===============================
It's one or the other.
Either we're doing this insane thing of denying people the right to pick and choose their customers or we're not.
Either these damn sanctimonious bastard cabbies have to pick up dogs, or else landlords can refuse apartments to mohammedans.
You can't have it both ways.
=========
As one would expect from PC dhimmmitude, this outcome gives preference to the mohammedans. Again!
=========
Personally I do not go in for the "anti-discrimination" laws. I believe that one has the right to choose one's customers, vendors, employers and employees, just exactly as one wishes.
And I am certain that brainless racism, ultimately results in monetary loss. The fact is that value and talent don't have a race. Deny a race and you end up denying value and talent. Do that long enough and it gets you in the pocketbook. Simple.
That said, our rights in this matter have been abridged by our various, meddlesome, high handed, idiot, nanny governments, city, state and national.
Unless, that is, you're a mohammedan cab driver.
Could this happen in Minnesota? I hear all sorts of denials are made to passengers needing cabs.
Posted by: CapitalistGig
Hmmm... is there a business opportunity here? Someone should start thinking about opening a COMPETITION cab company.. slogan: "We do not discriminate. We deny service to noone."
Dogs-1, mo-0. Hopefully more people with service dogs will step up on the band wagon and follow (law) suit. Caninophobes.
Dogs-1, mo-0. Hopefully more people with service dogs will step up on the band wagon and follow (law) suit. Caninophobes.
Slightly OT.. They have some 'civil libertarian' bitch on npr right now... giveing her TONS of taxpayer-financed airtime.
She is whining about the conviction of the Dirty Bomber.
Talk abut Fairness Doctrine... can they have Fitzgerald on there to make the case for Sanity?
I think that would be only fair..
And then they sign out with their breathy.. ppeeee...aaaarrrreeee....iiiiiihhhhhhh...
Arghh.. it even SOUNDS Liberal!
They have this air of presumed superiority about them and everything they do. Enough to make one puke! Let them do their thing when we are all gone and noone is there to defend them along with ourselves..
They are deriding the very people who are saving THEIR asses daily by keeping terrorists on the run..
Good grief.. they just announced they will have a feature on "two kings".. Elvis Presley and the pakistani singer Nusrath Ali Fata Khan if I got the right..
They're trying to sell us pakistani culture as equal to our own!
What a crock of shyte!
before I go on.. I can't stomach Sean Vanity too much so it's np[alestinian]r till Michael Savage. Great day to spend the day off, isn't it?
God, I could GO ON about npr!! I may run for office some day simply to get them DEFUNDED!!
And I try to remember the companies that give them money so I can AVOID giving them any business!
The seditionist traitors...
Speaking of nazi palestinian radio.. they're after the 3 o'clock news now and STILL going on about Jose Padilla!!!
They now have some other "expert" on there.. of course they are derisive of the jurty sending him where he should go!
Sons of bitches! Half an hour at least on the Padilla case.. completely one-sided!
The Liberals want a fairness Doctrine.. And I guess Hitlery will be head of the commission which oversees the fairness?!
Or maybe Rosie.. she's been out of work for a while now hasn't she?
"slogan: "We do not discriminate. We deny service to noone."
Posted by: Allahfanculo""
slogan:...we happily serve drunk, blind, scantily clad infidels....
Geeze darcy,
Don't get SOOOOOOO personal.
Old Mo believed that cats were clean and dogs were unclean. Even with science refuting this claim, muslims keep to the sayings of their pseudo-prophet and remain in their superstitious world. Again, I believe dogs symbolize Western Civilization to muslim extremists. So that is why dogs are "unclean."
My grandmother was by no means superstitious. She probably had more courage and dignity than any cat loving man on this planet. She was widowed in 1929 two months before the stock market crash and raised three young kids alone during the Depression. She grew a small dry cleaning/tailoring business during all this...all alone and all without any financial help from anyone. She even took on extortionists (i.e., the mob) to boot. If she was still living in Detroit I believe she'd be going head-to-head with islamofacsists. The only males that gave her "attention" were sponging creeps. And yes, she said that they seemed to prefer cats. And yes, from the experience I have had with muslims and creepy men I've met throughout my life I think she was on to something. You may have men in you life that don't fit my experience. I am glad for you.
The human mouth IS a filthy thing. I think there is some giant lizard in Indonesia that has a filthier mouth. Cats are a close third on the list of filthy mouths...right by humans/simians. Canines are WAY down there on the filth meter.
I got bit by a cat when I was in my 20's and ended up in the hospital with an I.V. drip because the puncture wound got infected. Wild cats are terrible on song birds and ground nesting birds in my area. So if I find a cat without a collar he goes to that mouse-hunting cloud in the sky. They are filthy critters that do a lot of damage and don't fit in the ecology here.
Sorry to get off topic, but my grandmother is right up there with Mother Theresa in my book and I get a little hot when people call her superstitious.
I'd like to make just a couple of other points here, then I'll shut up.
With respect to the term "discrimination." This is not a blanket rule whereby someone states that "all forms of discrimination are to be frowned upon." No, it's about certain types of discrimination -- the "prejudicial variety" of discrimination. Again, not all forms of discrimination are prohibited. But certain forms of discrimination have been deemed to be (in most civilized western nations) unacceptable.
Thus, we have decided that it is unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of certain factors. These factors tend to be what sociologists term "ascribed" (in other words, they are present at birth or beyond the control of the individual) as opposed to "acquired or achieved". The "ascribed" factors include such things as race, gender, ethnicity, physical or mental handicaps, etc. (In some societies, btw, it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against the handicapped -- some cultures which believe in reincarnation, for example, think that a person who is born with a handicap is being punished for a past life (this is Karma -- for having behaved badly in a previous life, the person is now, in the next incarnation, being punished -- thus born without hands, legs, eyesight, etc.).
Other forms of discrimination are perfectly acceptable -- that includes employers making hiring decisions (so long as the decision, again, is not based on prejudicial factors, or what society believes are irrelevant factors such as race, gender, place of birth, etc) decisions should be based on the abilities or skills of the applicant. Ditto for entrance into post-secondary educational institutions -- discrimination can be based on academic merit. So whether the "discrimination" is acceptable or unacceptable is dependent on the context. (It's not a blanket rule).
I believe the decision to allow handicapped persons to wait for a taxi driver that's willing to pick the fare up is prejudicially discriminatory.
Suppose there's a Taxi company that doesn't like Blacks. So the cab driver drives up, discovers a black person wants a cab, and the cab driver drives off. What would the response be from the British Columbia Human "rights" Tribunal be, if a complaint were laid? Ah, yes. the resolution would be to have the Taxi company send out a non-prejudiced driver (while the racist and the black person sit around waiting for the non-racist to arrive.)
Is this Canada's new-found interpretation of "equality rights" as provided for in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I hope not.
never_submit - you didn't click on that link I posted?
DOGS have the most bacteria-ridden mouths. It's proven.
I get from your post that you kill cats without collars? Well, then, you're a sociopath. I'm very sorry to learn that. How dare you? Who do you think you are killing cats?
No, cats are not "filty creatures." In fact, they are clean as all-get-out. I got bit by a dog once, which wasn't nice, but I don't go around killing them, with or without collars.
You need help. If I knew who you were, I'd report you to the animal authorities as you just said you're a cat-murderer. Not all cats have collars - that doesn't mean they don't belong to someone who loves them. Same with dogs I encounter in my neighborhood.
You kill cats? You are sick. A very sick person.
North Shore Taxi drivers with an "honest religious belief (Muslim) which precludes them from transporting certified guide dogs" must still respond to calls from blind people such as Mr. Gilmour.
.. But cleric. Imam Syed Jaffri indicated "there is nothing saying that one must refuse service to another person because of the fear of contamination by a dog." proving that the religious belief (Muslim) is DISHONEST.
Case closed.
North Shore Taxi drivers with an "honest religious belief (Muslim) which precludes them from transporting certified guide dogs" must still respond to calls from blind people such as Mr. Gilmour.
.. But cleric. Imam Syed Jaffri indicated "there is nothing saying that one must refuse service to another person because of the fear of contamination by a dog." proving that the religious belief (Muslim) is DISHONEST.
Imagine a drunk blind man with a seeing eye dog. The horror :-)
This case just indicates the extent of dhimmitude that is prevalent in Canada, and in Britain for that matter. I see no reason whatever that the plaintiff should have to show that the koran has nothing against dogs. Suppose there was such a sura, would that mean that the case would be dismissed?
What this indicates is that shari'a is already established in Canada, albeit in an underhand way.
Darcy,
In some parts of the world (I believe Australia) it is perfectly legal to shoot feral cats. Wisconsin was considering enacting similar legislation. (and it all depends on what state you live in - in some states it may be legal.) Of course, it is controversial...but can't just conclude that people who shoot cats are "psychopaths." Anyway, this is off topic..
Uh, excuse me, but just because there's a law doesn't mean it's just.
It's a felony to put a koran in the toilet. You think that's just?
Anyone who kills small animals, no matter what the species, is a sociopath. A Murderer, no better than the Mohammedans who mistreat animals.
Are fleas "small animals"? You don't kill them do you -- gasp!!
This Muslim practice irritates me on two levels.
One: I consider it a social evil, and a major sin, to oppress the handicapped or disabled in any way.
Two: As an animal lover I despise anyone who abuses an animal. Personally I'm a cat enthusiast but don't care for the smell of dogs. Nevertheless I can't imagine someone considering a dog to be somehow sinful. It's an animal, for God's sake, and a useful one at that.
As for bacteria in the mouths of dogs and cats, that would probably depend more on the individual animal's habitat. I keep my cats in a clean environment and have no problem if one of them "kisses" me. I wouldn't say the same thing about one that's living outside and feeding on wild rodents.
That being said, with all the training and care that goes into a guide dog, we can be fairly confident that this particular animal has better hygiene than the cab driver.
If Muslim cabbies are too good to carry a blind person with a guide dog, then I'm too good to get in a cab driven by a Muslim driver.
Thanks for your comment, Provoslavni. Obviously, you're a good person.
As for "J.S.," a flea is an insect. Kinda like you.
Darcy,
YOU are the sociopath and obviously an ignorant city slicker who knows NOTHING about biology. When we first moved here eight years ago my crazy neighbor lady fed every wild cat that came to her door. What do wild cats do when you feed them? Duh, they make more wild cats! There were no quail, no phesant, and few song birds. There were all these mangy sick cats instead. We would lay awake EVERY night and listen to toms fighting and listen to cats scream when the same lady's dog would go after them. These same cats went after my banty chickens (my kids' 4-H project, by the way). There was also a rabies outbreak which I would lay money on was spread by these cats. The last straw was when a tom went after my daughter when she approached him. So we started shooting cats. The neighbor lady finally moved away. It took four of us neighbors (three of whom have cats by the way) about four years to clean them out. You would have been appauled at the condition of some of these cats. many were malnourished and sick. Now we watch quail, listen to songbirds, and get a thrill out of the phesant. Where I live, people's pet cats are kept in the house 24/7 AND and have collars. One doesn't love their cat unless they put a collar on him. I don't know anyone who would shoot someone's pet. So PLEASE stay in the city with your silly attitude. Try perhaps openning your mind to how people have to put up with other people's irresponsibility. Feral cats are a nusance.
My cats are asking my dogs what's up with Muslims?
I'd rather than a one-eyed, flea-ridden, three-legged, ornery feral tabby than any or all of the 1.2 billion Mohammedans.
Flea shampoo and some affection cures the former.
Only a massive global education campaign and complete Reformation of homicidal, misogynist and intolerant Islam will make a dent in the problem of the latter.
Darcy,
Re-read what you wrote. You wrote: "Anyone who kills small animals, no matter what the species, is a sociopath." No matter what the species?
As I laugh. You're hilarious.
Darcy,
Just one more thing: shooting feral cats is totally legal and welcomed where I live. So scream all you want to the cops. They'd get a good chuckle out of you. Also legal is the shooting of dogs if one catches them harassing stock. My dogs (both of whom are rescues, by the way) are never loose. West Nile took care of the crows for a while so we don't have to worry about them. Now I promise NEVER to get so off topic again!
I hope more disabled people who have guide dogs win lawsuits in Canada and everywhere else in the world. I am sick and tired of the ways in which societies are caving in to the demands of of potential terrorists. It is time for nonMuslims to say that that they will not take such behavior from Muslims anymore.
Too bad JW has two sociopaths on here - never submit and JS. I pity both of you.
Do you know that Our Lord loves animals? Believe me, when you meet your Future, Our Lord is not going to think kindly of your small animal abuse. Perhaps "allah" will, but not Our Lord.
Nope, not kindly at all. I advise you both hysterical animal abuser sociopath murderers to think of your Future.
You're no better than animal-mistreaters Mohammedans.
@ traeh
I have put this wherever I can. I have also "stumbled" it. I don't live in the US so that's about all I can do right now.
Good luck!
In an ideal world we all would be free to do what we wished regardless of how much it hurt the feelings of others. In the modern world, in a large part due to how much certain groups were discriminated against, most countries have laws demanding the public accommodations take all comers. If one has scruples one shouldn't take on this kind of work.
Ah, yes, Darcy, so that your rantings about people whom you've never, ever met -- judging them as "psychopaths" -- that is your "Christian" response? I must say, "oh, how typical." You're one judgmental, abusive person, and I would suggest that when you hurl your abuse you go take a look in a mirror -- you are in all probability describing yourself.
LOL, J.S. - it's you who better take a look in the mirror.
I never "met" Adolph Hitler, either - but, he was a definite psychopath. Your "argument" is idiotic. I never "met" the Ayatollah Khomeini - and neither did you - but we certainly draw conclusions about him from what he said, don't we? Answer: Yes. So, again, your "argument" is idiotic. We've never "met" Ahmadinejad - but we certainly draw conclusions about him from what he says, don't we? Like, "Death to America," and "Israel should be wiped off the map." Uh huh, yep, a psychopath.
The "abusive" people are those who have hurt small animals. And yes, people can "judge" from that knowledge, as "neversubmit" admitted his murdering of cats. How revolting. What a despicable person.
So, why don't you take that look in your mirror again, eh?
P.S. It's not a "Christian" response - it's a HUMAN response.
Darcy, please go take your meds.
Are you aware that you have demonstrated that you are incapable of distinguishing the difference between a human and an animal? You confuse the most basic of moral categories -- is this also what your "religion" has taught you? One moment you are referring to people as "insects" and in the next breath abusively labeling someone else as a "cat murderer." So people who kill cats are "murderers?"
Are you even dimly aware of how many kittens and cats are euthanized by the Humane Society each year? Are you going to call them "cat murderers?" Or how about that rat and termite exterminator? Will you next be phoning your local police to report the Orkin Man as the local "psychopath"? You know, you sound off your rocker.
Anyway, I have had enough of this "conversation." You've sufficiently demonstrated your bizarre "thoughts". So enough. Good Day.
Yes, Goodbye, JS - glad you have gone to take your much-needed meds.
Yes - a person who murders a cat or a dog is a murderer. I'm sorry that you are so lacking in the feeling department that you don't get that. Which is why you're a sociopath.
You're off your rocker. You have no feelings for loving animals. I pity you so much there's no words to describe.
neversubmit said he murdered cats himself - no humane society involved. You don't get the difference, socio?
Oh, and because you're too stupid to even think of this yourself - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam etc --- were all human.
I daresay any cat or dog or hamster on the planet is more valuable than them. So, what's your point?
Gramfan:
Thanks very much!
Darcy - are they muslims these Jordanians? do they go to a mosque for prayer and give money to the mosque? if they do, i wouldn't use them, i'd rather drive to another petrol station. Now get off your high horse and chill.
and i can't believe you're all arguing over cats and dogs!!!
It is not controversial in Australia to kill feral cats. They do not belong in our ecosystem here, not native to the continent, and they wipe out many native species of cute furry Australian animals.
The kangaroos are actually quite tasty though.
Oh shock horror eh....
Cruelity against animals does in the end lead to cruelity against people.
Congratuations on the man who is blind who stood up to the taxi driver and won in the guide dog vs. the taxi driver.
I still think North Shore Taxi is weak. They should fire the cabbie and lay down the law that you can't deny service to someone with a dog. Josephine gets it right - how long could they be stuck waiting for the next cab?
I won't be giving a penny to North Shore or any other cab service that permits this crap.
Ironically, Muslims in the Middle East are far less squeamish about dogs than Muslims who live in the West (the ones who had to leave because they were too radical even for their countries of origin). I saw lots of dogs in Cairo, and by and large people treated them well.
GoldieLox -- The possible legal and practical implications or ramifications from this case are interesting to consider.
If I am reading this correctly, Bruce Gilmour and the taxi company settled the case before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal started its hearing (whatever it is called).
But, since it was arranged through that body, how legally binding is it? Does it supersede the law?
Can someone else still take the cab company to court over a separate case and use the law instead of a human rights tribunal?
The cab company that I use has my address coded into its system, so when I phone, they see not only my phone number on their screen, but also my address. (I know this because, before I have a chance to say anything, the receptionist tells me my address.)
What would stop a cab company from somehow flagging a phone number and address as undesirable? What would stop a group of cabbies from maintaining their own "no-go" list?
I read that, if the cabbie can't take the blind person w/ guide dog due to religious or health reasons, he has to call for another cabbie and stay with the blind person until the second cabbie arrives.
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but, in my experience, cab drivers don't even wait for me to buckle my seatbelt before they are speeding off to my destination.
No cabbie is going to waste time hanging around for 20 minutes or more: time is money. They will find some way to get around this.
darcy, you said 'It's a felony to put a koran in the toilet.'
Is that really the case? Is this a local law, or what?
Surely if I own a book I am entitled to do whatever I want with it - burn it, bind it in pighide, boil it in bacon fat, drop it down the toilet, whatever takes my fancy. Because it is MINE!
What about other books that some people consider to be holy, such as the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tripitaka, the Vedas, Mein Kampf, etc? Are there restrictions on what can be done with these too?
Wow, this one is still going.
I'll throw in another 2 cents.
The mohammedan aversion to dogs is especially noteworthy in another respect.
There are good arguments for the notion that dogs were the first animals to be domesticated. The relation between humans and dogs most likely dates back to the pre-agricultural age, and is one of the most widely common elements of human life since time immemorial.
The aversion to dogs is one of the more unique and striking anti-natural and anti-human aspects of mohammedan culture.
Creepy.
"What would stop a cab company from somehow flagging a phone number and address as undesirable? What would stop a group of cabbies from maintaining their own "no-go" list?"
Yeah, that's kinda been bothering me too. The bottom line is I only want to give my money to businesses that treat everyone with decency. North Shore would be one to cross off my list.
Serious question here, following on joeblough's observation of the Mohammedan dislike of dogs.
I haven't read 'Reliance of the Traveller', or the Hadith, so I don't know: do the Rules for Dhimmis permit dhimmis - non-Muslims in Muslim lands - to keep dogs?
I remember something awhile ago about how the Muslims in Iran had deliberately targeted the Zoroastrians' pet dogs.
If you think about it, a house dog isn't just a pet - he lets you know if someone is sneaking about. If dhimmis weren't allowed to keep dogs either, that would make them more vulnerable.
Someone walking along with their companion dog is much less easy to surprise, attack,kidnap, rape, etc. Here in Australia two sexual assaults in this part of my hometown were thwarted by the women's dogs (not great big dogs, either - one was a miniature Dachshund) which attacked the attacker.
"Well pass the word - refuse to use a muslim driven taxi, i for one do not and will not get into one, same as i won't use our local corner shop. Don't use them, they go out of business and hopefully go back to where ever they came from. I mean you don't really know exactly where the money is going either do you?
Posted by: Demvaril "
Fine, but how do you identify a Muslim taxi driver? BTW, most taxi drivers in Vancouver, or at least a goodly number of them, are Sikhs, who as far as I know are fine with dogs. The other issue of course is that most Muslim taxi drivers don't have a problem with Guide dogs in their cars. The dogs are in the back seat, for heaven's sake; there's no contact whatsoever. It's a new mountain out of a molehill cooked up by extremist Wahabi preachers imported from Saudi Arabia, one of Canada's least desirable imports these days, who are making inroads into many Muslim communities in Canada's big cities and brainwashing the often ill-educated new immigrants about their supposed "duties" as good Muslims, rather than helping them to adapt and integrate into the new society. And I agree, the cab company's final "compromise" is a cop-out. They should not allow ANY refusals based on "religous beliefs" alone, even if the refusing driver has to call another cab. So is the poor blind person and the dog supposed to just stand there shivering in the freezing rain (this being Vancouver after all) until a driver shows up who finds the dog acceptable? What utter b***sh*t. It's a dangerous prececent, and it's un-Canadian.