More on the Primitive Religion of Peace
Sir Frederick
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4276489.ece
From The Sunday Times
July 6, 2008
Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees
Stuart MacDonald
http://www.timesonline.co.uk
Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes
of Muslims so as not to cause offence.
Guidelines being drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers
(Acpo) urge awareness of religious sensitivities when using dogs to
search for drugs and explosives. The guidelines, to be published this
year, were designed to cover mosques but have been extended to include
other buildings.
Where Muslims object, officers will be obliged to use sniffer dogs only
in exceptional cases. Where dogs are used, they will have to wear
bootees with rubber soles. “We are trying to ensure that police forces
are aware of sensitivities that people can have with the dogs to make
sure they are not going against any religious or cultural element within
people’s homes. It is being addressed and forces are working towards
doing it,” Acpo said.
Problems faced by the use of sniffer dogs were highlighted last week
when Tayside police were forced to apologise for a crime prevention
poster featuring a german shepherd puppy, in response to a complaint by
a Muslim councillor.
Islamic injunctions warn Muslims against contact with dogs, which are
regarded as “unclean”.
Police dogs at present are issued with footwear only at scenes of
explosions to prevent them injuring their paws on broken glass.
Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain’s leading imams, said the measures were
unnecessary: “In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its
saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security
measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I
think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.
“I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but
this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should
do our bit to change our attitudes.”
John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness,
said: “The police are in effect being overly sensitive to potential
criminals and not being sensitive enough to the public at large who need
to be protected. These sort of things have a counter-productive effect
because they cause huge friction between different communities.”
Caroline Kisko, of the Kennel Club, said: “We would not condone any
attempt to make search dogs wear special clothing, which could cause
them distress.”
--
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
******************************************
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
- George Orwell
******************************************
grease...@yahoo.com
> http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4276489.ece
> From The Sunday Times
> July 6, 2008
>
> Sniffer dogs to wear ‘Muslim’ bootees
> ******************************************
> "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."
> - George Orwell
> ******************************************
Some muslim leaders are saying the measure is not necessary.
Wow.
I too am.....outraged....no...amused....no....wondering why this
brought out an ironical jab at Islam....nah, not even that.
Must have been a slow day in the news if this topped someone's pet
(ha, ha) peeves list.
zinnic
> On 6 Juli, 02:52, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ha,ha; how many peeves does it take to legitimize a complaint
against minorities? Peeves are insignificant so, no matter their
number, they do not count.
Ho,ho; how many peeves does it take to legitimize a complaint against
the majority? One is sufficient. QED.
Zinnic
Immortalist
> On 6 Juli, 02:52, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
>
Imagine that, in the mythical nation of Freedonia, it is considered
gracious for guests to belch after eating as a way of showing the host
that they enjoyed the meal. Suppose you didn't know this, and you were
visiting the home of a Freedonian dignitary in the company of some
diplomats from the U.S. State Department. If, after the meal, these
diplomats began to belch, chances are you would belch also. They were
providing you with valuable information. On the other hand, suppose
you were in the same home in the company of some rather rude and
brawny young men who were introduced to you as members of the
Freedonian Olympic heavyweight wrestling team. If these behemoths
belched after their meal, my guess is that you might not go along with
this behavior. That is, you would probably consider this an act of bad
manners and would avoid belching. However, if they glared at you for
your failure to follow suit, you might indeed belch too—not because of
the information they supplied but because you feared rejection or
reprisal for refusing to be a good sport by going along with their
boorish
behavior.
I would suggest that conformity resulting From the observation of
others for the purpose of gaining information about proper behavior
tends to have more powerful ramifications than conformity in the
interest of being accepted or of avoiding punishment. I would argue
that, if we find ourselves in an ambiguous situation wherein we must
use the behavior of other people as a template for our own behavior,
it is likely that we will repeat our newly learned behavior, without a
cue, on subsequent similar occasions. This would be the case unless,
of course, we later received clear evidence that our actions were
inappropriate or incorrect. Thus, to go back to our example, suppose
you are reinvited to the home of the Freedonian dignitary for dinner.
But this time you are the only guest. The question is: Do you or don't
you belch after the meal? A moment's reflection should make the answer
perfectly clear: If you had belched after the first meal at his home
because you realized it was the proper thing to do (as would have been
the case had you dined in the company of the diplomats), you would be
quite likely to belch when dining alone with the dignitary. However,
if you had belched the first time out of fear of rejection or
punishment (as would have been the case had you dined in the company
of the wrestlers), you would almost certainly not belch when you are
the lone guest. To go back to Sam and the political candidate on
television, you can now readily understand one of the many reasons why
it would be so difficult for us to predict how Sam would actually vote
in the election. If he had been merely going along with the group to
avoid punishment or to gain acceptance, he would be likely, in the
privacy of the polling booth, to vote in opposition to the view
expressed by his acquaintances. If, on the other hand, Sam had been
using the group as a source of information, he would almost certainly
vote against the candidate that he had initially preferred.
The Social Animal - Elliot Aronson - 8th Edition 1999
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0716733129/
zinnic
> On Jul 5, 6:08 pm, greasethew...@yahoo.com wrote:
Snip and Burp!
S e a n
And what if they started using sniffer pigs ...... ? :)
Just a wondering, but may I highlight the highlight which makes this, and
99% of the so called "stories" on IoP more flaky than simply hyperbolic?
Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain's leading imams, said the measures were
unnecessary: "In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its
saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security
measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I
think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely.
"I know in the Muslim community there is a hang-up against dogs, but
this is cultural. Also, we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should
do our bit to change our attitudes."
John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness,
said: "The police are in effect being overly sensitive..............
SO THIS STORY IS ABOUT OVERLY SENSITIVE BRITISH POLICE ... NOT ANY RELIGION
OF PEACE AT ALL.
Thanks for clearing that up.
You're welcome. :-D
--------------------------------------------------
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:e750749llqdtmfg8f...@4ax.com...
grease...@yahoo.com
You are quite right. Minorities in countries in history have only had
to complain once and the majority jumps and bows down. You are like
the new Hegel.
And in this case, those booties that are set aside for explosions will
have to be used in other cases, possibly, though it is unclear, given
the mixed reaction of those this new and challenging procedure is
meant to not offend.
No more booties.
Where are my markers and placard?
I can't even remember the headlines from today's paper. They have
been brushed aside by THE REAL ISSUE.
grease...@yahoo.com
I have known police to allow women to get dressed before they are
interviewed...
fucking feminazis.
pussy police.