Blind woman's 'Unclean' guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver

[repiV]

If I want to avoid looking like a dickhead by falsely using the force of specfic statistics, yes I do.

In other words, no you don't.

Also, see my edit.

 

[pomegranate]

In other words, no you don't.

Also, see my edit.

Yes, that's more like it. Not that ICM is 'official', though, as you stated.

 

[repiV]

Yes, that's more like it. Not that ICM is 'official', though, as you stated.

You take my use of the word "officially" far too literally.
In other words, many (I would bet most in this country) who call themselves Christian are actually not. It's simply a part of their identity, no doubt passed down through the family, that holds no meaning anymore. Anyone who takes the Bible literally is considered a loon.
However, the only way to interpret the Qu'ran under Islam is literally. Therein lies another crucial difference.

 

[Stigmata]

Do you fact-check all assertions you make with recent official sources?

Well, you'd damn well better do some fast-checking if you want us to believe you.

It doesn't change the fact that Britain is a secular nation. Christian influence is virtually nil, not counting the Judeo-Christian values that are the base foundation for our culture.

And not one paragraph later,

In most of the countries covered, well over 80% said they believed in God or a higher power. In Nigeria the figure was 100% and in the US 91%, with the UK scoring lowest at 67%.

Sure, they don't follow the Bible from end-to-end, but a great deal of them are sheep. They'll act against other religions, homosexuals, abortion, women's rights, etc. if they're given enough religious conviction from sunday mass or peers.

 

[repiV]

Well, you'd damn well better do some fast-checking if you want us to believe you.

Funnily enough, I don't think you have backed up a single assertion you have made in this thread. Also, I would appreciate a reply to my long-winded response to you. Do you not have a rebuttal?

And not one paragraph later,Sure, they don't follow the Bible from end-to-end, but a great deal of them are sheep. They'll act against other religions, homosexuals, abortion, women's rights, etc. if they're given enough religious conviction from sunday mass or peers.

In certain more backwards areas of America, yes. Here, no.

 

[theotherguy]

Of course the West is partially responsible for keeping the third world poor, but to lay the blame entirely on us is foolish.
African and Middle Eastern societies are inefficient, undeveloped, corrupt and, by Western standards, primitive. That is their fault and not ours.
The Far East is a mixed bag, but the rich and prosperous countries there - Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore - are such due to Western influence.
China has indeed been a major power throughout history, but her downfall was not the fault of the West. They are reclaiming their position by adopting Western philosophies.

communism is a western philosophy....

I wouldn't say it is cultural philosophies which bring them success, but economic and military ones.

What I am trying to say is that just because someone is rich doesn't make them right. Your culture is not superior because it possesses more wealth and power than another culture, it simply means that your culture had more opportunities to gain more wealth than the other.

It doesn't make you in the right when you say your culture is superior and all others can shove it. It gives you the means, yes, but it doesn't give you the right.

A bully in a playground is not superior to the other children because he is more powerful, nor is a rich and powerful country superior to a poor and impoverished one. Such ideals of social darwinism are quite dated and really should be kept where they belong: in the 1800s.

I am in favor of internationalism...of blending all cultures into one diverse yet cohesive until through global media, global market, and global cooperation of government, and yes this means ambiguity of citizenship and free and open borders for all immigration. Through education and cooperation xenophobia and cultural tension can become a thing of the past. Ideas can spread evenly, and culture and nationality can become pointless frivoloties. Let the muslims penetrate Europe, let their culture spread into the west, and we will break down the walls of cultural tension and become a new West, a new world.

Sure, that may be an idealist and unrealistic approach, but I think it beats out the racism, war and economic mopoly of homogeneous nation states.

Here there is huge tension over the hispanic population overruning the white population. Hispanics are very nearly the majority, and for some reason this really upsets alot of my xenephobic neighbors. I can go nowhere without hearing about "them mexicans coming to take our jobs" or "them mexicans pullin' up the crime rate" or "them mexicans stealin' back the land" The truth is, immigrants are used as a scapegoat to cover up our own downfalls. There is not an issue here that is not blamed on the mexicans.

Now they are building a wall, a massive barbed-wire fence looked down upon by web cameras watched by wannabe-xenophobes at home, who report any illegal immigrant to the authorities. It is the berlin wall of texas, meant to deprive impoverished people from seeking a decent living in a free country.

It is the same with the muslims in Europe. Since they make up a sizeable minority, you come into contact with them often. You see their differences and you despise them because it is human nature to despise those who are not like you. You blame them for things, you scapegoat them, you blow things out of proportion, you try to control them. The muslims are the modern day jews, just another group of people who is not conforming to the European code, so they're pretty easy to scapegoat.

How long will it be before Europe starts building walls, deporting muslims, sending them to camps, or passing laws prohibiting their cultural practices?

The fear and hatred must end now, and we must learn to tolerate, or we will be lost again in cultural conflict that can only end in atrocity.

 

[Stigmata]

Funnily enough, I don't think you have backed up a single assertion you have made in this thread.

I did cite sources, actually, on everything that warranted a source. I linked every logical fallacy you used, as well as a database of all standard logical fallacies. I also indirectly cited your poll, through the quote, if I recall correctly (and if I didn't, it was an implied source, so it's basically a moot point).

Everything else is effectively un-citeable. I'm not going to trudge through Wikipedia, or countless academic sociology websites, so that I can link you to an article that shows you someone else thinks that tolerance is a good idea.

Also, I would appreciate a reply to my long-winded response to you. Do you not have a rebuttal?

I'm going to level with you here. I can see your side of the argument much more clearly, now that I've realized you're not anti-Muslim, making you not racist. It was a mistake for me to assume that you were using Muslim and Islam interchangeably, since the majority of the people who try and make this type of argument do that, and turn out to be racist, so I apologize for that.

But since you're actually reasonably intelligent, and as it turns out are not mixing up the two terms, I actually agree with you on a number of levels. The only part I don't agree with is on the issue of Islamic integration into British society, where I stand as a far more liberal and tolerant person.

Which is not to say I don't see your rationale, because I do, and in a way I agree with it. But I still feel that it's wrong to keep Islamic people from entering our societies. I just think that we'll have a better chance of succeeding with a reconstruction of the Islamic platform of beliefs and practices if those of Islamic faith are brought up in a world that isn't controlled by Islam.

 

[repiV]

communism is a western philosophy....

Good point. However, it never really took off in the West.

I wouldn't say it is cultural philosophies which bring them success, but economic and military ones.

Economic and military philosophies go part in parcel with cultural philosophies.

What I am trying to say is that just because someone is rich doesn't make them right. Your culture is not superior because it possesses more wealth and power than another culture, it simply means that your culture had more opportunities to gain more wealth than the other.

Successful people create their opportunities, they don't wait for them to appear. The same applies to civilisations. Africa and the Middle East are for the most part ignorant, uneducated, uncivilised, corrupt and inefficient regions with little regard for human rights.
You cannot blame the West for that.

It doesn't make you in the right when you say your culture is superior and all others can shove it. It gives you the means, yes, but it doesn't give you the right.

The West's superiority is not due to its wealth. Rather, its wealth is due to its superiority. Big difference.

A bully in a playground is not superior to the other children because he is more powerful, nor is a rich and powerful country superior to a poor and impoverished one. Such ideals of social darwinism are quite dated and really should be kept where they belong: in the 1800s.

China is fast becoming a rich and powerful country. I don't see them abusing other nations or exploiting the third world to do it. While we cannot be absolved of guilt in keeping the third world down, Africa would not be on a par with our civilisations if we had no involvement. Not even close.

I am in favor of internationalism...of blending all cultures into one diverse yet cohesive until through global media, global market, and global cooperation of government, and yes this means ambiguity of citizenship and free and open borders for all immigration. Through education and cooperation xenophobia and cultural tension can become a thing of the past. Ideas can spread evenly, and culture and nationality can become pointless frivoloties. Let the muslims penetrate Europe, let their culture spread into the west, and we will break down the walls of cultural tension and become a new West, a new world.

Sure, that may be an idealist and unrealistic approach, but I think it beats out the racism, war and economic mopoly of homogeneous nation states.

It's completely unrealistic. Hating Islam has nothing to do with a lack of education. It's because Islam sucks. Educated people tend to realise that. Just check Winston Churchill's views on the subject.
Open borders would be absolutely disastrous, as I'm sure you actually realise. A central world government would be fine...as long as they do what you want them to. It just wouldn't work.

Here there is huge tension over the hispanic population overruning the white population. Hispanics are very nearly the majority, and for some reason this really upsets alot of my xenephobic neighbors. I can go nowhere without hearing about "them mexicans coming to take our jobs" or "them mexicans pullin' up the crime rate" or "them mexicans stealin' back the land" The truth is, immigrants are used as a scapegoat to cover up our own downfalls. There is not an issue here that is not blamed on the mexicans.

Now they are building a wall, a massive barbed-wire fence looked down upon by web cameras watched by wannabe-xenophobes at home, who report any illegal immigrant to the authorities. It is the berlin wall of texas, meant to deprive impoverished people from seeking a decent living in a free country.

No, it's a guarded border. Illegal immigrants are just that - illegal. You can debate the ethics of restricted movement all you like, but the fact remains, if you had completely open borders, your country would soon enough be in ruins. Perhaps Mexicans should work on improving their own country rather than escaping to another.

It is the same with the muslims in Europe. Since they make up a sizeable minority, you come into contact with them often. You see their differences and you despise them because it is human nature to despise those who are not like you. You blame them for things, you scapegoat them, you blow things out of proportion, you try to control them. The muslims are the modern day jews, just another group of people who is not conforming to the European code, so they're pretty easy to scapegoat.

No, the Muslims are not the modern day Jews. The Jews are an exceptional and enlightened people, highly intelligent and educated, with world-leading successes in the arts and sciences that far exceed the average. Muslims are a throwback to times long past. I don't despise them because they are different, that's pure and utter nonsense. There are a lot more Hindus around here than Muslims, and I sure as hell don't despise them. In fact, I prefer their company to the company of white people.

How long will it be before Europe starts building walls, deporting muslims, sending them to camps, or passing laws prohibiting their cultural practices?

Too long.

The fear and hatred must end now, and we must learn to tolerate, or we will be lost again in cultural conflict that can only end in atrocity.

Are you out of your mind? We do tolerate. We are, by far, the most tolerant society on earth. But of course, everything is always the fault of evil whitey.

 

[repiV]

I did cite sources, actually, on everything that warranted a source. I linked every logical fallacy you used, as well as a database of all standard logical fallacies. I also indirectly cited your poll, through the quote, if I recall correctly (and if I didn't, it was an implied source, so it's basically a moot point).

Everything else is effectively un-citeable. I'm not going to trudge through Wikipedia, or countless academic sociology websites, so that I can link you to an article that shows you someone else thinks that tolerance is a good idea.

Well, much of what I say is also uncitable. It's borne out of a constant barrage of small issues. You just have to experience it.
Personally, as far as Islam is concerned, I think actual terrorist attacks are the least of our worries. The real threat, as I see it, is the usurping of European states by Islamic elements. I bet you any money there are organisations (such as the Muslim Brotherhood) working to do just that as we speak.
Waves of immigration that establish and grow a distinctly separate and opposing culture rather than integrating with the existing one can be seen as an act of asymmetrical warfare. I believe that is what is happening. Eventually, this Muslim element will be strong enough to challenge us for complete control of our country. It's not so hard to envisage, is it?

I'm going to level with you here. I can see your side of the argument much more clearly, now that I've realized you're not anti-Muslim, making you not racist. It was a mistake for me to assume that you were using Muslim and Islam interchangeably, since the majority of the people who try and make this type of argument do that, and turn out to be racist, so I apologize for that.

Ah, no problem.

But since you're actually reasonably intelligent, and as it turns out are not mixing up the two terms, I actually agree with you on a number of levels. The only part I don't agree with is on the issue of Islamic integration into British society, where I stand as a far more liberal and tolerant person.

Which is not to say I don't see your rationale, because I do, and in a way I agree with it. But I still feel that it's wrong to keep Islamic people from entering our societies. I just think that we'll have a better chance of succeeding with a reconstruction of the Islamic platform of beliefs and practices if those of Islamic faith are brought up in a world that isn't controlled by Islam.

I used to have a far more idealistic view of the world than I do now. But at the end of the day, the nation serves its citizens, not potential immigrants.
We also have no duty to potential immigrants. If it was in a country's best interests to completely close their borders, they would do so. We are not a charity. Immigration is a self-serving thing, and if certain immigrants are not helping us out, we shouldn't be accepting them. What does the Islamic world bring to our country that is worth all the trouble it causes? I can't think of a damn thing.

 

[hasan]

WOW! I can't believe that a useless topic like this gets 6 pages of responses in one night!

oh wait, this is politics forum, where people argue about silly stuff.

No .. I did NOT bother to read the entire thread.

 

[Absinthe]

WOW! I can't believe that a useless topic like this gets 6 pages of responses in one night!

oh wait, this is politics forum, where people argue about silly stuff.

No .. I did NOT bother to read the entire thread.

You can gladly GTFO then. Nothing's stopping you.

 

[Nemesis6]

Austrailian Muslim Cabbies Refusing Service to the Blind

MUSLIM taxi drivers are refusing to carry blind passengers with their guide dogs or anyone carrying alcohol.

At least 20 dog-aided blind people have lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate. Dozens more have voiced their anger. And there have been several complaints that drivers refuse to allow passengers to carry sealed bottles of alcohol.

Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.

One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him. “I don’t refuse to take people, but it’s hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs,” he said.

There are about 2000 Muslims among drivers of Melbourne’s 10,000 taxis. Many are from countries with strict Islamic teachings about “unclean” dogs and the evils of alcohol.

Drivers who refused to carry blind people with their dogs attended remedial classes at Guide Dogs Victoria, Mr Sach said. “They are taught why blind people need dogs,” Mr Sach said. “The Victorian Taxi Association has included a program in their taxi driver training program.”

Guide Dogs Victoria spokeswoman Holly Marquette said blind people regularly reported taxi drivers refusing to carry them because of their dogs.

The exact same thing is happening in Norway - http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/04/norway-blind-people-rejected-by-muslim.html

By the way, this thread isn't useless. It highlights a problem that the Muslims will have to deal with if they're going to be integrated fully into other societies.

 

[ríomhaire]

Yeah, those nutcases exist. But there aren't very many of them and they only really have any influence or numbers in the southern states of the USA.

If the majority of Muslims where suicide bombers they wouldn't be many left. The fact is, most Muslims do not want to kill you. And maybe half a million British Muslims thing the train bombers where martyrs because they where smart enough to realise they where martyrs, it quite obvious they where to me, I just don't believe in what they died for.

 

[repiV]

If the majority of Muslims where suicide bombers they wouldn't be many left. The fact is, most Muslims do not want to kill you. And maybe half a million British Muslims thing the train bombers where martyrs because they where smart enough to realise they where martyrs, it quite obvious they where to me, I just don't believe in what they died for.

Umm, I never said the majority of Muslims were suicide bombers. If they were, our society would already be in a state of anarchy.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "martyr". Try "hero" instead.

 

[JNightshade]

Originally Posted by repiV
Yeah, those nutcases exist. But there aren't very many of them and they only really have any influence or numbers in the southern states of the USA.

Actually, that's pretty much completely false. I've seen several studies that have shown that Muslims in America are actually far more satisfied with their situation than those in Britain and Europe. This is because religion is a big thing over here, while England is extremely secular.

 

[Ome_Vince]

heh, funny how it says: "Muslim Cab Driver", who gives a **** if he's Jew-Muslim-Christian or Atheist.
The correct title would be "Cab Driver blabla".

 

[delusional]

Actually, that's pretty much completely false. I've seen several studies that have shown that Muslims in America are actually far more satisfied with their situation than those in Britain and Europe. This is because religion is a big thing over here, while England is extremely secular.

he was talking about christian nutcases not muslims
how would this be taken if they werent blind?

 

[CptStern]

heh, funny how it says: "Muslim Cab Driver", who gives a **** if he's Jew-Muslim-Christian or Atheist.
The correct title would be "Cab Driver blabla".

yes, for once we agree

 

[Saketi]

he was talking about christian nutcases not muslims
how would this be taken if they werent blind?

people are misunderstanding the real cause to this issue. The cab driver refused the dog on his taxi as he said it was dirty, not that because the woman was blind. So if a man was walking his dog & it got injured, the man will have still been refused the dog on, as muslims dont like dogs?

 

[delusional]

ya what you said, and why cant he have the right to refuse service to anybody

 

[Saketi]

ya what you said, and why cant he have the right to refuse service to anybody

he can have the right, but the issue is the taxi company never rang for another cab to pick her up, as they said they do not allow dogs in their taxis, as its againts their religion!

So we ask, why do they have a Taxi Company, if they cannot taxi people around the city, cos of restriction with their beliefs?

 

[kirovman]

That's nothing.

I had a Jewish taxi driver once. He drove me out to field in the middle of nowhere, shot me several times in the head and burnt out the cab.

I can tell you he definately didn't get a tip that day.

 

[Saketi]

That's nothing.

I had a Jewish taxi driver once. He drove me out to field in the middle of nowhere, shot me several times in the head and burnt out the cab.

How about post something relevant to this topic, otherwise shut the fuk up.

 

[delusional]

So we ask, why do they have a Taxi Company, if they cannot taxi people around the city, cos of restriction with their beliefs?

well not many people have dogs with them when they call a taxi

 

[Saketi]

well not many people have dogs with them when they call a taxi

And what statistics do u have to backup this assumption?

 

[Solaris]

And what statistics do u have to backup this assumption?

Popular belief. And thus the burden of proof fallacy need not come into play.

 

[kirovman]

How about post something relevant to this topic, otherwise shut the fuk up.

It IS relevant to the topic in a way.

Firstly, is it really relevant that he's Muslim?

If I had been a cab driver, and refused to take a blind person's dog, because I didn't like dogs, that wouldn't have made the news.

Secondly it's not really very newsworthy, it's a tabloid-type story designed to appeal to BNP supporters such as yourself, and barely belongs in politics.

Also, are you Lister, trying to circumvent a ban?

 

[Saketi]

It IS relevant to the topic in a way.

Firstly, is it really relevant that he's Muslim?

If I had been a cab driver, and refused to take a blind person's dog, because I didn't like dogs, that wouldn't have made the news.

Secondly it's not really very newsworthy, it's a tabloid-type story designed to appeal to BNP supporters such as yourself, and barely belongs in politics.

Well it is relevent that he is muslim as he is the ONE who is saying HE will NOT take the dog as its againts his beliefs. This is Great Britain not the Middle East, abide by our rules. He must have know that been a taxi driver he will one day come to have to pickup a person with an animal.

If you was not a muslim and did not agree to take a dog onbaord it may not or may have gone to the news, why don't u try it, see what happens!

You obviously are against this thread, so does us all a favour and stop posting in it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

You obviously are against this thread, so does us all a favour and stop posting in it.

Don't be stupid, Lister. The politics forum is about debate. I thought you believed in free speech?

Personally, I think it is relevant that he's a Muslim, as his faith was the reason for him refusing (an act, as far as I know, that is against the law).

As for "do us all a favour", I'd personally rather you left the thread. You're arguing the samet thing as repiV, only you're totally obnoxious and he's better at supporting his arguments (whether I disagree with them or not).

Long post with actual response to topic will probably follow. Later.

 

[Saketi]

Don't be stupid, Lister. The politics forum is about debate. I thought you believed in free speech?

Personally, I think it is relevant that he's a Muslim, as his faith was the reason for him refusing (an act, as far as I know, that is against the law).

As for "do us all a favour", I'd personally rather you left the thread. You're arguing the samet thing as repiV, only you're totally obnoxious and he's better at supporting his arguments (whether I disagree with them or not).

Long post with actual response to topic will probably follow. Later.

I am all for free speech, but his posts are sometimes against the whole topic, meaning it may go off topic, and end up been closed.

I could say that the people disagreeing with myself are very obnoxious too. U dont know me, i dont know them so lets try keep this a personnel free thread. Thanks

 

[kirovman]

Well, I apologise for spoiling your topic.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I am all for free speech, but his posts are sometimes against the whole topic, meaning it may go off topic, and end up been closed.

I could say that the people disagreeing with myself are very obnoxious too. U dont know me, i dont know them so lets try keep this a personnel free thread. Thanks

People getting angry and ad-homineming at each other and TPYING IN CAPS because they want to strangle their opponents are what gets threads closed, not people making slightly-irrelevant comments from the sidelines.

And I'm being personal because I object your actions and I object to the phrase "do us all a favour". As if you can speak for everybody. Like you said: they don't know you and you don't know them.

Myself, I don't think commenting on your actual conduct on this forum is that 'personal'. Calling you a fat loser would be personal (and also stupid, because I don't know you at all); but objecting to the way you act towards others?

Anyway, this is all by-the-bye. See, I have refrained from making a 'personnel free' joke. Anyway, back to the argument.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Please feel continue to debate but Saketi won't be taking part anymore. Kirov spot on - Lister, funny thing was before checking IPs, his email had 'lister' in it...banned for circumventing ban.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Well it is relevent that he is muslim as he is the ONE who is saying HE will NOT take the dog as its againts his beliefs. This is Great Britain not the Middle East, abide by our rules. He must have know that been a taxi driver he will one day come to have to pickup a person with an animal.

If you was not a muslim and did not agree to take a dog onbaord it may not or may have gone to the news, why don't u try it, see what happens!

You obviously are against this thread, so does us all a favour and stop posting in it.

Lets say a christian said that having a dog in his taxi was against his religious beleifs, would you be posting here all outraged as much as you are about this muslim? No, why? because you are a rascist and mass mediaratrical sponge.

 

[Nemesis6]

Frenzy, I would. I have as much contempt for Muslim maniacs who use our democracy against us as I have against Christian maniacs who do the same, like Fred Phelps. Although I find him more funny than dangerous. Funny because he will never have the power to do jack shit. Muslim people have the power, and a minority of it is abusing it.

 

[pomegranate]

Lets say a christian said that having a dog in his taxi was against his religious beleifs, would you be posting here all outraged as much as you are about this muslim?

Frenzy, I would. I have as much contempt for Muslim maniacs

WTF?? the taxi driver isn't a maniac for observing the rules of his religion. Choosing a job he can't do properly because of his religous beliefs makes him an asshole, not a maniac. Try and keep things in perspective.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

In other news, North Korea wages a secret war on the rest of Asia.

But, this woman's plight is far more important.

If you want more then this, or something that reports on whats currently happening around the globe do either of these three things Deus:

1.) Google what you want to find
2.) If not on the internet, watch the news whenever it comes on locally for you
3.) If on the internet, look up your favorite locally distributed newspaper and visit they're website for they're brief

 

[blck_prod]

It's true it's a shame and a tragedy and not humane but....

Maybe the cabdriver explained why he had his reasons and had to act like that. Maybe it's like forcing a vegitarian to eat a steak. Would you do it...
I don't respect his decission because he disrespects the blind woman but I can understand it.

Europe fought 300years to divide state and religion. Now we expect other people to do it in a small decade. It's normal that these things happen and they'll keep on happening. These things take time lots of time.


Look at black people in USA. THey have equal rights since the sixties, right? Do they have equal rights???

Even the USA didn't divide religion and state. And before I get flames...Why does Mr president close every speech with: 'and may God bless us'???
Stupid Jesus lover >>> I do hate how he uses his name in vain. Claiming his a true Christian....pffft

You know what they say about the first stone, right???

 

[delusional]

the constitution never says seperation of state and religion but something along congress cant make a law respecting the establisment of religion.
black people have more rights as whites, affirmative action?
also the cab driver has a right to religion and shouldnt be forced to abide by someone elses morals.

 

[CptStern]

the constitution never says seperation of state and religion but something along congress cant make a law respecting the establisment of religion.
black people have more rights as whites, affirmative action?

come again? please list the rights blacks have that whites dont

also the cab driver has a right to religion and shouldnt be forced to abide by someone elses morals.

as an employee he has to adhere to labour laws which include things like discrimination due to race religion etc ..this does not fall under that, the person was not discriminated due to anything except the fact they had a dog with them ...dogs have no rights. There's been plenty of times that I've been refused a ride in a taxi because I've had a dog ..the majority of taxis do not take animals