Muslims continue to want to receive special treatment in the workplace, as well as in the public square. I have personally had a Muslima refuse to sell me alcohol in a store. When I came to the counter, I was told the young lady was too young to serve me. But the legal age to serve an unopened bottle in California is 18, and I happen to know that that store will not employ anyone under the age of 18.
And now, in the UK, Muslim airport porters refuse to handle Israeli luggage. So, they are throwing anti-Semitism into the Sharia mix now.
From Debbie Schlussel:
This outrageous story from e-mailer Beryl Dean has been verified and is absolutely true:
My friend Miriam Bedein traveled to Britain early in April. She arrived on British Air from Israel, and as she arrived at the baggage claim, she observed that there were no porters at the site.
She asked what was happening of the gentleman who was taking her to the baggage carousel, and he said "Ooh, the porters are Muslim and they will not handle any luggage coming from Israel" (In Britain, the porters take the luggage off the carousels and take them to your cab, etc.) While it was not his job, the gentleman was kind enough to get her luggage for her.She is writing British Air about this incident, asking why they tolerate, and what they are doing about, this unacceptable situation.
Perhaps you also will write to British Air: And to Heathrow Airport.
EL-AL probably gets the same treatment. Write to them as well.
I urge my readers to write, particularly to British Air and Heathrow Ariport. But I have another solution, as well:
DON'T GO TO BRITAIN.
It's essentially a Muslim Nation--Dar Al-Islam. Let them have halal bangers and mash all they want, but not our dollars. This situation is in place, because--as with all things--the Brits kowtow to Islam and have allowed this intolerable behavior.
At some point, either the law is going to have to handle these types of issues, or Infidels are going to be forced to come up with our own Infidel Sharia, whereby it is forbidden that we tolerate such behavior from Muslims. Muslims, instead, will have to bow and kiss the feet of Infidels.
But, of course, such an Infidel Sharia would require real strength and conviction. And, it would require that we would be willing to be arrested, instead of the Muslims. It would require that we would be willing to sacrifice ourselves for our fellow Infidels as media martyrs, because we would inevitably be labeled "racists" and bigots.
12 comments:
Stop being politically correct and just fire the idiots.
It is simple as that, isn't it.
Next time I fly to the U.K. I'll have to docorate my Samsonite to look like a giant SPAM tin. I wonder if they will be willing to handle my PORK?
... the wonderful Spam.
Pastorius,
I hate to tell you but under the U.S Constitution we can't prosecute people for advocating Sharia. I don't even think the British or any other free country should either. Trying to punish them for their beliefs won't make us look good. Plus once you accept any restrictions on political speech, (which is what advocating Sharia is) you start a dangerous precedent. It makes it harder to keep the government from outlawing criticism in other areas. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight those who advocate Sharia, or any other evil. Lets just do everything we can to expose the evil of what they are preaching. Its been said in the anti racism movement the best way to fight speech is with more speech. I think that also applies to what we are fighting here.
Damien,
I don't think my idea is as outlandish as it might immediately sound.
Think about it this way;
If, during the Cold War, a man were to advocate for the imposition of the Soviet Constituion within the United States, he would have been tried for sedition.
Sharia is the Constitution of the country of Saudi Arabia.
Therefore, advocating for the imposition of Sharia within the United States, or any other Western nation, is advocating for the overthrow of the government.
That's sedition/treason.
Pastorius,
Hmmm you have a point there. Also if some argued for the nazi or Japaneses take over of America during ww2, he'd be tried for sedition. Thank you, I didn't think of that.
Damien,
I think you have a point too. The free market of ideas ought to be our prime concern.
But, the thing is, Sharia is opposed to the free market of ideas, so, from the perspective also it needs to be destroyed.
When is comes right down to it, Sharia is opposed to our commonly held beliefs in Human rights, and it is opposed to many of our established laws.
Pastorius,
I can't argue with you, but you do know that the first person charged with Advocating Sharia will have a lawyer attempt to argue on free speech grounds that they can't convict him. It could be someone from the ACLU or some other well established law firm. I would hope the prosecutor knows what he's doing and how to argue his case. He'd better be able to establish the constitutionality of the decision to charge the guy with treason. Otherwise the trial could be over before it even begins. I hope you know of a good prosecutor who might be up to the challenge.
Sedition, as in under the Adams 1798 and Wilsonian laws?
Damien,
If this idea is ever to take hold in Western Civ., it will certainly have nothing to do with me.
However, you see that Epa agrees with me, and so does Reliapundit, the Astute Blogger. It is not a completely unheard of idea. However, it's time is not now.
We would have to become convinced of the danger our enemy poses. We would probably have to be hit with WMD before we would entertain such an "extreme" idea.
Post a Comment