June 27, 2008, - 3:28 pm

Which is True– Weight Watchers No Longer Allowed to Target Fat People . . . Or Explosives-Sniffing Dogs No Longer Allowed to Go Near Muslims?

By Debbie Schlussel
**** UPDATE, 06/29/08: Tough luck, Muslims. Despite your endless whining, dogs will sniff you, anyway (if the ideological stench doesn’t kill ‘em). ****
Now, that wasn’t hard, was it? Weight Watchers franchise owners can breathe a sigh of relief. They can still go after obesity.
But in Britain, Muslims–the higher beings of the universe, in addition to being card-carrying members of the “Religion of Peace”–are immune from the very security aimed at protecting all people (fat or otherwise) from their deadly devices:

POLICE sniffer dogs trained to spot terrorists at railway stations may no longer come into contact with Muslim passengers – after complaints that it is against the suspects’ religion.
A report for the Transport Department has raised the prospect that the animals should only touch passengers’ luggage because it is considered “more acceptable”.
In the Muslim faith, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”. But banning them from touching passengers would severely restrict their ability to do their job.

snifferdog.jpg

The report follows trials of station security measures in the wake of the 2005 London suicide bomb attacks. In one trial, some female Muslims said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was tantamount to being forced to strip. [DS: How 'bout being forced to leave Britain?] . . .
The report concluded: “The use of sniffer dogs was generally problem¬?atic for Muslim respondents on rel¬?igious grounds if there was the potential for the dog to make direct contact with them.” . . .
Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Com¬?mission, said even dogs touching baggage would be an issue for a Muslim preparing to pray. But he stressed that it should be easy to allow dogs to check passengers without physical contact.
“There is a way of dealing with this and we just need to be sensitive,” he said.

We’ve been waaaay too sensitive already to these people.
Anyway, I’m upset about this because I heard that it’s considered unclean for the dogs when they touch Muslims. And I think–in the interest of animal rights–we need to be sensitive to the dogs’ rights about not having to go near Muslims. Isn’t that animal abuse?
Where’s People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) when you need them?
Yet another example how Greater Barbaria demands the civilized West accommodate them and not the other way around. It’ll be the death of us.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly




38 Responses

What about bomb sniffing pigs;)

mindy1 on June 27, 2008 at 3:51 pm

I think I will move to Britain and start my own religion. Among other things, it will be against this religion to obey laws which I find inconvenient, including paying taxes.

I_am_me on June 27, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Truly, in the UK the majority are dhimmis to the Muslims. If the UK keeps going down this path then it will deserve its seventh century future.

arius on June 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm

Heck, Peta probably thinks it’s mean for the dogs to be used in the first place to do sniffing work! Special interest groups such as peta and NOW more than irritate me.

diaphanous on June 27, 2008 at 6:13 pm

The Brits keep mucking themselves up, and going from bad to worse. They’re going to regret the day, they EVER allowed Muslims to set foot on UK soil.
Other than to decertify citizenship, and/or DEPORT, there’s NO politically correct way to fight home grown Islamofascism! In a nutshell, there must be a simple, but severe penalty, for being a terrorist.

Jackson Pearson on June 27, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Whats next? State Police can’t pull over speeding cars or suspected drunk drivers?

samurai on June 27, 2008 at 7:55 pm

The Council of Dogs-American Relations will hear of this! Calling dogs as “spiritually unclean” is so Dogophobic!

Bobby's Brain on June 27, 2008 at 8:55 pm

I’m curious — were the dogs offended by having to sniff the Muslims?

Rhymes With Right on June 27, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Samurai: in regard to your question, don’t some jurisdictions already have no high-speed pursuit policies?

DocLiberty on June 27, 2008 at 9:40 pm

PS — I like Mindy1’s suggestion.

DocLiberty on June 27, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Doc Liberty, I guess there are but I’ve personally seen Michigan State Troopers chase a crotch rocket up 275 at about 100 mph. That was maybe a month ago.

samurai on June 28, 2008 at 12:08 am

Apparently, the complaints coming from the Muslims about contact with dogs have been overruled. There is some sanity left.
I hear some Jewish households….was going to say ‘settlers’ but we know how false that term is…..in Arab occupied Judea and Samaria use guard pigs to protect themselves from terrorists. Is that true?

johndoe on June 28, 2008 at 2:00 am

So by this logic Muslims will no longer be allowed in Food Courts.

Pat on June 28, 2008 at 3:22 am

“Apparently, the complaints coming from the Muslims about contact with dogs have been overruled. There is some sanity left”
The complaints by the rest of the world about Muslims are being ignored.

Pat on June 28, 2008 at 3:24 am

Google ‘sniffer dogs’ and see what comes up:
They have sniffer dogs in most Muhammedan countries and use them for exactly the same purpose (and probably others too)
This is part of the typical Muhammedan grievance theater that is meant to set them above the native Brits.
This whole Islam-immigration thing will end badly, as it must.
But where is the resistance?

sheik yer'mami on June 28, 2008 at 6:11 am

“Apparently, the complaints coming from the Muslims about contact with dogs have been overruled. There is some sanity left.”
There was never any chance of Muslims being exempt from canine security checks, this is a complete non-story.
Typical Daily Express bollocks written to appease their brain dead right-wing “it’s political correctness gone mad I tell you” readership.
**
The title of this thread is also deliberately misleading – “Explosives-Sniffing Dogs No Longer Allowed to Go Near Muslims” is not true and was never going to be true.
Still, let’s not let anything as inconvenient as ‘facts’ or ‘the truth’ get in the way of a good Muslim bashing story heh?

No Pasaran! on June 28, 2008 at 6:14 am

No, no, no – this is great news!
We now have a more effective means of keeping these nutjobs at a distance. Buy and train a guard dog! A well trained guard dog would attack only on command, follow orders, and are quite effective against both Islamists and their Dhimmi kiss-butts.
Couple this with a good concealed firearm and you have a decent combination. If they really are freaked out by dogs (I doubt it), then the guard dog should be somewhat effective defense/deterant and excellent offense means.

bhparkman on June 28, 2008 at 9:46 am

I have two German Shepherd guard dogs at my home. They’re great with the kids, follow me and the wife without a leash, alert us of approaching guests, and are brutal in a fight! They make the best alarm system ever! No one can get in without us being alerted.
Ours are so well trained they help me with my chores, and are ok draft animals. Our male can carry a good load of firewood with aid of a harness and the radio flyer wagon.
Seriously, they are a great investment for the family. Get at least 1 good guard dog.

bhparkman on June 28, 2008 at 9:57 am

I came up with the exact same concern as you did Debbie, –what about those dogs forced to sniff Muslims–what about their rights?
If we ever start to have the kinds is homicide bombings and incidents as are fairly common in Israel, we will finally deal with all this enabling crap. Rewriting the rules to appease the Muslim whiners only makes us less secure.
I especially agreed with your comment on the excerpt:
…some female Muslims said the use of a body scanner was also unacceptable because it was tantamount to being forced to strip. [DS: How 'bout being forced to leave Britain?] . . .
Yes–that is exactly how it struck me. Muslim imports–conform the to society YOU came to–or get the frick out of it.

BB on June 28, 2008 at 11:00 am

Dogs are considered spiritually unclean under islam?! Then which animals are considered spiritually clean?
This is just more of the same insanity and bullshit that is islam. Animals don’t have souls. Animals don’t have spirits. Animals don’t pray, and animals have no sense of God. Animals don’t have the concept of faith in a Creator.
islam is truly a cult invented by deranged, murerous lunatic…and only the brain-dead subscribe to such inane, insane bullshit.

Thee_Bruno on June 28, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Debbie, after Europe nearly wiped out its Jewish population, its own downfall was inevitable. The English are generally anti-Semitic, so I’m glad to see them swirling around the toilet bowl, too.

Anonymous1 on June 28, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Speaking of “bollocks,” the story was also carried by the Daily Mail, Daily India.com, Yahoo International, and several others. The DM reported , ‘Asked if the findings would lead to certain measures not being used on certain people, a BTP spokesman said: “The legislation applies to everyone. It’s not a case for exemptions.
“Officers will be sensitive where appropriate but obviously there are practical implications.”‘
It also reported, ‘Some Muslims said they would avoid using a station with sniffer dogs because of their religious beliefs, while some young males, both black and white, said they would also avoid some stations as they feared the dogs would be able to detect drugs as well as explosives.’
Reason enough right there to put K9 units in every airport, seaport, but terminal, and mass transit station in America. And yes I would pay the additional taxes.
Don’t worry though, No Pasaran — I don’t believe dogs can smell concealed “house bricks,” your self-reported weapon of choice.

DocLiberty on June 28, 2008 at 5:21 pm

So let me get this straight, none of you actually care that this story is untrue, do you? It doesn’t matter to you at all does it? Facts are kind of irrelevant aren’t they?
**
“The English are generally anti-Semitic…”
No actually they aren’t. I lived there for ten years and I’m here to tell you that they are not perfect – they can’t cook for instance – but they are no more anti-Semitic than anyone else, and they are definitely the least racist people I have ever met. Certainly less racist than you guys.

No Pasaran! on June 28, 2008 at 5:23 pm

“Speaking of “bollocks,” the story was also carried by the Daily Mail, Daily India.com, Yahoo International, and several others.”
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
So the right wing Daily Mail and the right wing Daily India.com and the right wing Yahoo organization carried the story – and that proves what exactly?
Here’s the thing Doco – I need you to concentrate now there’s some thinking that needs to be done – the story, even when reported in the other right-wing rags, doesn’t actually say what Debby says that it does.
How desperate are you people?

No Pasaran! on June 28, 2008 at 5:30 pm

There was an update on this story at Robert Spencer’s blog. The authorities reversed their decision and the dogs WILL be sniffing Muslims. Thank God, they saw how silly their original decision was.

Madame Vengier on June 28, 2008 at 9:08 pm

What will happen when someone objects to airline flights with female pilots or copilots? Will there be a decision to operate male-flightcrew-only flights for those passengers who find female aviators objectionable?

photoncourier.blogspot.com on June 28, 2008 at 10:17 pm

“The authorities reversed their decision and the dogs WILL be sniffing Muslims.”
NO THEY DID NOT.
NO DECISION TO PREVENT DOGS FROM SNIFFING MUSLIMS WAS EVER MADE.
What is wrong with you people? Can’t you read?
**
“Thank God, they saw how silly their original decision was.”
Again Madame Vengier, there was no such original decision made. This is a non-story.
Or ‘lie’ if you like.

No Pasaran! on June 29, 2008 at 4:24 am

That’s some oppression/racism/intolerance towards non-Whites in Western Civilization,isn’t it, all you Guilt-Ridden White & Jewish Leftists?
In their twisted,backwards minds,Arabs believe kindness and civility is weakness.Stop being so kind and civilized towards pathological thugs – violence is all they understand; when they hit you,you better hit back, there is NO alternative, they do NOT understand reasoning.They understand that as much as they understand civilization.

OldSchoolW on June 29, 2008 at 12:43 pm

It’s long overdue to flush such brown,foul-stenched evil ,back to the 3rd world cesspools it came from.They claim the “lands” they came from are supposed to be so much better than Ours, they should be able to make them into paradises with no trouble,their “God”/allah should be able to make them into total paradises – Right?.

OldSchoolW on June 29, 2008 at 12:47 pm

No Pasaran types, “So the right wing Daily Mail and the right wing Daily India.com and the right wing Yahoo organization carried the story – and that proves what exactly?”
For anyone who wants a perfect example of of “Bulverism,” N.P. has generously provided one. Never mind that this is also the man who claims BHO is “moderate conservative.” Further, N.P. claims that the entire world except the USA follows N.P.’s own political system.
“How desperate are you people?”
Not desperate enough to use “house-bricks” to attempt to kill people, no matter how much I disagree with them. Unlike you.

DocLiberty on June 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm

“Not desperate enough to use “house-bricks” to attempt to kill people, no matter how much I disagree with them.”
Wimp.

No Pasaran! on June 30, 2008 at 2:30 am

Instead of trained sniffer dogs, I think we should use pigs instead.
They’re supposed to be smarter than dogs and would probably stand the stench better…..

Shootist on June 30, 2008 at 9:05 am

No Pasaran: “Wimp.”
Excellent, NP! I fully expected your usual discussion-ender of “STUPID!”

DocLiberty on June 30, 2008 at 3:21 pm

Just get the dogs close enuff so the Muslims can crap their pants in fear. Mohammed probably shat his pants numerous times and had Aisha watch it out along with his semen.

TheOmegaMan on June 30, 2008 at 4:14 pm

Stupid!

No Pasaran! on June 30, 2008 at 5:53 pm

In the Muslim faith, dogs are deemed to be spiritually “unclean”.
NOT SO! This is just one of their favourite lies. There is NOTHING in the Qur’an to support this.
Muslim cabbies who refuse to take dogs and use this excuse are lying. They just don’t like dogs. It’s a cultural thing only.

stevecanuck on July 1, 2008 at 12:13 am

Practicing Muslims have to wash 5 times a day before prayers and a dog licking them after just having licked its own ass would in fact be considered unclean. Islam doesn’t consider dogs to be a problem and throughout the centuries even extremely devout Muslims have had dogs as pets and hunting dogs,they just keep them outside of the house. Now Debbie, I know you’re just starting out in the business and trying to make a name for yourself by bashing Muslims but please get your facts straight. Thanks ;)

Jharris2009 on July 1, 2008 at 7:34 pm

“…and a dog licking them after just having licked its own ass would in fact be considered unclean.”
Well yes, I wouldn’t want to meet the followers of any religion who didn’t consider that unclean.

No Pasaran! on July 2, 2008 at 2:28 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field