H/T Don L
There is more to this story than meets the eye….
Of course we have our round-up of the Usual Suspects……..
…..the purveyors of peace at the home of all things terroristic….the boisterous boys, those juvenile lovers of youthful pranks, the lads at the Islamic Circle of North America……and then, not wanting to miss out on a little “poor little muslim” media spectacular, there are those fun loving, community minded sophisticates at CAIR…..the home of Assimilation Central….all of them puffed up with self righteous indignation….coughing blood and rumbling and mumbling about a “hate crime”…..essentially business as usual down at the Clearing House of the Prophet’s Propaganda Factory……
But as usual…..the real story, the central issue, is that of the dead pig’s predicament……
The dead pig, one Franken P. Porkenheimer, was the victim of a brutal hate crime in being snuffed out by the thugs down at the Jimmy Dean House of Islamic Horrors, and then lain to rest on the front steps of a mosque…..this….in the world of all things piggy, is a horrendous insult to the immediate and extended family of Mr. Franken Porkenheimer…..a family who now must bear the shame within their portly porker community of having the injurious humiliation and dishonour of one of their family members being within 500 metres of what is considered in the swine community as being the uncleanest of unclean places for a porker to frequent…….a mosque…
Mr. Horace. C. Hamhock, a spokespig for the Swine Brotherhood, the largest association of pigs in America, has stated that this outrage will not be allowed to stand and has indicated that both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the ACLU are treating this outrageous crime of malicious intolerance and Swineophobia as a “hate crime”………Mr. Hamhock has also indicted there is some interest shown by the Southern Poverty Law Center……
Mr. Hamhock concluded the interview by saying that decent, law abiding, peaceful pigs across America would not allow this horrific act of racism to go unchallenged…..”Not for one minute, not by the hair on our chinny-chin chins!!!”…said Mr. Hamhock….
Regards, Don Laird
Edson, Alberta, Canada
These pranks work counter-productive. Muslims can claim persecution, while improving their power base.
Another theory is:
The little piglette had converted ….sorry REverted. But it was raped and therefore stoned to death for adultery. RIP
Dreadful, simply dreadful – but distinctly lacking in imagination.
If they must protest why can’t people resort to more meaningful actions – like shooting a young girl in the head for wanting to get an education. Or beheading a girl for not wanting to marry you – or cutting the lower lip off your wife and eating it?
Tod eines Linienrichters (tagesspiegel, Dec 4, 2012):
“… Dass es sich bei den festgenommenen Schlägern laut „Algemeen Dagblad“ um drei Marokkaner handelt, macht den Fall nicht unbedingt leichter. Nach einem? Bericht des Innenministeriums vom November 2011 wurden 40 Prozent aller marokkanischen Einwanderer im Alter zwischen 12 und 24 Jahren innerhalb der letzten fünf Jahre wegen Verbrechen in den Niederlanden verhaftet, verurteilt oder angeklagt.”
Get this one translated (German to English), dear friends. (Suggested tags – cultural imports, moral relativism, Muhammadan immigration, criminality, loony left.)
“European countries appear to face another crisis beyond budget deficits – the disintegration of human values. One symptom is the increasing expression of intolerance towards Muslims. [O]pinion polls in several European countries reflect fear, suspicion and negative opinions of Muslims and Islamic culture. These Islamophobic prejudices are combined with racist attitudes –directed not least against people originating from Turkey, Arab countries and South Asia. Muslims with this background are discriminated [against] in the labour market and the education system ia number of European countries.”
Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights.1
Muslims in Europe face discrimination in several areas of life because of their religion, their ethnic origin or their gender, or a combination of these grounds. Discrimination has a negative impact on their lives and affects their exercise of many human rights. It blights their individual prospects, opportunities and self-esteem and can result in isolation, exclusion and stigmatization. For example, legislation and policies restricting the wearing of religious and cultural symbols and dress often have the effect of excluding from employment Muslim women who choose to manifest their religious, cultural or traditional background by wearing specific forms of dress and thus indirectly contribute to their own marginalization. Some women interviewed during this research said they felt discouraged from seeking employment and thus decided either to stay at home or work in sectors where wearing religious and cultural symbols or dress was perceived to be less problematic. Such legislation and policies are detrimental to women’s equality and autonomy.
Muslims should be given the possibility to make independent choices in relation to the expression of their cultural and religious backgrounds. Such choices include the way in which Muslims manifest their cultural and religious background by, for instance, wearing or not wearing specific forms of dress or by worshipping or not worshipping with other members of their community. Muslims should be able to make these choices free from any pressure or coercion from family or community and any form of stereotype and prejudice from other private citizens or state institutions. Discrimination against Muslims in Europe is fuelled by stereotyped and negative views, which fail to take into account basic demographic and sociological factors such as the diversity of Muslim groups as well as their cultural and religious practices across the region. Regrettably, some political parties’ messages and the portrayal of Muslims in some sections of the media reinforce these views. There is a particular responsibility for public officials and those seeking political office not to promote or strengthen stereotypical views which are likely to foster intolerance and discrimination. For example, if they portray Islam as a system of values which denies gender equality or a violent ideology, they help foster a climate of hostility and suspicion against people perceived as Muslim which can lead to discrimination. For instance, when a private employer does not hire a Muslim woman who wears specific forms of dress on the grounds that her dress would not be acceptable to colleagues or clients.
Although the right to freedom of expression includes the right to criticize religions or belief systems, even where followers may be offended or shocked, such criticism, which includes when it aims to challenge violations of human rights which may be fuelled by those practices, should not be led by stereotyping and intolerance and should take into account the human rights of those who associate themselves with a specific religion.
This report illustrates how Muslims, and especially Muslim women, can be discriminated against in access to employment and at work simply because they wear specific forms of dress. Some employers in countries including Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland have been introducing internal regulations or have implemented informal policies prohibiting the wearing of religious and cultural symbols and dress with the aim of enforcing a concept of neutrality, promoting a specific corporate image or pleasing their clients.
This report also documents the discriminatory experiences faced by Muslim pupils and students in their exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief and stemming from laws or policies forbidding the wearing of religious symbols or dress. Belgium and France, for example, have introduced a general ban on religious symbols in public schools. In Spain individual schools have at times enforced internal regulations prohibiting headwear, which resulted in the exclusion from class of Muslim pupils wearing the headscarf. Stereotypes and prejudices against Muslim religious and cultural practices have also resulted in restrictions on of the establishment of Muslim places of worship. For example, the major Swiss political parties ran a campaign against the building of minarets with the aim of holding a referendum which resulted in a general prohibition being enshrined in the constitution. In Spain (Catalonia), local authorities have at times denied authorisation to
open new Muslim prayer rooms merely because local inhabitants opposed the establishment of a mosque in their neighbourhood. States have an obligation to take measures to prevent discrimination, not only by their own officials but also by private individuals or other non-state actors To achieve this aim, laws should prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, and on any other grounds such
as ethnicity and gender, in all areas of life including employment. Such legislation should be effectively applied in the private sector. Amnesty International maintains that differences of treatment implemented by private, and in some cases public, employers against Muslims wearing religious and cultural symbols and dress with the purpose of promoting a specific corporate image, pleasing clients, or enforcing a concept of neutrality, amount to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. Therefore, states and European institutions should ensure that laws combating discrimination in employment are effectively implemented in a way which is consistent with human rights standards.
States should avoid introducing general bans on cultural and religious symbols or dress which apply to pupils and students. Although pupils’ rights to freedom of expression and religion or belief may sometimes be restricted by individual schools to achieve a legitimate aim, such as the need to promote human rights of the others, states should ensure that schools do not implement restrictions which are not necessary or proportionate to the sought aim . When a restriction on religious or cultural symbols or dress is applied to pupils, it is up to the restricting authority to prove it is in line with international human rights standards and it does not result in the violation of the best interest of the child.
Amnesty International is concerned about the lack of adequate places of worship in Catalonia, which results in Muslims praying in outdoor spaces such as football courts or car parks, and about the discriminatory provision prohibiting the building of minarets in Switzerland. States should ensure that the right to have adequate places of worship, which is a key component of the right to freedom of religion or belief, is fulfilled. To this end, states should ensure that provision is made for space which can be used for building new places of worship in the same way as they make provision for space to establish other community facilities which the local community needs. Local authorities should genuinely consult religious associations when developing urban management plans, refrain from supporting
campaigns against the establishment of new places of worship and put in place effective policies aimed at resolving disputes between local residents and Muslim associations. Public debate about restrictions on religious and cultural symbols and dress perceived as Muslim has focused largely on the headscarf or full-face veil worn by women. Sometimes anxiety about women’s status in Islam has been proposed as a justification for such measures. States are required to bring an end to discrimination against women in the enjoyment of their rights, which includes eradicating all forms of violence against women, irrespective of the religion, culture, or racial and ethnic identity of the victim or perpetrator, and effective prevention consists in states offering appropriate services to women at risk. But
it is stereotypical to assume that women who wear certain forms of dress do so only under coercion. Space should be made for women and girls in diverse religions and traditions to debate and inform others about the reality of their lives. They should be free to challenge religious and cultural practices or not to, to discuss how they can be changed or maintained without pressure or constraints imposed by the state or by any non-state actor likely to strengthen prejudices instead of counteracting them. States should adopt a more rational approach to concerns about women’s equality in minority religions and cultures based on the views and preferences of the women themselves and their experience of discrimination either by those who claim to be in their community, or those from other parts of society.
So far once the investigations have finished we discover that the Moslems are doing this to themselves because we won’t.
I love that nobody is responding to Iftikhar the sheethead any more.
I’ll just have another jolt of rye.
And maybe a bacon sandwich in honor of Mr. Porkenheimer.
Thanks Don, I pissed my pants.
Have one for me, my heard meds and pain pills won’t let me drink anymore.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
Notify me of new posts by email.