There's a lot of overlap between the phenomena of creeping sharia and dhimmitude, but with one huge difference. Sharia is at least an objective body of law, whereas the defining feature of dhimmitude is the absurd lengths to which Infidels will go to humiliate themselves even (or especially) in the absence of any rational reasons to do so. Which brings me neatly onto the Hairdressing Jihad.
It goes without saying that, in so far as 'indirect' discrimination is defined so loosely, this is almost a textbook case of an unconstitutional law, but it's even worse than that. Consider that the left's new baby seal wasn't turned down for a job at interview (no matter how often the MSM will claim otherwise). Nope, she'd already been turned down, had asked to stop by for an informal chat, then turned round and sued her hostess (say, anyone know why conservatives accuse lawyers of poisoning our society) ?
Never mind the question of whether this case should even be actionable in the first place, the alleged victim suffered absolutely no loss whatsoever, but the tribunal decided to award her compensation anyway. Huh ?
Ditto, even if you accept the absurdity that not allowing a hairdresser to wear a bed sheet on her head constitutes 'indirect discrimination' - and try to imagine the left's reaction if terrorism was defined so loosely - that would only work if wandering round under a sheet really was an Islamic requirement. Don't be shocked, but it ain't.
Head covering is an avowedly political statement, not a religious one, and pretty extreme politics at that. This isn't banning crucifixes, it's banning Klan regalia.
So, for those of you keeping track at home, we have a small businesswoman being subjected to legal harassment by an Islamofascists lunatic, who has suffered no hardship whatsoever but still gets awarded compensation anyway for the trauma of potentially being turned down for a job because of her demand to wear fascist regalia on the job. See ? That is dhimmitude!
It goes without saying that, in so far as 'indirect' discrimination is defined so loosely, this is almost a textbook case of an unconstitutional law, but it's even worse than that. Consider that the left's new baby seal wasn't turned down for a job at interview (no matter how often the MSM will claim otherwise). Nope, she'd already been turned down, had asked to stop by for an informal chat, then turned round and sued her hostess (say, anyone know why conservatives accuse lawyers of poisoning our society) ?
Never mind the question of whether this case should even be actionable in the first place, the alleged victim suffered absolutely no loss whatsoever, but the tribunal decided to award her compensation anyway. Huh ?
Ditto, even if you accept the absurdity that not allowing a hairdresser to wear a bed sheet on her head constitutes 'indirect discrimination' - and try to imagine the left's reaction if terrorism was defined so loosely - that would only work if wandering round under a sheet really was an Islamic requirement. Don't be shocked, but it ain't.
Head covering is an avowedly political statement, not a religious one, and pretty extreme politics at that. This isn't banning crucifixes, it's banning Klan regalia.
So, for those of you keeping track at home, we have a small businesswoman being subjected to legal harassment by an Islamofascists lunatic, who has suffered no hardship whatsoever but still gets awarded compensation anyway for the trauma of potentially being turned down for a job because of her demand to wear fascist regalia on the job. See ? That is dhimmitude!
No comments:
Post a Comment