Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.
Yes, I know we provide halal or kosher (and vegetarian, vegan etc) meals to people and so on but quite how far do we go with this?
For example, under some of the more Orthodox interpretations of Judaism we should not use a menstruating woman officer to arrest an Orthodox man as their contact will make him unclean and in need of purifying himself.
Do we go that far? Or is there some point where we say sorry, this is Britain, deal with it?
And if the latter, where is that point?
“where is that point?”
Uh, how about right at the beginning, where people who have imaginary friends who tell them how to live their lives are taken seriously when it comes to making policy?
“…quite how far do we go with this?”
Well, we could go so far as to listen to people like the sensible Mr Mogra, the iman quoted in that article wgho can’t understand why they are doing this, and said “…we know the British like dogs; we Muslims should do our bit to change our attitudes.”
And not listen to the hosts of ‘diversity experts’ who are employed by these public sector institutions to think up ever more bizarre ways to justify their own jobs…
What Eva says.
There’s always the possibility that the article is complete bollocks, which is quite common when it comes to those involving Muslims. See Peter Oborne’s piece in the Mail about this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031769/Is-post-war-Britain-anti-Muslim.html
“There’s always the possibility that the article is complete bollocks…”
Except for that pesky quote from ACPO affirming that they are doing that very same thing, yes, there’s that possibility.
This is a bout people looking for offence where it isn’t caused or even intended. Its always the “whte liberals” like ACPO who see the offence without knowing the real story.
“Ibrahim Mogra, one of Britain’s leading imams, said the measures were unnecessary: “In Islamic law the dog is not regarded as impure, only its saliva is. Most Islamic schools of law agree on that. If security measures require to send a dog into a house, then it has to be done. I think Acpo needs to consult better and more widely. “
Doggy-woggies seem to me a pretty good point at which to say OFFS.
Its not like the residents of the house are expected to eat the dog. When security clashes with the rules put in place by imaginery sky fairies, then security definitely wins.