Muslim Cab Drivers

[tongodeon]

I talk with a lot of different people with a lot of different opinions, and I know a few people who are worried about an Islamic takeover of Europe and the United States. The threat starts gradually with Muslim women wearing veils, Muslim children wearing school uniforms, Muslim congressmen swearing an oath on the Koran, moves on to establishing

Comments

[quercus]

Here in the dog-loving UK, the "dogs in taxis" issue is quite a hot one, especially as our DDA law is specific in requiring taxis to carry some assistance dogs (except in stringently-defined cases of driver allergy).
Cabbies still regularly prohibit guide dogs, but if you're persistent, then courts do support the dog owner.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6735771.stm
  
• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/6137496.stm
  

[ikkyu2]

And cab drivers are more than welcome to refuse service to whoever they feel like it whether those people look dangerous, drunk and pukey, or carrying some really good barbecue.

Wrong, actually. Cab drivers in most cities are heavily regulated because they are considered operators of a public utility. Let's consider NYC because it is taxicab Mecca, and because I'm more familiar with its taxi regs than I am with SFs. Check out the Taxicab Rider's Bill of Rights, and Taxicab Driver's Rules. From the latter document, section 2-50e:

A driver shall not refuse by words, gestures or any other means, without
justifiable grounds set forth in §2-50(e) herein, to take any passenger to
any destination within the City of New York, the counties of Westchester
or Nassau or Newark Airport. This includes a person with a disability
and any service animal accompanying such person.
The exceptions in section (e) don't apply to pork, with the possible exception of one that reads "the passenger.. is carrying.. any article.. which the driver may

[tongodeon]

I should have made it more obvious that I was speaking from my personal perspective. I tried to cover the legal considerations that you mention further down the page.

My point is that people seem to think we need all sorts of new laws and other sociogovernmental responses to The Muslim Menace, whereas it seems to me that we've already got a system to deal with the problem whether or not there actually is such a menace.

[ikkyu2]

One of the problems is that people don't always obey the law, even if the law's in place on the books. Another problem is that not all violations of the law can be enforced. A final problem is that our country is so constituted that a tiny minority of people can seize power and reform the laws to their liking - if you don't believe it, look what's happening to rural school boards.

How would you like it if the all-Muslim board of supervisors voted to make it illegal to transport dogs, pork, and liberal women in vehicles? I don't think this is very likely - I think most Muslim-Americans just want to get along - but hell, ten years ago I wouldn't have believed that an all-religious-right school board could outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools, and yet they're getting away with that all over the nation.

[tongodeon]

How would you like it if the all-Muslim board of supervisors voted to make it illegal to transport dogs, pork, and liberal women in vehicles?

First I wrote:

I suppose I'd like it about as much as an appeals court would like it when they found it a violation of separation of church and state.

Then I realized that I've already got laws that prohibit me from being able to buy alcohol on Sundays, drink at bars after 2am, or watch strippers while drinking alcohol in some locations, so maybe even more religious interference would be OK in a court's eyes.

[swingland]

you're saying that western anglo-saxon laws are sufficient to curtail al sharia law and i have to say that's impossible. acts such as murder and killing for honor are generally not curtailed by a jail sentence. mostly because most acts of killing and murder, once they hit the court systems, are generally not punished too stringently. and alot of sentencing depends on the judge. what happens if in 20 or 30 years there are plenty conservative muslim judges in the district court systems and they happen to think honor killings are understandable and only assign light or lenient sentences? much as the southerners do to southerners now. murdering a man because of his race or ethnicity, in the south, is still not treated as a serious and malignous crime. alot of it gets pushed under the carpet and never sees a day in court. i suppose you're probably going to fire back and tell me i'm full of shit and have a whole bunch of highlighted links to all the cases that would seemingly disprove the above mentioned, so i guess i'm relegated to

[tongodeon]

I actually agree with you. There are many ways that our system could be subverted - not just by Muslims - and end up in a state where it wasn't working anymore. Appointing judges of *any* religion who ignore the separation of church and state is one way to do it. Chief executives and Attourneys General who ignore privacy laws is another way, and I'm a bit concerned about that one now.

Justice *is* a figment of the human imagination, but it's a pretty good figment and is worth taking seriously (even if you don't). I've actually got a pretty good bit brewing about why recidivism is a problem and how to get criminals to stop committing crime in response to *lighter* jail sentences, but I have to go to work now.

[dataghost13]

I think that if secular law gives way to Muslim law in regard to Muslim criminals then maybe we SHOULD allow it...It'll make moving into this part of the world a little less appealing and stem the flow of Muslim world domination...LOL

[pjammer]

Is chocolate Halal? :)
Sorry for the off-topic post, but wanted to also invite you to a chocolate-making gathering we're having in SF this Sunday if you're around ... would love to see you there. :)

http://chocolate.eventbrite.com