Radical Islam (opinion)

[GT93]

There doesn't seem to be a problem with radical Muslims in New Zealand. There's a kind of a natural safety valve here. The potential radicals would be quite lonely and so they tend to move to Australia where there is a more active bunch of lunatics.

One problem we have is misinformation by the NZ spooks. Their public statements are completely untrustworthy. For example they expressed concern about NZ women leaving for the Middle East to become jihadi brides. Many months later it emerged that not a single one from NZ could be identified. They were all NZ women living in Australia who had headed to the Middle East to find a medieval teeruk.

Many older NZers haven't forgotten the French government's act of terrorism with the Rainbow Warrior. If our spooks were doing their job they would also be keeping an eye on French and Israeli government activity in NZ. Mossad agents are fond of NZ passports and the French government has a long history of violent actions in other countries. The French intelligence official who lead the French government's terrorists in NZ is apparently now residing in the US. Virgina, I think. If Drumpf got elected hopefully he'd kick that bastard out.

[BigRick808]

I posted the same Churchill quote on the thread linked below a few months ago and someone by the name of Old Timer said he googled around 6 or 7 times and figure out what Churchill meant :-" Maybe he can come back here and explain to us what Churchill meant...at least according to the mind of the Old Timer....

I'll send Old Timer a PM and see if he'll come out for us.

Old Timers quote: Agreed, with Churchill that is. Although, It took around six or seven googles to understand what he was talking about.

OT........

http://www.udonmap.com/udonthaniforum/e ... 45-60.html

[socksy]

A current ongoing Murder investigation in Glasgow. I can't seem to get my head around it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gla ... t-35976958

[ronan01]

A current ongoing Murder investigation in Glasgow. I can't seem to get my head around it.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gla ... t-35976958

“You simply can’t have 1.6 billion people owing allegiance to a religion which has an immutable scripture giving imprimatur to supremacism, intolerance, discrimination and violence.

It is just not acceptable.

Muslims have to be persuaded to leave this pernicious creed behind and live more enlightened lives.

Nothing else will do!

Islam cannot be reformed, and that is the irreducible fact of it.”

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2016 ... -delusion/

[BigRick808]

Here's a video of a "refugee" threatening to throw a baby if he isn't allowed to go to welfare heaven Cultural enrichment....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WY5eYg__LA

[glalt]

This little video explains things;

https://www.youtube.com/embed/yeJ-iv3MOTo?rel=0

[RichardPn]

I’ll bookmark your site and take the feeds also? I am satisfied to find so many helpful information here within the post, we need develop more strategies on this regard, thanks for sharing

[ronan01]

Blood Year: Islamic State and the Failures of the War on Terror by David Kilcullen

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2016/04/age-conflict/

[socksy]

After Muslim Truckers Refuse to Deliver Beer … Obama Does the
Unbelievable by Bill Callen Barack Obama just sided with
Muslims to enforce Islamic Sharia Law on an American business, leaving
many outraged and two Fox News anchors absolutely stunned. Two
Muslim truck drivers — former Somali “refugees” — refused to make
deliveries of beer to stores for their employer. So they were
understandably fired. They claimed it was a violation of their
religious beliefs — even though Islam bars only the consumption of
alcohol. And, as the employer pointed out, the workers knew they
would have to deliver alcohol before they took the job. So guess
what Barack Obama did. He SUED the employers on behalf of the
pair, Mahad Abass Mohamed and Abdkiarim Hassan Bulshale, claiming
religious discrimination. Obama’s Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) represented them in the case, providing tens of
thousands of taxpayer dollars in legal support, judicial filings and
court appearances against the employer who was hopelessly outgunned by
the Federal government. And this week the Muslims were awarded a
stunning $240,000 by a jury, presided over by an Obama appointee who
stunned analysts by allowing the case to go forward at all. Fox
News hosts Megyn Kelly and Andrew Napolitano were flabbergasted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... 3q61Y85oCw
“The Obama administration actually represented the two Muslims in
this case. But has sometimes taken a very different position in the
case of Christians trying to assert their religious beliefs.”
She then said to Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano:
“So in the case of the Muslim truck drivers, the Obama administration
through the EEOC is all in. "This is what they said: ‘We are
proud to support the rights of workers to equal treatment in the
workplace without having to sacrifice their religious beliefs or
practices; it’s fundamental to the American principles of religious
freedom and tolerance.’ "But when it comes to the Christian
bakers, it’s not as fundamental.” Napolitano was equally
perplexed: “That’s correct. It’s unfortunate when the
government interferes in a private dispute over religious views, and
takes sides, and chooses one religion over another.” To their point,
the Christian owners of “Melissa’s Sweet Cakes” were fined $135,000 by
the state of Oregon for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian
couple. And Kentucky clerk Kim Davis was jailed for refusing to issue
same-sex marriage licenses. Napolitano offered an explanation
for the administration’s interest in the Muslim truck driver case:
“The way the feds intervened … they wanted this case because they
wanted to make the point that they've now made.” The U.S.
Government and the courts can't legally have one set of laws for
Christians and another set of laws for Muslims and other religious
groups. But now they do. Obama’s actions and this court’s ruling
throws into relief that not all Americans are legally recognized as
possessing religious liberty and freedom of conscience. As
George Orwell might put it, Obama has now established that Muslims are more equal than Christians in America.

[Udon Map]

There's actually a bit more to the story. The trucking company admitted up front that it could have accommodated the drivers' desire not to deliver alcohol by putting them on different routes. At that point, under the law, it was just a question of determining how big the check would be.

Of course, that leaves some questions unanswered. Like why these guys get protection when Muslim law prohibits drinking alcohol, not carrying it.

[ronan01]

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/rele ... 22-15b.cfm

"But as the Peoria Journal Star (Andy Kravetz) notes, “Whether the men collect their money is another story. Star Transport went out of business earlier this year and it’s unknown who is now responsible for the judgment.” Thanks to Professor Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... t-alcohol/

[ronan01]

James E. Shadid is the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois.

Appointed by Barack Obama.

His father is George Shadid,[2] who eventually became sheriff of Peoria County and Illinois state senator.[3]

George P. Shadid was born in Clinton, Iowa[6] to immigrants from Lebanon.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._Shadid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Shadid

[ronan01]

Judge Shadid, is an Obama appointee, who, as Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin noted, was the first Arab-American to serve as a state judge in Illinois. He has made his mark in a pretzel-twisting interpretation of the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty.

The two truckers knew when they applied for the trucking jobs they might be asked to transport the prohibited alcohol. One suspects that might have been the intention -- to force a test case in federal court as part of the Islamization of America, a case they knew the administration of Barack Hussein Obama would support.

The double standard of the Obama administration knows no bounds. They did not rush to defend the religious liberty rights of the owner of Sweet Cakes by Melissa. But they have gone to court to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to force the group of elderly nuns who aid the impoverished and ill elderly to provide contraception coverage for their staff. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

The Little Sisters contend ObamaCare not only violates the First Amendment's religious guarantees, but also the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That requires the government to implement its policies in ways that do not impose an unnecessary burden on the free exercise of religion….

If the Little Sisters lose their case, they'll either have to violate their religious conscience or face fines of around $2.5 million a year, or about 40% of what they beg for annually to care for the dying poor. Their ministry would be severely crippled, as would the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty.

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

No meaningful accommodations are offered to counter ObamaCare’s infringement of religious liberty. Catholic institutions such as universities and charities are under assault for trying to act on their faith in their daily activities and not just for one hour on Sunday.

The Muslim truckers could have accommodated themselves by taking another job. Maybe they could open a bakery and be forced to cater gay weddings.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... z48j4frNe4

[Udon Map]

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol.

Technically, that's correct; but the EEOC only made that argument because Star Trucking admitted that it could easily have accommodated the drivers. If Star Trucking had said that such an accommodation would have placed too large a burden on its business, the jury might well have awarded the two drivers nothing. But, as I said above, once Star Trucking made the admission, the only question was the size of the check. The government didn't have to prove discrimination once the admission was made.

For the record, I'm far from an Obama apologist. However, it's important to keep the facts straight.

[ronan01]

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol.

Technically, that's correct; but the EEOC only made that argument because Star Trucking admitted that it could easily have accommodated the drivers. If Star Trucking had said that such an accommodation would have placed too large a burden on its business, the jury might well have awarded the two drivers nothing. But, as I said above, once Star Trucking made the admission, the only question was the size of the check. The government didn't have to prove discrimination once the admission was made.

For the record, I'm far from an Obama apologist. However, it's important to keep the facts straight.

That may be so, but the full quote was:

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

It is important to keep the facts straight.

[Udon Map]

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

It is important to keep the facts straight.

Well, I'll grant that you're persistent, if unnecessarily snarky.

Christian bakers? Irrelevant, and an inapposite comparison. Let's start with Star Transport. The Star Transport case was about discrimination by an employer against employees, thus bringing it within the purview of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The relevant sections are codified in the United States Code as follows:

42 U.S.C. §2000e–2(a) et seq.: Employer practices: It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, ....

42 U.S.C. §2000e(j): The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

Star Transport admitted that it was able "to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship...." That means that the employees win; and, as I said upthread, the only consideration for court is the amount of the check.

Christian bakers? Presumably you mean Sweet Cakes, yes? Apples and oranges. The relevant statute in the Star Transportation case concerned, as you can see, employment practices, -- the relationship between employee and employer. The Sweet Cakes situation concerns the relationship between a business and its customers.

[Barney]

Seems that the law is one sided as I read it
what of the scenario.... if the transport company only transported alcohol or lets say non halal products and refused to hire the men, who then complained????????? would the first law come in to practice for refusing to hire?

[Udon Map]

The threshold inquiry is whether the company could accommodate the men with some reasonable and non-disruptive modifications to the way that it worked. If the company only transported alcohol or non-Halal products, it would not be required to hire the men.

[Barney]

The threshold inquiry is whether the company could accommodate the men with some reasonable and non-disruptive modifications to the way that it worked. If the company only transported alcohol or non-Halal products, it would not be required to hire the men.

Thanks for the reply..
That's what the normal man would think but it really doesn't read that way. Industrial relations laws in all countries are hard to follow and employers whom are not vigilant initially in the hire process find it is usually too late once said employer has been hired.
It's a new game when the specific religion card is played.

[ronan01]

The EEOC argued that Star Transport could have made accommodations for the two drivers, such as assigning them to deliveries not involving alcohol. But no such accommodations are offered to Christian bakers or Catholic nuns serving the poor. Not only is religious freedom being infringed here but so is equal treatment under the law.

It is important to keep the facts straight.

Well, I'll grant that you're persistent, if unnecessarily snarky.

Unnecessarily snarky? How?

Is it not important to keep the facts straight?