British dhimmitude proceeds at breakneck pace

In Scotland, people are now being barred from eating in public for fear of offending Muslim colleagues who have voluntarily chosen to fast during the day at Ramadan:

HOSPITAL staff in the Lothians have been told not to eat at their desks to avoid offending Muslim colleagues during Ramadan.

NHS Lothian has advised doctors and other health workers not to have working lunches during the 30-day fast, which begins next month.

The health service’s Equality and Diversity Officer sent an e-mail to all senior managers, giving guidance on religious tolerance.

This includes ensuring Muslim staff are given breaks to pray, and time off to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan.

It is understood they also advised hospital managers to move food trolleys away from areas where Muslims work.

An NHS spokesman said he could not confirm what was in the e-mail.

Jim McCaffery, director of acute services and workforce at NHS Lothian, said: “This e-mail was circulated to a number of senior managers as we continue to promote cultural awareness in our organisation.”

But the move has angered many doctors and politicians, who say it is taking religious tolerance too far.

Bill Aitken, Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, was reported as saying: “Frankly, this advice, well meaning as it may be, is total nonsense.

“This is the sort of thing that can stir up resentments rather than result in good relations.”

Frankly, if I were to receive this type of email at work, even if I never ate at the office, my first instinct would be to pack a huge lunch on a daily basis, filled with objects that smell and look wonderful.

There is nothing wrong with a given individual deciding that he would prefer not to eat in front of those who have voluntarily chosen not to eat.  I don’t agree with that decision, but it’s a personal one and therefore okay by me.  I can’t even begin to detail what’s wrong with a large government corporation officially banning one set of employees from eating so that a religious minority engaged in a voluntary act won’t be offended.  I say this especially because I suspect that the ban on public eating has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with fear and self-loathing.


10 Responses

  1. I think British Catholics should demand no public eating during Lent. And every single Jew in Britain should demand that everyone strictly observe the Sabbath starting on Friday night.

    Who is doing this? Who is responsible for this pre-emptive cringing? It’s not Gordon Brown, it’s not the British people — who is doing this, and why?

  2. I say this especially because I suspect that the ban on public eating has nothing to do with respect and everything to do with fear and self-loathing.

    This is one of the meta-physical arguments that people never really heard or understood about the 2nd Amendment. You see, having and using guns or not having and not using guns is not the point. The point is to have the self-confidence to confront bad people and crush them using whatever implements are at hand. Britain’s banning of the shotguns and guns for use against criminals and burglars wasn’t the problem, the problem was that this law makes it so that people see themselves as helpless victims, and helpless victims tend to over-react either because they panic or they just go and hide in a corner to await the executioner.

    It is people that matter. Making and molding people into weapons is not something you can do by making them helpless. This is what Britain did and now they are seeing the long term consequences of such policies. They and their American counterparts can quote verbatim concerning how banning handguns will reduce “accidents” and what not, all they want, but it will never change the universal truth that the only weapon you will ever have, is your own mind, heart, and soul.

    You cannot ban such weapons, but you can strip good people of the self-confidence that is required to fight against oppression and crime. I suppose that will suffice for those that don’t want the responsibility of holding the line. They talk about, “the military uses shotguns for clearing a house, so why shouldn’t a shotgun be all you need to defend yourself at home”. People that are ignorant talk about a lot of things that are inconsequential in the greater scheme of things.

  3. Aaaah,I remember when I was poor, and every day was like a Ramadan fast. I worked in a newspaper mailroom, on the automated ad insert machines, standing in an unventilated cement room with piles of chemically treated ads and dust everywhere…so romantic. But I digress. I used to torment everyone within earshot with artful and vivid descriptions of foods I wanted to eat, preparing the Barmicidal Feast out of thin air!….and we had a lot of muslims working there with us at the time…Nouradine often got mad at me for giving my mouthwatering descriptions of roasting pork….good times.

  4. Religious tolerance vis a vis Muslims only goes one way. They are offended by our very existence, let alone everything we do. So you can’t win on that score. Better to eat your BLT with gusto (if not with relish) and enjoy the gift of bacon God so wisely bestowed upon us.

  5. LOL..the gift of bacon, indeed!

    Aren’t these Scots the same ones who recently lionized the guy who planted a boot in that would-be terrorist’s crotch during the airport attack?

  6. Ah, judyrose, fascist Islamic radicals are not offended by our very existence. They are offended by our FREE existence. How dare there be infidels who do not pay homage to the superior Muslim? (I must reinforce that I am specifically not referring to ALL Muslims.)

    Then again, we have those deeply sensitive, ultra-Christians who, working in a pharmacy, refuse to serve customers those legal medications that offend THEM. And are equally certain they have every right to do so, due to the depth of their feelings of offense. Though the customer may have been frequenting that store for years and they employee is new.

  7. Mike, I don’t think radical Muslims (not ALL Muslims – as you pointed out) care whether non-Muslims are free or not. I think they only care that we’re not Muslims. So I stand by my statement.

    I agree that employees of a pharmacy should not be permitted to pick and choose which medications they’ll dispense. Clearly, any person who won’t fill certain prescriptions on religious grounds has applied for the wrong job (as has a supermarket checker who won’t handle the pork chops, even wrapped in plastic). Employers should be free to ask about such things, and justified in hiring someone else. And if the applicant lies about it and then causes a “discrimination stink” after they’ve got the job, they should be fired, and the case should go in the round file with all the other garbage. Society has gone bonkers, and we’re taking entirely too much crap in the name of religion!

  8. “I agree that employees of a pharmacy should not be permitted to pick and choose which medications they’ll dispense.”

    Actually, judyrose, I equivocate on whether they should be ‘permitted or not’. I’m not ready to agree that they should be forced. Understand, I completely disagree with them for not filling the prescription! However, my default position is that the owners of the pharmacy should have complete freedom to replace them for refusing – or in fact to keep them in the job, as well. (And a grocery store should have complete freedom to replace – or not replace – a cashier who won’t handle a sale item within the store, such as pork.) Personally, in both cases, I think the offended personnel should consider themselves morally compelled to take a different job, if they are truly offended by aspects of their current job.

    If I had a legal prescription that my local pharmacy wouldn’t fill, or if I bought food at a store and the cashier refused to handle it, I would be offended enough myself to take my business elsewhere.

  9. As to the original issue:
    “HOSPITAL staff in the Lothians have been TOLD NOT TO eat at their desks to avoid offending Muslim colleagues during Ramadan. …NHS Lothian has ADVISED doctors and other health workers not to have working lunches during the 30-day fast, which begins next month.”

    So which is it? Have they been “told not to”, or have they been “advised”? Such weaseling! But I’m quibbling.

    I love Tri’s point in #1. Every Muslim should be forced to give up something during the Catholic Lenten period, and should eat only what Catholics eat on Fridays during Lent. Multicultural tolerance for other religions requires that, doesn’t it? If we cannot eat at our desks while Muslims fast, doesn’t reciprocity make perfect sense. (Well, none of this makes perfect sense…)

    Apparently the truth is that Western culture must respect other cultures, and not the other way around.

  10. Mike, You’re right. The employer should also be free to keep an employee who is only willing to perform part of his job. And I’m free to shop elsewhere. Let Freedom Ring!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: