Muslim or not - these petty compensation cases are sending small businesses to the wall. If she didn't like it - she could have left. No doubt this bar was only trying to attract more business during the recession.

Next time the owner will know better.

mantra wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 9:20am:



I just wander how owner can be better protected from prudent employees, if he obviously cannot discriminate against religion?

This case  stands close to cases when publican was responsible for drunk patron having vehicle accident as driver.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 10:08am:

Yeah, true. Presumably she was not wearing the hijab while serving alcohol and it doesn't appear she even sued on religious grounds.

This is part of the stealth jihad, the litigation jihad.

There will be more and more 'set ups' from muslims bringing claims of varying discriptions, alleging racism, discrimination etc, to get society to change to their way of doing things, and to intimidate and silence all critics and dissent.

Using the processes of democracy, to destroy our democracy.

If this was about a Muslim woman's 'right' to wear the hijab while serving alcohol in a pub to pissheads, then that would be a religious dimension. So far all we've got here is a woman who refused to wear clothes she found offensive.

Calanen wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:00am:



This is what worries me most.
And have no idea how this can be stopped in a democratic way.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:07am:


That's probably about right. She might have been selfconscious about her body and the dress could have looked awful on her, but she found a loophole and used it to her advantage.

It's still very tough on a small business. Are they supposed to cater to the minority's sensibilities at the expense of their own survival?

It's quite ironic, that those who constantly hold up the banner of "Women's rights" etc. don't even blink an eyelid when it comes to women being employed strictly for their physical 'assets'. There's no problem using them as eye-candy to sell stuff, but don't you dare call for them to be treated as human beings with minds, that's sexist and oppressive!!

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 11:56am:

Seems like you're confusing religiosity with personal choice.

As she worked in a bar, presumably without a hijab, she was hardly making a stand on religious grounds.

Are you saying a Christian woman or a non-religious conservative woman would never complain in equivalent circumstances?

Happy wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

To beat up the story?

All it says was that she was Muslim. There was no claim that she referred to her religious sensibilities being offended.

British newspapers had earlier on Monday published a picture from the social networking website Facebook showing Lemes -- a photographer who does bar work to supplement her income - in a revealing white top, smiling at the camera.

Grendel wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:24pm:



More and more it looks like a quick buck or should I say quick pound.

abu_rashid wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:13pm:


Unfortunately Abu - it would be a bit hypocritical for any female to demand their Women's Rights while working in a bar. They are surrounded by males and alcohol - not the easiest workplace to guarantee respect - although most bar attendants do get treated properly by most patrons.

I think this has to be a scam. If she valued her job, but didn't like the tightness of the dress - I can't see any reasonable employer not allowing her to modify it a little to suit her requirements.

locutius wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 12:45pm:


To credit of her case, she was asked to wear "summer uniform" (tight one) about week after she started to work, giving her weapon.

Sprint it's a bit ironic that you are having a go at Muslims for standing up for women's rights.

The judge seemed to see it as a women's rights issue. Was the judge wrong?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 17^th, 2009 at 10:33pm:


More silly racist comments?

What desert should she be sent to sprint?

She has probably never been out of rainy old england, and endorsing sending her anywhere but her home, is as valid as an aboriginal saying all non indigenous aussies should be sent to whatever part of europe or elsewhere, their antecedents may have originated from.

If it were not reported that she was muslim, then you would not be so aggressively condemning this woman sprint, and making value judgements purely on a racial, or cultural basis, is unacceptable behaviour.

Like Calanen, you fear Islam, but also like him, you need to be more selective in what you seek to challenge, and not give in to the extremist position of just promoting hatred and intolerance for all muslims.
Islam does provide many legitimate targets for criticism, along the grounds of social inequity and injustice, and if you stick to highlighting examples of that nature, when they arise, you will present a much more acceptable, and understandable case for limiting the spread and influence of anyone who seeks to impose unacceptable standards into our society.

Quote:


More lies, or ignorance, choose whichever you want, because either or both could apply in presenting my opinion as being anything like what you ascribe to me having.

Find any example of me ever promoting Islam, or ever calling it the religion of peace, or ever expressing any opinion of it, that could possibly be construed as a positive endorsement of it, and I will retract my statement that you are an ignorant liar, in trying to present any of those sentiments as my opinion of Islam.

I will explain it for you once more, I do see Islam as a backwards, regressive, and repressive religion.
I do see the extremist elements who promote Islamist extremism, or religious fundamentalism if you prefer to call it that, as very negative, dangerous elements which should be countered by all decent people, of all beliefs, including muslims.

What I do not endorse, is people like you, who use quotes from the koran, or other Islamic texts, to promote the belief that all muslims are the enemy of western civilisation, and must be treated as hostile enemies.

If we apply the same logic to the Bible, and Christians, as you do to The Koran, and Muslims, then we would also need to hate them, and consider them to be the enemies of any modern decent society, as we can find ample evidence of barbaric behaviour endorsed in the Christian texts as well.

Of course I appreciate that many more muslims, than christians, follow their teachings more literally, and dogmatically, but the fact of what their relative texts contain, is not as disparate as many would like to present.

We then have the fact that you, and people like you, often allude to the need for violent confrontation with muslims in general, as if it is an inevitable outcome, because of a widely held Islamic aspiration for total world domination.

I do accept that the lunatic fringe of Islamist zealots do indeed hold such fanciful notions, and deservedly receive our scorn and enmity as such, but I totally reject the notion that it is a common aspiration amongst all muslims, and attributing such notions to them is grossly unfair, and amounts to little more than baseless fear mongering.

I still contend, as I always have, that your everyday muslim is very little different to your everyday christian, no matter how religiously deluded they may be.
They just want to have a peaceful, and prosperous life, for themselves and their families, just like all average people want, and should be considered no differently than anyone else.

When you finally deside to drop your scattergun attacks on Islam, and focus your attention to the Islamist zealots, where it belongs, then you can expect to see yourself isolated amongst the ranks of the reactionary extremists who promote violence, intolerance and persecution, as the answer to violence, intolerance, and persecution, from Islamic extremists.

It's all just a matter of degree then, as I fall somewhere in between Mozza and Cal.

I agree with Mozz that by and large the average person who is a Muslim has more in common with the average person that is a Christian, than not. I do think that generally they are more devoted than the modern Western Christian, but also that there doctrine less amicable to Western freedoms.

A recognisable group that does not have democracy as a primary allegiance is not one I want to see in or growing in my country. And while they have a policy of adhereing to the political rules of the countries they inhabit, that can be turned on it's head in a heartbeat if a new Caliphe emerges. The Caliphes word is Law that overrides obligations of sceular citizenship.

OK Calanen, if you can tear yourself away from jihad watch for a minute, then check out this report from the  "Pew Global Attitudes Project"

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=809

It shows views of muslims around the world, and has shown a decline in support for extremism since 2002.

It also shows that many muslims still support Bin Laden, and many still support suicide bombings.

In fact it gives lots of opinions from muslims, on lots of issues, and tries to make sense of the confusion that abounds, both about, and amongst, the muslim world.

It is not pushing any agenda, so it is not cherry picking just facts that support one extreme or another, so it is a good place to get a better understanding of the muslim world, with all it's complex variety.

One aspect of extremism that people like yourself rarely touch on, is it's strong anti-american element, and the fact that so many extremists are far more political than religious, yet you always seem to ascribe their acts of terrorism as being religiously inspired.

Personally I find the whole idea of actively vilifying any group, for the actions of an anonymous minority, quite unacceptable, and more to the point, because I share the concerns that so many have about extremism, I consider it highly counter productive, by dint of the fact that it further isolates people, thereby enhancing the US against THEM attitude, that extremists thrive on exploiting.

So as far as numbers of wacky muslims go, if I had to guess, I would guess about 25%, which coincidentally happens to be the same as the percentage of Americans who think they are living in the "End Days" from the bible, and will live to see Jesus' bodily return to earth.

Yet people still wonder why I am no fan of religion.

At least many muslims can use the excuse of never having received a proper education for accepting the ludicrous stuff they believe, god knows what excuse the americans have got.

Yes it's all about 'Anti-Americanism'. What Anti-Americanism led the Muslims to invade Spain? Invade France?

What Anti-Americanism led muslims to attack the newly formed American Republic? No Israel then? No American foreign policy then? The siege of Vienna? The conquest of the Byzantine Empire? Invasion of the Holy Land?

All of these invasions and attacks were premised on the basis that Islam is required to attack non-believers using jihad, and this is fard ayn, or obligatory. What has happened in the interim period, such that these beliefs are no longer applicable? Where was this mythical Islamic reformation - I must have missed it. Let me know, where it is and who is a member of it. Surely you must know this, as you *know* for a fact that Islam does not believe these things anymore.

How is the jihad of muslims in Thailand - 'Anti-Americanism'. How is the jihad in the Phillippines, 'Anti-Americanism' or about Israel? Or how about in the rest of Europe, every Islamic terrorist plot? Or about the jihadi attacks in Africa? Why is that 'Anti-Americanism' or 'Anti-Israel.' What about the attacks on Christians throughout the Islamic world, Buddhists, Hindus - why are these expressions of Anti-Americanism and freedom for Palestine?

What about Muslims being over represented, by a long, long way in crimes throughout Europe and even Australia - especially crimes of rape against non-muslims. Is this a legitimate expression of anti-Americanism too? A quest for Palestinian freedom?

Who are the faceless millions giving billions in aid to terrorists? Do they only count as 'extremists' when they strap on a bomb?

What about the people who want to destroy our society with litigation, lobbying, bribery, tax evasion, crime, legal amendments, the stifling of free speech?

This PEW survery was skewed all to buggery to give the results it wanted, it is push polling at its finest. Even so, it statistically a huge number of muslims were interested in suicide bombing. How many were asked, is jihad against the unbelievers obligatory under Islam? How many were asked, would you choose loyalty to your muslim brothers over loyalty to the state? Precisely none.

None so blind as those who will not see.

Learn what Islam is, not what some Multicultist Pushpollers tell you it is. Have you watched Undercover Mosque? See what people are taught in the so called 'Moderate' Green Lane Mosque in the UK? Are they just random misunderstanders too?

Have you seen what children are taught in their own textbooks - more random misunderstanders? I think I did a thread on what is in Islamic textbooks - and it seems that this Islamophobe has had enough influence over the Islamic world to get them to teach their own children my prejudiced misunderstanding of Islam! How extraordinary!

See people like you just know, because you can sing 'The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music' about how wonderful, and special, and unique, and exotic Islam is..so of course its good, and everyone else who says there is anything bad about it, is just a mean Islamophobic race hating NAZI!

Never mind, that what I say about Islam, Al Quada says, the Taliban says, all the Islamic insurgents say, the Islamic scholars say, imams say in their sermons - even the Muslim Brotherhood says in its own strategic manual!  All of them must be Islamophobes too.

The only difference to me between moderate and extreme Islam are the methods - not the goal. The goal is still our destruction, moderate muslims would just prefer it was done through less dramatic means.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2009 at 9:19pm:


I think you need to be more precise in your question.

freediver wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 4:26pm:


I was not sure what you were asking. I could have guessed, but I may have been wrong.

This woman is not part of a woman right's group lobbying for more participation in government, that just happens to be a woman. This is an Islamic jihad put up, much like the 'Flying Imams' or 'Guide Dogs' or 'the Blog Wars'. Muslims launching attacks, usually well funded against targets of OUR society, the way we do things. In our society, we serve alcohol in bars, and women often wear attractive clothes when they serve the alcohol. Big fricking deal. Why is that a women's right question? If you dont want to work there, dont work there.

You will see more of these, like the rolling handicapped litigation you see in California. Handicapped person wheels themselves with lawyer in tow, to restaurant after restaurant, and files a complaint about there being no wheelchair access and saying 'I never felt so humiliated in all my life..it was like i wasn't human!'

She has targetted two things that muslims hate:

- alcohol and places that serve alcohol;
- women being able to dress other than in a burka.

This is the slowly slowly stealth jihad. Expect more of these put up jobs to target things that muslims hate in our society.

By the way have you seen the picture of the dress she was asked to wear? It was no big deal.  Why is it a 'woman's right' to wear anything other than the uniform at a place of work? They weren't asking her to wear a catsuit, just a red dress.

Quote:


She is not defending women's rights. She is seeking to destroy with the litigation jihad, another aspect of our culture. So eventually, it is hoped, women must wear neck to knee coverings to avoid this litigation. Or, muslim women can DEMAND to work in a bar and only serve soft drinks.

Quote:


Muslims don't give a flying bugger* about women's rights. Their own community has honour killings, rampant domestic violence, women do all the housework and stay home from work. Its not a paragon of women's rights this Islamic model.

Quote:


So if she had a badge she would be a legitimate women's rights campaigner, but without one she is just a Muslim trying to undermine our society? Since when do you have to join a group to stand up for your rights? This woman did more for women's rights than most women could ever hope to.

Quote:


So the Jihadists are trying to undermine our society by defending women's rights? What will they think of next? Picking up litter?

Quote:


You mean, instead of blowing up buildings? Why do I get the impression you consider this a bad thing?

Quote:


Didn't you just say it was a Jihad? Now you don't care?

Quote:


I believe the judge outlined that in his ruling.

Quote:


It sounds like you could learn a few things about women's rights from the Jihadists.

Quote:


But Calanen, nothing in this ruling will prevent people from serving alcohol. She wants to get a job serving alcohol - something you claim Muslims hate. Are you suggesting that Muslims are now seeking out jobs in industries they have a moral objection to in the hope that their employees will screw them over? The reality is that this woman will help women find safe work in the hospitality industry where they won't get exploited.

Quote:


I believe the judge outlined that in his ruling. There were some specific aspects to this case that undermined women's rights.

Quote:


I think you are letting your imagination get the better of you here Calanen. Or are you suggesting we prevent women from defending their rights in case Muslims take over our society?

Quote:


This one obviously does. She is defending the right of women to work in the hospitality industry without being exploited.

Quote:


Perhaps that is why she left that community and joined ours, and fought to make our community a better place. This is a great example of integration benefitting our society. Maybe she has seen first hand where attitudes like your lead a society and fought to stop that happening in her newly adopted home.

To give you an example of what I mean, which is one of just many, many examples of the litigation jihad:

City corrals Christians at weekend Arab fest

Judge won't let ministry deliver tracts on public sidewalks
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:23 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

A federal judge has upheld a decision by festival organizers in  Dearborn, Mich., which is about 30 percent Muslim, to ban a Christian ministry from handing out religious information on public sidewalks.

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmonds and affects this weekend's celebration but will not affect the free speech lawsuit over the event, filed by the Thomas More Law Center and the Becker Law Firm.

The case is being brought on behalf of the Arabic Christian Perspective, a Christian group that ministers to Muslims. According to the Thomas More Law Center, Pastor George Saieg and scores of his volunteers have visited Dearborn for the city's Arab International Festival to hand out religious information several times.
           
At estimated 30,000 of Dearborn's nearly 100,000 residents are Muslim.

While there never has been a disruption of the public peace during the five years the ministry has been attending, this year Dearborn police warned Saieg he and his group would not be allowed to walk the public sidewalks to hand out information and instead would be confined to a specific spot, the lawsuit said.

After negotiations in Dearborn failed to restore the Christians' rights, the lawsuit was filed.

Read stories of Christian courage and faith that overcomes in the newly updated "Foxe's Book of Martyrs"

"It's ironic that while Americans are applauding the free speech exercised by hundreds of thousands of Muslims on the streets of Iran, the city of Dearborn is restricting free speech rights Christians are attempting to exercise on the city's public sidewalks," said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center.

"This case involves an important constitutional question regarding the government's ability to prohibit peaceful speech activities," said Law Center attorney Robert Muise, who argued for the Christians' rights before Edmonds.

"This preliminary ruling, while disappointing, will not affect the remainder of the case. We intend to pursue this as far as necessary," he said.

Mary Landroche, director of the city's department of public information, said the judge's ruling agreed the city had the right to establish rules for maintaining order.

"[She] did agree with the city we have an interest in controlling the crowds," Landroche told WND. She said the city's rules are "content-neutral," but she could not provide information about any other group impacted by the change.

But she said the city decided the public sidewalks are "part of the festival grounds."

Fay Beydoun of the American Arab Chamber of Commerce in Dearborn told the Detroit News there was "no problem" with the Christians being at the event, "but we do have to think about the safety of everyone."

The complaint said public streets are properly considered a traditional public forum.

"The Supreme Court has emphasized that the streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion; and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression inappropriately abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in some other place," the complaint said.

The complaints cited a police statement that the Christians would be classified among "political parties and protesters," and would be limited to a single location.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=101595

So even though there is an accepted, RIGHT, to hand out literature of any kind guaranteed under the constitution, muslims will litigate to say this is Islamophobia, and not respecting my religion, and hate etc. The idea is to chip away, chip away, so we say, oh, yeah, First Amendment, yeah that doesn't apply whenever we might upset some muslims.

It's an example of a pattern, of which this example is but one of many.

She didn't stand up for women's rights. She stood up for the right of muslims, to bring their version of sharia puritanism to everyone - including the owner of a private business.

I don't see her outside the Saudi Embassy demanding that women be allowed to drive. Or protesting about women whose throats are slashed for not wearing a burka. Or protesting honor killings. Or demanding justice in the huge number of domestic violence cases in the muslim community in the UK.

Indeed, she was caught wearing a low cut top in her facebook pic, until she removed it. So it wasn't about wearing particular clothes. It was about Islam seeking to use our democracy to shove its brand of puritanical sharia down everyone's throats.

So her doing this was no more about 'women's rights', then my example above was about 'religious freedom' or the Flying Imams was about the 'rights of praying travellers'. All of this is part of an orchestrated campaign to Islamify the west.

Also - don't preach to me about how this judge could teach me a thing or two. But even the judiciary are often cowed by the politically correct clueless, like yourself, who would bay for their blood if they got the decision 'wrong'. Far better to give in than to say, hey, u know what, we want women to wear women's clothes. We want our waitresses to be presentable. We dont want them to wear burkas, sorry, but we dont.

Calanen you don't seem to be aware of what the case was about. You can't force every self identified Muslim into your little Islamic Jihad box. If you at least argued based on the merits of this particular case it may be a bit easier to take you seriously, but you seem to think that a few examples of other Muslims doing those things somehow proves something about this woman. It doesn't. The way you carry on is no better than the Muslims you criticise. You insist we judge this woman by her religion, not by her actions.

Calanen wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 4:50pm:

Did she? I haven't read that. Can you provide a source?

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 5:47pm:


Quote:


You were saying the muslims I criticise. You didn't say, this muslim I criticise. I didnt equate her to a suicide bomber. So you were really saying, she is just better than me or something or I am no better than someone or something, or...

Quote:
]

Quote:


Alright, I will:

Quote:


Quote:



This is the red dress. Big deal:



It's not as if it were some scandalous piece of attire, say like THIS lady is wearing:



OMG - it's the same woman, on her Facebook page. Perhaps the ebil bar owner made her wear that at gunpoint.

Quote:


I really would hope that it was my fantasy. But my fantasy is just too pervasive, expensive, and widespread to be considered a dream.

Excuse me that I don't believe her bona fides. I am perhaps less gullible than most. Comes from actually working in these tribunals and courts, for the last 15 years or so.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 6:34pm:


Because it was a complete fabrication, oh woe is me, the consultant to Scotland Yard known as Helium Blimp or Donut Man has caught me out again!

I might put it in. Might not though, because I resent the implication of fabrication.

Quote:


But this is not what you claimed she said. Just in case you have forgotten, this is what you posted:

Quote:


Do you see that once you get over the fact that she admits to being a Muslim (actually, raised as a Muslim), she is not actually claiming this as the basis for her litigation.

S / Arse - Good luck hunting down that lizard baby. That paper reported him born somewhere round Canberra.

Calanen wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 6:30pm:



Can bar owner appeal the sentence?

mantra wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 8:23pm:



It looks to me that principle is more important than money.

He can appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, but it's hard to know whether it would be worth the bother without seeing the actual decision which is not, to my knowledge, published. EAT decisions are, but not first instance.

He looks tough and mean though Helian - I wouldn't want to bump into him on a dark night.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2009 at 9:22am:




This is getting too nasty now. I hope Calanen takes it in good humour.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 6:52pm:


Everything a Muslim does is a jihad to you sprint, did you ever think maybe she really didn't want to show off her tits or legs because she was raised with strict morals?
Would you bitch so hard if she was the daughter of a Baptist minister?

Happy wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 8:31pm:


The bar already lost on principle. Take out the word Muslim from the story and it is still likely to be a fair judgement.

Quote:


What makes you think she has strict morals sprint? She is more than happy to work in a bar. And why do you think that working in a bar requires low moral standards?

Quote:


Why would that be her thing?

They can laugh all they want at our rights and freedoms. I will still stand up for them. I certainly would not let the religion a person grew up with cloud my judgement on the issue.

BTW Calanen, nice to see you have remembered what the thread is about.

You'll defend a face slashing psychopath but draw the line at all Muslims?

Quote:



Exactly. That's how they're taught to get ahead in our generous lands.
Just cry victim and you can secure preferential treatment and privileges that the original citizens have no access to.
Never ever can the citizens cry foul, as this will tattoo them with an ugly label. So whilst we patiently wait for everybody to be nice and play fair, we are sh!tting in the faces of those who have made sacrifices in the past, and of those who will need to make sacrifices in the future.i

mozzaok wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2009 at 11:40pm:



That would be fine and dandy. But we are recognising muslims' right not to be offended, for example, a right not extended to an awful lot of other citizens.


For starters, I find the niqab on my streets deeply offensive. Where do I do for compo?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2009 at 10:13pm:


You're an idiot.

Calanen wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 2:31am:


I realise that I will have to say why you're a germ, because you don't know, being a hung up coward (or as you might define yourself, a tough guy but only on the condition of anonymity on the internetz).

While you’re not forced to take up every potential client, turns out your best customers are Muslims. Whether ‘best’ means ‘most’ or ‘most worthy’ or ‘most honourable’, or most [insert virtue here] you don’t make clear. But whichever, despite your general tantrums about Muslims (against whom you demand we all take up arms, no less), in whom you see a jihad genie in jay-walking, you now admit your best customers (Muslims) have a case and (presumably) you believe them to have a case because they could well be innocent. So, while we’re bearing arms against them at your behest, you’d be defending them against any actions they took against our unjust actions. And why wouldn’t you throw the case of a Muslim client? On your nice days, you want them arrested, incarcerated then expelled for the crime of being Muslim, on your worst. ‘cleansed’ from Australian society by any means necessary… Wouldn’t it be a very small moral step for you to betray their trust to ensure they’re convicted, given what you would have done to them?

Probably its not only your height, ‘up with which’ you will not put.

Calanen wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 8:40am:

Yes, of course... It's not that you're gutless, it's the system.

What other defence would a coward use?

How does the small comapny inform their employees of what uniforms they may be requested to wear next season ?

What did she think she was going to wear - a full length black gown with a single hole for one eye ?

it's a pub in a western society.  keep the customer happy, show us what you have got.

she should have got NO compensation and her forehead branded "Sues employees"

wonder how this goes on her resumee??

stupid muslim bitch

Quote:


So what. Do cops get to choose what they wear? The Army? Doctors and nurses? Hotel employees, ie 5 star hotels? Religious freedom also means, to be free of religion. If I take the risk of owning a bar, I want my staff to be presentable, and that is all that dress was.

She was taking the proverbial, and the leftists fall for it again.

See people like FD, Helian and Moazzak would have been key people in history. The same spineless types are always about. They would have been the people who:

- argued that a proportionate response was needed to the Empire of Japan bombing Hawaii, ie, more discussion and perhaps a small raid on one of their harbours;

- argued for greater engagement with Hitler, and that criticism of the Third Reich's ideology was 'Germanophobic' and intolerant;

- said that greater dialogue was needed with King George II during the American Revolution, as he was lining people up by the hundreds to be shot.

History needs its cowards, the naysayers, the Rodney King types 'Why can't we all get along.' But history doesn't remember them, it remembers people who actually knew what they stood for. Collectively, you stand for nothing except some poorly defined 'multiculti' idea, which means that anyone can p*** on you from a great height and you will believe it's mana from heaven.

Now you say that an ideology that wants you dead, your society dead, and you enslaved is actually something we need to discuss and embrace, have a bit of a love in talkfest. You don't know anything about the philosophy yourself, having never read anything, and prepare a PR brief to say anything about it is 'good' without having the facts and the evidence to back it up.

But the Holy Multiculti says that TRUE Islam is very good, and benevolent. Never mind that wherever Islam is in power, there is tyrannical despotism. Never mind that Western jails are overflowing with muslims committing crimes that far outstrip their percentage of the population. Never mind that the regularly accepted articles of the faith are wholly against all western ideas of democracy, equality and justice. Multiculti says Foreign Equals Good - and that is a far more important value, than say justice, or being civilised.

what a load of tripe.

so if anyone disagrees with an employer, they can sue them for damages ???

far cough

Don't get personal Calanen, Helian etc.

Quote:


Calanen, if this woman had been raised a Christian or a Hindu, would you bat an eyelid? This has nothing to do with traditional Muslim clothes. It is about western standards of what is acceptable to force female employees to wear. There are plenty of non-Muslims also standing up for our rights, but only when a Muslims does it do you concoct an absurd conspiracy around it. It is you who is singling someone out based on their religion, or ex-religion

Quote:


I did consider it. It took about 3 seconds to realise how absurd your alternative is. This is nothing at all like what a conservative Muslim would compaign for. It's as if you would accuse someone of Muslim bias because they only eat pork cooked a certain way. Your argument just does not make sense. In order to defeat your enemy, you must first know them.

Quote:


It was 'next week' Sprint, not next season.

Quote:


How about the one she agreed to wear when she took up the job? Or one of a similar standard?

Quote:


She seems to be more in tune with western standards than you sprint. Times have changed.

Quote:


Yes, when they choose to become a cop. If the police force suddenly decided femal offciers had to wear miniskirts, they would have a justifiable claim, just as this particular woman did. Why is it so hard to understand that this is a western standard being applied here, not a Muslim one?

Quote:


Once again Calanen, you have forgotten what this thread is about. How is it brave to attack women's rights in our society on the grounds that you fear it to be part of a grand conspiracy by people opposed to women's rights? You are not fighting the Germans, or the Japanese. You are fighting justice. Which is why you cannot make a sound argument on the merits of this case alone, but have to constantly conjure up fantasies and grand conspiracies to justify your position. You are not giving up rights in response to a genuine threat, but in response to an imaginary one. This woman is not Hitler. Stopping her from getting justice will not help in any way to subdue the threat of violent Jihad. All it would achieve is undermining our rights and bringing our society closer to the one you despise.

Quote:


Wow, enslaved and dead? Again Calanen, you have simply forgotten what the thread is about. This woman doesn't want me dead. She wants to be treated with respect in the workplace.

Quote:


You still haven't explained how standing up for women's rights is adopting Muslim standards. Remember, it is not what women choose to wear that is the crucial difference, but their freedom to choose. You are undermining that, just as conservative Islam does. You are on the wrong side.

Quote:


Again, not what this case or this topic is about.

Sprint, do you realise that it doesn't count when you quote someone out of context? BTW, she did not say that. That sounds more like a paradoy of an argument than something you actually believe.

If this lady really is a Muslim, then she is an example of the sort of Muslim our society can live with. She can work in a bar and stand up for women's rights.

Here's Ms Lemes in that red dress and on Facebook NOT in that red dress, looking tired and emotional as well as uncovered.... Hmmmm.

She looks much more decent in the red dress, no?

Soren wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2009 at 8:43pm:


That is such a basic conservative dress - I can't believe she was awarded compensation over that. I imagined some skin tight, silky dress split up the sides and down the front. She's a con woman and not just because she's a Muslim. I doubt a true Muslim would have worked there in the first place.

Quote:


Justice? Justice for the last, what 400 years says that the master can tell their servants to wear anything they want. Serving barmaids in English taverns wore far more revealing gear in the 1700s than they do now, and more so than her. So don't talk to me about justice.

Justice says, wear the damn dress and shut up while you do it. And pray to Allan the Moon God wearing whatever you want, or open your own damn bar.

This was just a put up job, as I said, in the beginning. Like the professional litigator in Cali who pushes a disabled person from restaurant to restaurant with a template claim form saying 'I felt like a non person and I was never so humiliated when there was no wheelchair access.'

You are a naive fool. But people like you have existed and been around, as long as there have been people and critical moments. You would have been right there with Pig Iron Bob saying that the pig iron will NEVER come back as bullets and that anyone who says otherwise is a dirty stinking race hating Japanophobe and Emperorphobe.

And what do you know, then we were at war. And the whole West is at war.

Read something. Just something, I'll even buy the damn book for you if you are hard up for cash. Just read the damn thing and speak from facts and evidence instead of cluelessness and the vibe about how all people are really good and its a tiny tiny minority of extremists.

I thought that too (although I had my doubts) until I started reading all this stuff, and I am an educated guy. Islam is some scary scary stuff. That's regular Islam, not some radical Islam. Learn about it and speak from knowledge, not ignorance.

You are like the Pope and Cardinals telling Galileo that you KNOW the earth is the centre of the universe. How about you just look at the data first, and then make up your mind.

I am confident that i can win on the facts and evidence with anyone about the danger of Islam. But the argument never gets that far, there is only emotional multicultist rhetoric for daring to speak multiculti heresy.

Open house seems like a great idea, but there is always some d*** that puts cigarettes out on the sofa and pi**** in your pool. Our gatecrasher is Islam, and pretending it is benign is not going to stop it from wrecking our house, like it has wrecked, every other house it has ever stopped off at.

Calanen wrote on Jun 24^th, 2009 at 12:06am:

If he gives you the wool, you could knit him a pair.