Monday, November 28, 2011

Sacked for challenging ‘Muslim fundamentalists’

On the face of it, the case is cut and dried: a further appalling injustice against a Christian. The story has been covered by Christian Concern, the Telegraph and the Mail. Nohad Halawi, who has worked at Heathrow’s Terminal 3 for 13 years, has been dismissed by Autogrill Retail UK Limited (trading severally as ‘World Duty Free’ and ‘Caroline South Associates’) after daring to challenge Islamic fundamentalists who were harassing her work colleague.

She is now suing for unfair dismissal, on the grounds of religious discrimination. Over the months, she has apparently been told that she would ‘go to Hell’ for being a Christian; that Jesus is ‘shitty’; that ‘the Jews were responsible for the September 11th terror attacks’; and she has seen a friend reduced to tears after being bullied for wearing a cross. This intimidation has allegedly been at the hands of Muslim employees, one of whom brought in a copy of the Qur’an and ‘extremist leaflets’ and insisted that Mrs Halawi read them.

However, instead of the behaviour of these Muslims being investigated under the company's disciplinary proceedings, they ganged together and brought a complaint against Mrs Halawi. They said she was ‘anti-Islamic’, and so she who summarily dismissed by David Tunnicliffe, the trading manager at World Duty Free. She says: "I have been sacked on the basis of unsubstantiated complaints so there is now great fear amongst my former colleagues that the same could happen to them if one of the Muslims turns on them. This is supposed to be a Christian country, but the law seems to be on the side of the Muslims."

Mrs Halawi says she was targeted by the fundamentalists after she stood up for her 62-year-old friend (whom she is keeping anonymous because she still works at the terminal). The Telegraph has Mrs Halawi’s account of her ‘anti-Islamism’ and her subsequent treatment:
The row had stemmed from her description of a Muslim colleague as an allawhi, which means 'man of God' in Arabic. Another Muslim overheard this and thought she said Alawi, which was his branch of Islam.

Following the complaints she was suspended immediately, but was not told the grounds for her suspension until she met Mr Tunnicliffe in July.

Two days after the meeting she received a letter, which said the "store approval" - the Heathrow security pass - needed to work at World Duty Free was being removed because her behaviour was deemed to be unacceptable.

"I believe that the breakdown in relationship between yourself and some of your colleagues has contributed to this situation and has led to a number of inappropriate conversations taking place," the letter said.

"Whilst I do not believe that you may have meant to be offensive, I believe that it was not unreasonable for the individuals who either heard these comments, or who they were directed at to find them offensive, and they are extremely inappropriate."
A petition was circulated and signed by 28 of her colleagues, some of them Muslims, insisting that she has been dismissed on the basis of ‘malicious lies’. It evidently failed to win over Mr Tunnicliffe.

Enter Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, and the redoubtable Paul Diamond, arch defender of persecuted Christians, who are intent on bringing Mrs Halawi’s case to an Employment Tribunal.

His Grace has a problem with this. Actually, he has quite a few.

Firstly, these Muslims are allegedly ‘fundamentalist’. It would take a quranically-illiterate and islamically-ignorant ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ to refer to their prophet Isa (Jesus) as ‘shitty’. Very many Muslims – fundamentalist or not – would object to such abuse of one of their major prophets.

Secondly, it is a strange kind of ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ who chooses to work in an airport Duty Free, flogging cheap booze (haram) to the kuffar.

Thirdly, it’s an even stranger ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ who would bring a copy of the Holy Qur’an to work and put it into the unwashed hands of a filthy kafir.

Fourthly, Mrs Halawi’s account of her conversation is strange. Was she discussing her own name? If so, why would any misunderstanding cause any offence? Her name is certainly Arabic, so it is likely that either she or her forebears are converts from Islam. Is this why she has been singled out by the ‘Muslim fundamentalists’?

Fifthly, it really is not clear to His Grace that any of the phrases used by these alleged fundamentalists may constitute an offence. Very many Muslims believe the Jews perpetrated the September 11th atrocities. They are quite mad, but they ought to be free to articulate such views. The belief that Christians will ‘go to Hell’ is nothing but Islamic orthodoxy. Again, they should be free to express such a view. That Jesus is ‘shitty’ is certainly offensive to Christians, but it is merely the vocalisation of the manner in which He is invariably treated by sundry media. And as for being bullied for wearing a cross... well, didn’t the Lord warn of such treatment at the hands of the non-believer? Should we not rejoice?

Sixthly, the account says Mrs Halawi was ‘summarily fired’. This, of course, would be illegal in the UK except in cases of gross misconduct: the law protects employees from unfair dismissal, and her employer has a statutory obligation to ensure that their disciplinary and grievance procedures are up-to-date and in accordance with employment law.

But digging a bit deeper, it transpires that Ms Halawi is not and has never been employed by Autogrill Retail UK Limited (aka ‘World Duty Free’ or ‘Caroline South Associates’) at Terminal 3. She is apparently a part-time, freelance contractor in the Terminal’s Duty Free, and she sells perfumes and other goods on a commission only basis.

The fact that she is part-time is immaterial: under EU law they have every protection and benefit as full-time employees. But the fact that she was a self-employed contractor does rather alter things. Autogrill Retail UK Limited (aka ‘World Duty Free’ or ‘Caroline South Associates’) are able to terminate such contracts with impunity, and Mrs Halawi has no employment rights as such because she is not employed. It is difficult to see what Mr Diamond might achieve here, lest all contractors suddenly acquire all the benefits afforded to employees.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mrs Halawi has had her security pass removed by Heathrow Duty Free. How, pray, did she acquire one in the first place if she was not an employee? Surely, if she were not an employee, neither are the ‘Muslim fundamentalists’ with whom she worked. Are we to believe – in this age of constant threats of terror – that Islamist extremists possess security passes at the UK’s principal airport and they have no contract of employment with the company which arranged it? What security checks are carried out on non-employees?

Whilst acknowledging that Muslims and Christians are not infrequently treated differently by employers, the Christian Legal Centre and barrister Paul Diamond are gaining something of a reputation for generating an awful lot of media heat, but ultimately losing the case. Judges can only be persuaded when there is a sound basis in law for a case being brought. It would come as no surprise if this case were to be summarily struck out by the Employment Tribunal. That is not to excuse or minimise any injustice Mrs Halawi may have experienced. But one cannot help feeling that such cases are increasingly being brought not to win, but simply to have one's day in court and thereby generate an awful lot of publicity.

To which His Grace is more than happy to contribute.


Blogger David B said...

Yet again I find Your Grace's comments more wise than those of many of his commenters.

I remember a few people jumping on me here a week or two ago for saying, about one such case, that a particular Christin had been treated abominably, if what had been reported was all there was to the the story.

Many of these cases of alleged persecution of Christians are much less clear cut when all the facts emerge.

Which tends to diminish the impact of cases where the Christian concerned does have a genuine grievance.

David B

28 November 2011 at 10:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

My company discourages talk of religion or politics at work as they are 'hot topics' and has a policy in place to deal with undesirable behaviour at work, such as proselytising. It's just common sense for everybody to adopt an appropriate workplace role in the workplace and behave accordingly.

28 November 2011 at 10:50  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

"Her name is certainly Arabic, so it is likely that either she or her forebears are converts from Islam."

Oh, and none of the peoples of the Levant were Christian before Islam was invented?

28 November 2011 at 10:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I too have had some reservations regarding to the publicity that some of these cases have achieved. It appears to me that some individuals have not been wise in their life choices.
In a different case, to enter in to a course of training that clearly is going to cause a problem with faith issues is not wise. To complain about treatment when they refuse to do what they voluntarily trained for is beyond credulity. Whereas a registrar who’s working arrangement is changed to include something they believe abhorrent, should have the right to make a voluntary arrangement with her colleagues to avoid doing that which offends her.
Altogether as much as I despise the secular society, they have challenged the facts of a number of cases. As you say your Grace, if we want clarity of voice, we should not trump the indefensible.
It was said “Preach the Gospel always, and if necessary, use words." attributed to Francis of Assisi, but not confirmed. In other words we must let our light shine so that others may see the hope that is within us. A song that I know has the line “you may be the only Jesus that some will see today”.
Clearly it is not necessary to get involved in intensive arguments. If our light shines then those who want to know will approach us to seek the source of the light. But Christians, be wise in all that you say and do.

28 November 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Are we to believe – in this age of constant threats of terror – that Islamist extremists possess security passes at the UK’s principal airport and they have no contract of employment with the company which arranged it? What security checks are carried out on non-employees?

The same checks carried out on Luton Airport baggage handlers perhaps?

You have an awful lot of faith in our airport security system, Your Grace.

28 November 2011 at 11:50  
Blogger Preacher said...

Certainly a tangled skein that needs further investigation to reveal the truth of thr matter.
Surely Companies should have an unbiased commitee that could call all the parties together, review the evidence then reach a just & acceptable solution without resorting to the time & expense of litigation.
I specify Companies because all the parties are available as witnesses. Whereas the cases that arise between individuals will probably be more difficult to resolve justly & therefore require the services of a court.

28 November 2011 at 11:51  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Preacher - you say companies should have "committees" - how Stalinist.

And unbiased? - have you ever been on a committee?

The solution for any non-muslim is to only work in organisations where there are none I'm afraid.

28 November 2011 at 12:13  
Blogger Preacher said...

Nowhere Man.
Well I've been called a lot of things, but a Stalinist is a first.
You can call it a commitee or a Board or anything you like, but my point is that when one man who is often far removed from the issue & too busy to investigate is called on to make a decision, there is a far greater chance of injustice to one or other of the parties.
For centuries it has been the norm for a counsel to weigh the evidence & deliver a verdict. That is why courts have a bench rather than an individual to decide on a case.
I take your point about trying to find an unbiased group, but surely the same applies to any court in the world.
Resort to litigation always proves expensive & time consuming. Which the taxpayer usually picks up the tab for & often the only winners are the lawyers & barristers involved. Equally everybody has a right to present their case & seek justice.
Oh for a perfect world!.

Have a good day.

28 November 2011 at 12:46  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 November 2011 at 12:59  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

DanJ0 said ...

"It's just common sense for everybody to adopt an appropriate workplace role in the workplace and behave accordingly."

Is it? You mean don't talk about the things in life that really matter? Don't think so!

I quite happily share my views if asked and have never had any problems to date. Mind you, Scotland has not got many Muslims at present. We do have other 'disadvantaged' groups though. For example, I was 'asked' to use the terms 'gay', 'lesbian' and 'bi-sexual' instead of homosexual, refused and waited .... nothing happened. Is it an offensive term?

This is a complicated tale indeed. Surely the alleged fundamentalists should also have been disciplined? And just why did she have her pass withdrawn, effectively ending her self-eployment? It's not at all clear.

28 November 2011 at 13:04  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Cranmer, I agree with your contention that there is often more to these cases than meets the eye ... but that is true of pretty much everything reported in the press.

However, on your contentions about what might constitute the behaviour of muslims I fear you are very very wide of the mark. Many muslims are muslim in the same sense that 72% of the population of this country are Christian - though their knowledge of their own cultural religion is far greater. They drink, they smoke, they groom young kaffir girls for sex, they deal in drugs. They would have no problem in using some of the words or behaviour described - especially directed at someone who they might consider an apostate.

Nor do I doubt that the employers would (as they see it) "err on the side of caution" if there was any perceived offence towards 'a minority' rather than going through the due process making a decision based on looking at the available evidence.

28 November 2011 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, why should companies have to waste time and money arbitrating between people too thick or too full of their sense of entitlement to behave properly and reasonably at work? I'd have had everyone in the office, waved the policy at them, and explained the disciplinary procedure leading to the sack if further incidents occur. There are plenty of people out there who want the job and know how to behave in the workplace.

28 November 2011 at 13:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 13:36
Companies used to have personnel departments with enough staff in to be able to have looked into this before it got out of hand. Now they are Human Resources departments where minimal staff are only interested in the resource a human provides. They don't have pastoral duties enabling the employees to bond and get along and form a team as its easier for the employer to use self employed where they can get rid if they misbehave and install another self employed sucker who will not dare utter anything contrary. It's all down to cost so they might as well employ robots!

28 November 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Yesterday, it was ‘What’s all this fuss about halal slaughter?’ Today, it’s ‘Who would take the word of a Christian against Muslims?’ Tomorrow, it will be ‘We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and the Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.’

28 November 2011 at 14:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm confused by your final sentence, Your Grace. Are you posting this to point out the odd bits about this case, or re-posting a story to contribute to publicity for people who aren't necessarily behaving as well as they ought?

Or is it merely to pre-empt the charge that you're making it worth their while?

Either way, an interesting post!

28 November 2011 at 14:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


My company discourages talk of religion or politics at work as they are 'hot topics' and has a policy in place to deal with undesirable behaviour at work, such as proselytising.

Do you think during the run-up to and aftermath of the 2008 Presidential Election you could have actually stopped people from talking about politics in the work place? I was at work the morning the Towers fell. Do you think the hot-button topics of war and religion were avoided that day when everyone was huddled around internet feeds of CNN and Fox News? When I once discussed at work the vagaries of 'race' with a black woman -an activity my company actively encouraged through its diversity training program - would I have violated your policy? Heck, your rules might even prohibit discussion of sporting events seeing as how sports are a religion to certain people.

The fact of the matter is that Dodo is right in this matter. You would arbitrarily prohibit people from talking at work about anything that is actually important. But it's actually worse than that. In fact, you know it's a vain hope because so much of what people actually talk about touches on their worldview. Virtually any subject can become a 'hot button.' What you would end up suppressing is any viewpoint that violates some arbitrary boundary of acceptability. There is no way such a rule could be enforced equitably. It would always be enforced in the service of an agenda.

As strange as it may seem, people with divergent worldviews can actually 1) argue about their differences and 2) still work together quite productively. I do it all the time.


28 November 2011 at 14:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl, it's not my policy at all. I work for a blue chip company and this is boilerplate stuff in the UK. I worked for an American corporate from the UK a few years ago and it was pretty much the same there. When people are bringing in copies of the Qur'an to work to wave at people and there are arguments on work premises between employees about how shitty Jesus is, something has gone very wrong in terms of people management there. Isn't that patently obvious?

28 November 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

It's that word 'stridency' again.

I've had many a work-place discussion pertaining religion; but 'personal faith' is, as we say in Northumberland, a 'kittle' business, best left at home, and not paraded overtly.

These subtle social naunces are understood, by and large, by most us brought up within the general, time-served, British tradition; and there folks, lies the rub.

28 November 2011 at 17:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "They don't have pastoral duties enabling the employees to bond and get along and form a team [...]"

Pastoral care (in the loosest sense of the word) is performed by line managers where I work. Human Resources departments are basically there, as far as I can see, to monitor changes in employment law in order to prevent the Company being sued. It's a fool who goes to HR to make a complaint in my opinion as it often very quick escalates and there may be counter claims too and possibly an unexpected result. An informal chat to the line manager when there are problems is surely the best way to go at first, and he or she should then have 'a quiet word' in private with everyone concerned with a view to defusing the situation.

28 November 2011 at 17:58  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

I take your point but nowadays Christianity is very much on the 'back foot'. It's gone too private because of the secular-atheist climate.

Isn't it encumbant on those who believe in the Christian Gospel to give their perspective on a situation? I agree we shouldn't go on a soap box and wave the bible about or openly insult another's faith or their person.

However, for example, my Roman Catholic faith is regarded by many as holding 'offensive' views about women and homosexuals. Am I not entitled to challenge the new emerging 'orthodoxy'? I should also add that if I took personal 'offense' at every anti-Christian view expressed or every time my beliefs were called 'sexist' or a 'homophobic' I would be forever claiming 'discrimination'.

This situation appears to have been of a different order and, as you suggest, many have something to do with our cultural rules of proper conduct given the parties involved. Sounds like a little bit of the middle east arrived at the airport!

28 November 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector, who enjoys a muslim free working environment, often wonders what would happen if one was employed and they objected to the floors two fridges. You see, he goes for a walk at lunchtime and oft buys his evening infidel meat, which will be kept temporarily in one of the fridges.

28 November 2011 at 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Am I not entitled to challenge the new emerging 'orthodoxy'?"

Not in many workplaces, I imagine, but knock yourself out in the street, or pub, etc. But you know that tight, fixed smile and the slightly panicky eyes that people get when you do it? They're thinking: "ohoh, religious nutter" you know.

28 November 2011 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector has a question, and probably Mr Rottenborough is the best equipped to answer it, if he’s around...

Is there anything in the Koran to stop a muslim bearing false witness. Or is it a case of that’s allowable if the victim is a kaffir, a bit like their attitude to murder.

28 November 2011 at 18:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG—Muslims are allowed to lie if it brings about a greater good. 16:106 of the Qur’an says: ‘Those who are forced to recant while their hearts remain loyal to the faith shall be absolved’, and one of the standard works of Sunni Islamic law says: ‘When it is possible to achieve [a praiseworthy] aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.’

28 November 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thank you Mr R. Your invaluable knowledge has shown that depriving a kaffir of their income is presumably a just cause, if that is what actually happened....

28 November 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 18.51, you're not suggesting that Muslims woud deliberately lie in order to expel Christians from their workplace, are you?

And yes, Mr Gnostic, most airport hand luggage screening seems to be done by Pakistanis and Somalis commanded by a Bosnian. This communicant got to know a very slick Turkish hire car fleet operator who recruited through the mosque. No doubt this is standard practice in many semi-skilled areas of employment in loca;ities with high Muslim populations.

28 November 2011 at 20:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (19:57)—Islam divides the world into Muslim and non-Muslim, and anything that disadvantages non-Muslims is a just cause. It’s ‘us against them’ writ large.

28 November 2011 at 20:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Certainly no point in believing them when they swear on their holy book then !

28 November 2011 at 20:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. It appears ‘Johnny Islam’ can’t be trusted, you know...

28 November 2011 at 20:43  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

The questions you raise about matters of fact are sound ones, that need answers. Some of this does sound strange, I agree. We need to be aware of the wickedness of the world.

Not sure about the knocking of the Christian Legal Centre, whose work is largely thankless, funded only by the public, and abundantly necessary as you yourself have shown.

28 November 2011 at 20:54  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Mr Rottenborough said ...
" ... one of the standard works of Sunni Islamic law Islamic law says ..."

The actual source would be useful as would some clafification as to whether Shi'ite Muslims are so instructed. The earlier quote from the Koran relates to recanting one's faith, notlying under oath.

28 November 2011 at 21:19  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Mr Rottenborough
I found the source - wonders of Google.

"Taqiyah" (lying) is sanctioned by the Sunni Muslim medieval theologian, Abu Hāmed Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazzālī.

Reliance of the Traveler, quotes Ghazzali as follows:

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish it through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible..., and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory. ...One should compare the bad consequences entailed by lying to those entailed by telling the truth, and if the consequences of telling the truth are more damaging, one is entitled to lie…

It it is possible to excuse lying on any ground consistent, for example, with obligatory spread of the Muslim faith.

This practice raises obvious political and social issues. It appears impossible to trust the word of a Muslim if the practice of "Taqiyah" (lying) is accepted.


28 November 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DGW (21:19)—The source is Reliance of the Traveller in the translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, section r8.2. The verse establishes the principle that deception is lawful under certain circumstances. The principle of deception, taqiyyah, was developed by Shi’ites.

28 November 2011 at 21:35  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DGW (21:19 and 21:32)—My reply didn’t appear on the thread but you seem to have found most of the information anyway. In the hope that this will appear, I quoted from section r8.2 of Reliance of the Traveller in the translation by Nuh Ha Mim Keller and, answering your point about Shi’ites, I said that the principle of deception was developed by them.

28 November 2011 at 21:54  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Inspector @ 20.43, the Turks see themselves as 'Mehmets'. 'Johnny' may do for foreigners in general but could be an addition of insult to injury to the ummah. Although the Turks do seem happy to adopt fake Christian names to blend in. Then they can pass as Greeks...

28 November 2011 at 22:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you for this. I am afraid I instinctively feel the need to have a root around make some investigations when I hear the Christian Legal Centre is getting involved in a case of supposed ‘persecution’. Moreover, your comment on the ‘shitty Jesus’ comment is sound. I have spent time with Salafi and Hizb ut Tahrir Muslims – both groups exhibit pretty ‘Fundamentalist’ - or perhaps ‘literal’ interpretations of Islam and yet whenever they use the name Jesus, it is usually followed by ‘Peace be Upon Him’ as they would say after mentioning the name Mohammed. So I am in no doubt there is more to this story than meets the eye.

What I find particularly sad, looking at some of the comments above, is the fact that Islam and Muslims are seen as one monolithic whole (given more Muslims have been killed by fellow Muslims than by kuffar I think it is safe to say there is no such thing as ‘one’ Islam (Tawid – if we want to show off our Arabic!)). If we get a room full of Christians together, it soon becomes obvious that there are many variants on just what we call ‘Christian’ – and it is the same with Islam. Alas, the human desire to place ‘the other’ into monolithic wholes, is part of the process of removing the humanity from a given group or people or society; thus making oppression and persecution all the easier (kuffar, gay, Jew, Christian/Muslim Fundamentalist etc. are all examples of this nasty desire to dehumanise...).

In this case, His Grace, rightly reserves judgement... As with many of the ‘professional’ martyrdom cases of late, I am sure there is much more to this case than religious persecution.

Peter Denshaw

29 November 2011 at 01:14  
Blogger Oswin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 November 2011 at 02:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This thing about lying sounds terrible but it's really quite similar to the way most people, Christians included, would morally reason in some situations.

For instance, if Tudor soldiers were ransacking a Catholic house looking for a renegade priest then it wouldn't seem morally right in some light for the Catholic residents to point out the priest-hole when asked rather than lie.

The primary problem seems to be the elevation of religious aims to the status of moral goods such that they can be compared and thought to take precedence over other widely accepted ethics and goods.

29 November 2011 at 03:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Or rather, it's the fact that various people claim different sets of moral absolutes and try to use gods to give them authority.

29 November 2011 at 03:42  
Blogger Mme Scherzo said...

Your grace, the woman has no concept of true persecution in a free and democratic society until she's been wrung through the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

There is a hopeful flicker of light at the end of this twisted tunnel, however. The Canadian HRCs are in process of being shut down. Godspeed and good riddance.

29 November 2011 at 05:56  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I understand that some of the "agencies" at Theifrow - NOT the Airport people themseleves (though they SHOULD be keeping an eye on such things, and are not) have some dubious emplyees.
I also understand that a regular-flying jewish business man is lodging formal complaint, because the followers of another equally deluded religion are picking on him for "security searches" every time he goes through.
As an atheist I find this sort of thing really disgusting - it only compounds the insanity.

I agree it has to stop.

29 November 2011 at 09:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bluedog. 'Mehmet'.? It’s taken the Inspector twenty years to politely refer to them as ‘Johnnies’ !

Peter Denshaw. Really can’t think of any other group that deserves ‘de-humanising’ as much as this crowd. Wouldn’t be ‘particularly sad’ about it either. Might have something to do with the ‘dehumanising’ atrocities these people commit on what is probably a daily basis. Anyway, we may have to deal with them on a local ground one day, so it’s better they are seen that way…

DanJ0. Are you being deliberately obtuse? We are talking about bearing false witness.

29 November 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Mme Scherzo said,
Your grace, the woman has no concept of true persecution in a free and democratic society until she's been wrung through the Canadian Human Rights Commission....There is a hopeful flicker of light at the end of this twisted tunnel, however. The Canadian HRCs are in process of being shut down.

I'm a Torontonian and had no idea; only last week I wondered if PM Harper will finally shut down these kangaroo courts. Now if those who were put through the HRC wringer would be comensated, from the fat pension plans of the bureacratic ciphers who ran them, we'd approximate justice. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll be looking this up!

29 November 2011 at 19:02  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

To be fair to him (this once) DnJ0 has raised a valid point and it is covered by Catholic teaching.

Catholic teaching holds it is never okay to tell a lie, not even to save a human life. A lie is something intrinsically evil, and as evil may not be done that good may come of it. We are never allowed to tell a lie.

What to do when there is a conflict between justice and veracity? Clearly it is justice that should prevail - but how without lying?

Catholic teaching has formulated the theory of general or wide mental reservation as a means to hold to both together justice and veracity.

Google it - it is worth a read. There are moral limits to it and it can only properly be applied in certain circumstances and situations.

Most certainly it never applies to bearing false witness or acting in unjustice ways or to unjust ends.

29 November 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. DanJ0 gave the example of Elizabethan forces seeking out Catholic priests hiding in a priest hole. You know very well that you would have lied to protect them. As for we are never allowed to tell a lie, are there not venal and serious lies / sins ? And a lie need not be ‘intrinsically evil’ such as when a fat woman asks “Does my arse look big in this” and you are waiting to go. Go on, admit you are not entirely right on this occasion. (Inspector speak for you were wrong, son). False witness is entirely different...

29 November 2011 at 22:54  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

You haven't Googled it, have you? Lazy man.

Lying is, according to Catholic teaching, intrinsically evil - no qualification.

The answer to the dilemma posed by DanJ0 can be found in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Such expressions as "He is not at home" were called equivocations, or amphibologies, and when there was good reason for using them their lawfulness was admitted by all. If the person inquired for was really at home, but did not wish to see the visitor, the meaning of the phrase "He is not at home" was restricted by the mind of the speaker to this sense, "He is not at home for you, or to see you." Hence equivocations and amphibologies came to be called mental restrictions or reservations. It was commonly admitted that an equivocal expression need not necessarily be used when the words of the speaker receive a special meaning from the circumstances in which he is placed, or from the position which he holds. Thus, if a confessor is asked about sins made known to him in confession, he should answer "I do not know," and such words as those when used by a priest mean "I do not know apart from confession," or "I do not know as man," or "I have no knowledge of the matter which I can communicate.""

So you can 'truthfully say to the lady with the fat arse "No your arse does not look big in those pants" - with the mental reservation "that's because you have a fat arse in the pants or not".

Get it?

30 November 2011 at 00:22  
Blogger Dodo's Gay Way said...

Remember the circumstances are limited to those where justice and veracity conflict.

That's why the oath in Court requires one to: Tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" and where our morality differs fundamentally from that of Islam.

30 November 2011 at 00:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. 30 November 2011 00:22. Talk about deviousness and smoke and mirrors. Rather think I’ll stick to ‘honest’ lying with my fingers crossed !!

Interestingly, other than the false witness bit, ‘thou shalt not lie' is not one of the ten. A case could be argued that it is a legitimate defence strategy for every human...

30 November 2011 at 17:42  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...


There are lots of things not listed in the ten commandments. The root of bearing false witness is wilfull untruths with malign intent, agreed. However, lying cannot be justified according to moral theologians - hence the 'smoke and mirrors' of 'mental reserve' provided the correct grounds exist - a conflict between telling the truth and justice.

Interesting. crossing ones fingers is indicative of 'mental reserve'.

30 November 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Still going for A case could be argued that it is a legitimate defence strategy for every human.... But don’t worry – the Inspector ISN’T going to make the argument. Life to live you know, and we’re only here for three score and ten, what !

30 November 2011 at 21:29  
Blogger Dodo's Gray Way said...

I wouldn't necessarily disagree that it could be a legitimate defence strategy for human beings. It is contingent on the situation and the nature of the cause prompting the mental reservation,or crossingof one's fingers - that's the point.

Anyway, 'nuff said.

30 November 2011 at 21:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Office of Inspector General

“Really can’t think of any other group that deserves ‘de-humanising’ as much as this crowd. Wouldn’t be ‘particularly sad’ about it either. Might have something to do with the ‘dehumanising’ atrocities these people commit on what is probably a daily basis. Anyway, we may have to deal with them on a local ground one day, so it’s better they are seen that way…”

The road to Auschwitz was paved with such thinking...

Peter Denshaw

1 December 2011 at 15:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter Denshaw. 1 December 2011 15:02 .The road to Auschwitz was paved with such thinking...

The Inspector stands by his every word. He also points out that we and our neighbours live in Christian democracies. Muslims tend not to do democracy as such - but there are some Islamic countries giving it a try, and good luck to them. Democracy is a somewhat dirty word to Johnny Islam, because it leads to unacceptable practices like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of thought. The Inspector leaves it to you then to consider which side sets up the next Auschwitz - us or them…

1 December 2011 at 18:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Inspector,you are standing on very shaky soil if you you are claiming the' moral high ground.'
History proves you wrong.

2 December 2011 at 00:22  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

WHICH muslims "don't do democracy very much"?
The Sunni, the Shi'a, the Ismaili, the Sufi ...
Do tell?

If you mean the Islamists - I would agree with you.
But remember that muslims, in general are as diverse, and as loopy, as the christians

2 December 2011 at 09:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older