|
Rather than start a new thread I think this news article fits appropiately in this one. It concerns refusal to carry working dogs for the blind in Australia where refusal is also an offence.
............................................
DOGS might be man's best friend - but it seems the adage doesn't apply to Muslim taxi drivers.
In fact, far from wanting them around, it seems a disturbing number refuse to carry them as passengers - even when they're fulfilling their role as an aid to the blind.
Earlier this week it was revealed that at least 20 dog-aided blind people had lodged discrimination complaints with the Victorian Taxi Directorate, while dozens of others had voiced their anger with the regulatory body.
In the wake of that report, Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the mufti of Melbourne had been approached in a bid to give religious approval for Islamic cab drivers to carry the dogs, seen as unclean in Islamic law.
One cab driver, discussing the difficulty of reconciling what he had been taught with the demands of his job, said: "I don't refuse to take people, but it's hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs.''
But the problem is by no means unique to Australia. UK minicab driver Abdul Rasheed Majekodumni was recently booked to drive Jane Vernon home after she appeared on the BBC news but the west London cabbie refused the fare because coming into close contact with a dog was against his Islamic faith.
Majekodumni told the 39-year-old - who is a legal officer for the UK's Royal National Institute for the Blind - that he would take her home but would not carry her guide dog because of the restrictions imposed by his faith.
"I was tired and cold and just wanted to get home but this driver made me feel like a second-class citizen, like I didn't count at all'' Vernon told the UK's Daily Mail.
She said complaints to the taxi firm were greeted with suggestions that she should show more respect for other people's culture.
Majekodumni, 43, was fined $3000 after being convicted for breaching laws under the Disability Discrimination Act.
Michael Simpson from Vision Australia said the problem was not uncommon. "Most of the time, once it's pointed out to people that it's unlawful, they are generally OK about it but it's complicated when it's a cultural or religious case,'' he said.
Islamic Friendship Association president Keysar Trad said, while dogs are considered unhygienic, the feelings of humans must come first.
Trad said even though Islam considered dogs unclean, they were permitted provided they were kept for a "good reason''.
"They can be hunting dogs, guard dogs, guide dogs or sheep dogs. But not just as a pet,'' he said.
.....................................................
Readers comments.
It seems that 'Outraged of Manly' and 'Sam of North Sydney' have a selective view of Anti Discrimination Laws. It is OK for a Taxi Driver of Islamic Faith to refuse a fare to a blind person and heir guide dog, but all of a sudden it is 'allegedly' an attack upon Muslims. The Opinion piece quite clearly stated that some drivers who have their intepretation of their teachings, would rather abide by their teachings as if they live in a theocracy not in a society where the rule of law applies. I am quite sure that other taxi drivers who are not Islamic have refused fares to the blind with their guide dogs. However the point of the article is to illustrate the fact that regardless of our secular Government and the rule of law, some people chose to disregard the law and abide by their religious teachings. That is the point of the piece, not an Islam bashing exercise. You want multiculturalism then you've got it...the good and the bad!
Posted by: Grant of Sydney 3:49pm October 12, 2006
.....................................................
Forget about whether the taxi drivers are muslim - they could be christian, hindu, buddhist or even a trekkie - the fact remains that it is unlawful to refuse to carry a vision aid dog....... if a taxi driver does refuse to do so then they should be sacked regardless of their religion!!!
Posted by: Jo of nsw 3:48pm October 12, 2006
....................................................
I agree with sam, why is it that people just try and find something to hit the muslims. its just a hand ful of idiots who need to be taught a lesson. islam is not against normal day to day things, in fact its not against dogs at all. True they're unclean, however all nations agree to that. Just because a handful are against it doesnt mean the entire muslim nation is. Why cant people try and understand muslims, why not go up to a muslim and ask him/her about their religion. Youll be suprised at wat you will find. A human being! dont be intimidated by the media, who only highlight the negativity of everything. Islam is REALLY peaceful and understanding!!!
Posted by: Abdul of Bankstown 3:35pm October 12, 2006
................................................
All I can say, I feel much happier now - and so much safer, I have two BIG DOGS and have wondered why these people were so scared of them. So glad my dogs can't read this article, as they would be so offended by this Lillian character calling them dirty and unclean. What a load of rubbish!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Monica Galea of Sydney 3:34pm October 12, 2006
........................................
How Darren Hodges can draw a comparison between refusing to take dogs in your cab and sharia law defies logic. Note how the Xenophobes all choose to ignore the fact that not one Muslim quoted in the article said we shouldn't take dogs. Keep beating it up people.
Posted by: Steve Tanner of sydney 3:22pm October 12, 2006
...........................................
This is an example of Muslims attempting to impose Shari'a law on the infidels. It is unlawful for a taxi to refuse taking a blind person and their guide dog, by refusing, they are elevating their 7th Century law above those of 21st Century Australia, in doing so, Islam should no longer be protected by article 116 of the Australian constitution, since it seeks to usurp Australian law, therefore Islam should be outlawed.
Posted by: Darrin Hodges of Sydney, 2:45pm October 12, 2006
..............................................
What is the point of this article? Sounds like some of the dribble which is usually printed by Piers? His new prot'ege' perhaps? How is this an "opinion"? Seems more like just another cheap shot at the muslim population. Given the authors background its also insulting that she does not offer anything constructive, rather we are offered just one more example of how a few idiots ruin it for the rest of the true muslims out there. You quote ".. a disturbing number refuse to carry them as passengers". A disturbing number? 20 complaints were made but you never once mention the number of drivers these complaints were actually directed at. Again, what is your point? It's bad enough when we have right wing neo-cons like Piers fanning the flames, its down right insulting when we have a "fellow arab" do the same - they must pay well at the telegraph? Unfortunate that we have a handful of morons out there carrying on like this but the solution is simple - fine them and cancel their licence if they repeat the offence! Easy! If the telegraph ran a poll on this I'm sure nearly all muslims would vote in favour of this. Its true a small minority misinterpret the true meaning of Islam, but please dont jump on the Piers bandwagon and add to the problem, Lillian. Piers must be checking everything that gets printed at the telegraph these days.
Posted by: Sam of North Sydney 2:33pm October 12, 2006
....................................
I am disgusted with the Daily Telegraph. Firstly, although your article says 20 complaints have been made, it doesn't say if any of them were made specifically against Muslim taxi drivers. Is that because in reality only a small proportion of them were made against Muslims and the rest were against driver who just don't want dogs in the cabs? Secondly, some of the 20 comments which I have just read commenting on this article are extremely offensive and in some cases offensive. Is no one monitoring these comments? I believe the Telegraph could be legally liable for publishing these hateful statements. I am writing specially about: David of Melbourne, Graham of Sydney, MArtin McDermott, Kevin Graeme and Karen of Sydney. YOu people should be ashamed of yourselves for those bigoted, rightwing reactionary rubbish. I hope none of you have procreated because the sooner you all die off the better.
Posted by: Outraged of Manly NSW 2:23pm October 12, 2006
...........................................
Here we go again, first they were against the Pope, now its dogs..what next!!!! They may want to take revenge on all our dogs now,like they did with buring the catholic churches, so dog lovers beware..Muslims may be after them next..
Posted by: Caroline of 2:02pm October 12, 2006
.....................................................
|
Login
Register
FAQ
