Off the buses

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on March 6th, 2018 at 12:31 am

“Why stop with alcohol?” mused Daniel Pipes recently, in a piece on Minneapolis taxi drivers who reject booze-carrying passengers. “Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals, and unmarried couples.” Bus conductors, Pipes warned, might follow suit. So now we have this, also from Minneapolis:

A city bus driver who complained about a gay-themed ad got official permission not to drive any bus that carries that ad, according to an internal memo confirmed Tuesday by Metro Transit.

Transit authorities call it a reasonable accommodation to the driver’s religious beliefs.

The driver’s religion has not been disclosed; Presbyterian, possibly. Transport unionists oppose the decision:

“Our union tries to represent all diversity – whether it be religion, cultural, race, sexual orientation, any of that,” [Michelle Sommers, Local 1005 president] said. “And if you start saying this or that ad is inappropriate, you’re offending other people, and that can create a difficult environment for people to work in.

“We have Muslim employees,” she said. “Now if there’s an ad for alcohol on the side of a bus, should Muslim employees be allowed to not drive that bus? And is the next step that mechanics don’t have to work on the bus?”

Michelle gets it. Meanwhile, in Britain:

Police in Manchester have been told not to arrest Muslims wanted on warrants at prayer times during the holy month of Ramadan.

And in Paris, an association of French gynecologists and obstetricians has described the September attack on a male gynecologist by the husband of a Muslim patient as an example of Islamic fundamentalism:

The statement by the CNGOF professional association mentioned a similar incident that occurred in a Paris-region hospital in 2003.

In both attacks, gynecologists were “physically attacked and injured by the husbands of patients on the grounds that as male doctors they should not examine their wives,” the statement said …

“Are male gynecologists and obstetricians going to have to be protected by the police from now on when they do their job?” the statement asked. “Will they have to go into hiding like philosophy teachers?”

On that last point, I’m a little ambivalent.

Posted by Tim B. on 10/22/2006 at 12:43 PM
    1. Better the woman should die than her husband’s “honor” besmirched.  So the philosophy that sent those girls back into a burning building in Saudi Arabia has come to Europe. The reaction should be loud screams of shock and horror instead of head tilting accomodation.
      Why isn’t every western woman up and resisting this? I can’t believe people who wax in a lather over “A Handmaid’s Tale” as a possibility can’t see that for millions of women it’s already a reality. Himmelarschundzwirn!

      Posted by kiwinews on 2006 10 22 at 12:59 PM • permalink


    1. Oh gee whiz.  Ok, let’s bring up Translator.

      In German:

      In English:
      Sky ass and linen thread!

      I will be dwelling on this.  All.  Fucking.  Day.

      Posted by wronwright on 2006 10 22 at 01:16 PM • permalink


    1. Well that’s one occupied & out of trouble.
      Rubs hands & begins looking for basement windows…

      Posted by kiwinews on 2006 10 22 at 01:33 PM • permalink


    1. This business with the OBGY’s reminds me of a story my father told me years ago. The Paco’s, as rural as they are, are related to a even more backcountry clan, which we’ll call the “Clods”. Seems that Emma Clod was the first Clod who ever went to an actual doctor after she got pregnant. The doctor referred her to an obstetrician. She showed up at the office with quite a few misgivings, but when she was called out of the waiting room by the nurse, she summoned her courage and went in. A few minutes later there was a thundering crash, Emma came stomping trough the waiting room and exited the building. The nurse went to see what had happened, and found the doctor spread out on the floor in the hallway. Emma, not at all used to the idea of being probed under her bloomers, had knocked the doctor through the door. My pa swears this is true.

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 22 at 01:46 PM • permalink


    1. I’ve read that in many parts of the Middle East, when a woman has to go to a male doctor, they use dolls so that she can point out which area of her body is bothering her.  The doctor never touches her, merely asks questions, and then must prescribe medication based on what he thinks might be wrong with her.

      This is the world Islamists want to bring us all to.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 22 at 02:28 PM • permalink


    1. I once read a memoir of a doctor who had practiced in Saudi Arabia, in which he told of a prince whose wife was very sick. Impressed with the doctor’s reputation, the prince insisted that the doctor treat his wife. The doctor was ushered into the bedroom; the ailing woman was in bed behind curtains. She put her hand through the curtain. This was all the examination the prince would permit.

      Things don’t seem to have changed much in thirty years.

      Posted by ErnieG on 2006 10 22 at 02:40 PM • permalink


    1. Absotively, kiwinews.  I was sure when I read it that Atwood had just taken Saudi Arabia as her model and put the scary scary Christians as the villains, much as Hollywood uses Nazis to stand in for Islamoterrorists.

      And good work on baffling wronwright!  You should make that a habit!

      Posted by ushie on 2006 10 22 at 02:58 PM • permalink


    1. Actually, I seem to recall something recently by a feminist in a British newspaper in which she asked: why all the silence and complicity with the Islamists by women’s groups?

      Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2006 10 22 at 03:45 PM • permalink


    1. I am offended that women who are both unescorted by a male blood relative and unveiled comment on this blog.

      Please be more sensitive.

      Posted by MuzzieZapper on 2006 10 22 at 04:15 PM • permalink


    1. #5, RebeccaH

      Oh, I doubt the gynaecologists over there mind too much.

      But speaking of examinations, it must be easy to pass their finals!

      Posted by Dminor on 2006 10 22 at 04:54 PM • permalink


    1. “Are male gynecologists and obstetricians going to have to be protected by the police from now on when they do their job?’’ the statement asked. “Will they have to go into hiding like philosophy teachers?’’

      Philosophy teachers can’t do that any more owing to overreaching faculty strictures on sexual harrassment.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2006 10 22 at 05:46 PM • permalink


    1. Rebecca, I had seen chinese ivory models used for that purpose – here’s an URL for a medical antique collection that has one (scroll down):
      This example is 19th century but the practice (and the barbaric philosophy behind it) goes back centuries.

      Ushie, I never can get over how “progressive” thinkers stand around sniffing American religious groups for matches when the World Jihad is a raging conflagration right behind them.  I’ll worry about Pat Robertson when he starts waving a sword in the pulpit screaming out a death list like these guys do right now. Just this afternoon I heard of a case here in Georgia of a man being tried for mutilating his daughter with scissors – the radio announcer was at pains to explain that “female circumcision is traditional in Africa”.  Yeah, well so is ebola, liver flukes & smearing cattle dung in your hair, doesn’t mean we have to import it.
      “Don’t want you to have an abortion” is just not the same as “ensures a lifetime of mutilation and chattlehood”.  What is WITH these people?

      Posted by kiwinews on 2006 10 22 at 06:04 PM • permalink


    1. I’m so glad Michelle gets it. Shame so many others don’t.

      #12 Kiwi
      I looked at the rest of that site.
      How did anyone survive the doctor?

      Posted by kae on 2006 10 22 at 06:14 PM • permalink


    1. Police in Manchester have been told not to arrest Muslims wanted on warrants at prayer times during the holy month of Ramadan.

      It would be insensitive to invade someone’s territory on the holiest day of their calendar.

      You know, like invading Israel on Yom Kippur in 1973.

      The Arabs invaded Israel during Ramadan as well, so I don’t see why the British police couldn’t return the favour.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2006 10 22 at 06:22 PM • permalink


    1. Daniel Pipes left one important sub-group off his Muslim cab ride list. He says homosexuals, unmarried couples, women with exposed arms…. What about the Jews?

      What about refusing to carry Jews…. the next logical step that must happen.

      Posted by Bonmot on 2006 10 22 at 06:22 PM • permalink


    1. Margos Maid this ones for you, I thought you’d like it.

      Well, at least we women can have a good perv and a laugh anyway.

      Girls check this one out. If you have a copy,Good weekend smh oct 21st 2006. It’s a Ralph or Zoo fashion shoot for women.

      Okies, now your flicking to the page, take a look at the full page on right hand side. A little harder. Yes more…. look!

      Take a peek at pool boy’s shorts!! (giggles) Yep, have another look (giggles) You can see his beach balls. I think he might need an Islamic reuters eraser.

      You gotta love the fashion editor. Go the girls. Oh I loved the bikini in the shoot.

      Also, love this …… Sat. night footy: a sign in the crowd.

      “Where’s one eyed Willy?” only aussie and kiwi love could understand this.

      Hi tim tam x

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 22 at 06:30 PM • permalink


    1. oops you’re

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 22 at 06:31 PM • permalink


    1. New ‘grimmy’ species at large
      The head of Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality says the debate over Muslim women wearing full-face veils could spark race riots in the United Kingdom.

      Trevor Phillips says the polarised debate has become “really ugly” and could be the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago. ..only benefiting the far-right and extreme Islamic groups.
      Source: ABC

      How about ‘Racial Equality for Rioters’?
      How about all the Islamic solidarity with the Marching Left?

      Isn’t this evidence that a ban is needed to KEEP the peace?

      Er, What does ‘race’ mean in Britain?

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 10 22 at 06:50 PM • permalink


    1. A city bus driver who complained about a gay-themed ad got official permission not to drive any bus that carries that ad, ..
      Transit authorities call it a reasonable accommodation to the driver’s religious beliefs.

      As a Christian, I can actually see the fairness and logic of this decision, difficult as it might become to implement.  Christians have a moral obligation to ‘do no evil’ and to be consistent while not being legalistic.
      Because Money rules everything in Adland [where we all live], often Christians have to withdraw from jobs rather than compromise their beliefs, and Moslems should too, unless they are accommodated.
      This applies to advertising far more than to refusing to carry drunks, which is a worthy social service.
      Christian newsagents shouldn’t sell porn, and Christian cinema or movie workers can’t condone it either.
      Good religious or ethical practice always has behavioural consequences.

      Posted by Barrie on 2006 10 22 at 07:18 PM • permalink


    1. This is nothing new. I work with an alcoholic lumberjack who refuses to cut down Scotch Pines.  True story, mainly.

      Posted by lumberjack on 2006 10 22 at 07:27 PM • permalink


    1. Unfortunate, but it does seem that the cancerous cult of Islam, is metastasizing and at a quite rapid rate.

      While there is no known cure for cancer, chemotherapy and radiation, or a combination thereof, has helped in it’s remission.

      That could be an answer for this form of the disease. Large doses, but in this case, it must be administered for a prolonged period of time.

      Modern ‘medicine’ at its best.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 10 22 at 07:41 PM • permalink


    1. it’s= its…geez.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 10 22 at 08:00 PM • permalink


    1. It’s easy to foresee a large scale conversion to the religion of peace now that it carries all these extra privileges.

      Why would anyone want to remain a sub-human redneck who can get hauled off to jail any old time and doesn’t get to pick and choose who or what he works with?

      The monnbats are doing the math already.  Watch this space.

      Posted by Big Jim on 2006 10 22 at 08:12 PM • permalink


    1. While we can read in the SMH, the question. Where is the United Kingdom?

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2006 10 22 at 08:19 PM • permalink


    1. Cultural Conquest.

      Give an inch and they’ll take your life.

      Equivocation is the first step along the road to capitulation.

      The only line they’ll respect is the line drawn by force.

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 10 22 at 08:31 PM • permalink


    1. I say give the taxi drivers their “No Alcohol” signs to make it easier for me and all the other potential customers to choose another taxi.  Works for me.

      Posted by lizardflix on 2006 10 22 at 08:59 PM • permalink


    1. Why would anyone want to remain a sub-human redneck who can get hauled off to jail any old time and doesn’t get to pick and choose who or what he works with?

      Beer. Barbeque. Bikinis.

      Women as partners, not slaves.

      Ability to say, “No, I don’t believe that” in re religion without having your throat slit.

      Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 10 22 at 09:06 PM • permalink


    1. #16 1.168

      I’n now madly looking for the SMH mag in the pile of weekend papers littering the coffee table – how adolescent of me!

      As for

      “Where’s one eyed Willy?” only aussie and kiwi love could understand this.

      Missed this one – very clever play with words eh?

      Thank you for the Monday morning laughs!

      Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 10 22 at 10:59 PM • permalink


    1. aussiemagpie

      You have added so much, to this blog…thank you, I really mean that. Love you dear…:).

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 10 22 at 11:02 PM • permalink


    1. I must bid you all, adieu, buonas noches, buona notte, and good night….maybe not as eloquent as MentalFloos, but hey….lol.

      Time to stable my steed.

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 10 22 at 11:06 PM • permalink


    1. MentalFloos, MentalFloss…Ummmm one can see, that i’m damn tired and will soon have these type keys imprinted on my face

      Posted by El Cid on 2006 10 22 at 11:09 PM • permalink


    1. #29 El Cid

      Aww thanks El Cid – no more feeling nervous here for me in the company of such wits 🙂

      Posted by aussiemagpie on 2006 10 22 at 11:11 PM • permalink


    1. #31
      I always thought that was why the terminals used to beep when the cursor got to the end of the line – to wake you up.

      Posted by kae on 2006 10 22 at 11:13 PM • permalink


    1. Ironically enough, French “suburban” “youths” torched a bus today, too, (as I read at LGF).

      Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 22 at 11:15 PM • permalink


    1. 14 Dan Lewis : Yom Kippur war and on and on… and on…. As T.S. Eliot said, Ramadan is the cruelest month.  Most of the biggest battles in the unending bloody struggle to conquer the world for Allah (or something) took place in Ramadan.

      As for terrorist attacks, how’s about…
      Ramadan 98: Algeria…over 1000 killed, including children who were raped and had throats slit
      Ramadan 2000 Yemen… Bombing of USS Cole, attempted attack on second ship
      Ramadan 03 Iraq:  “Ramadan offensive”– International Red Cross office and many police stations attacked
      Ramadan 03 USA: Islamonuts vow to kill 100,000 Americans with an extry special Ramadan attack
      Ramadan 05 Indonesia… three Christian schoolgirls beheaded
      Ramadan 05 India– Islamonuts kill 60 people in New Delhi
      Ramadan 06 Iraq– violence “stepped up” per usual for the holy month…numerous bombings, including of mosques

      Posted by bonjour triteness on 2006 10 22 at 11:22 PM • permalink


    1. Aussie magpie. well, I think it’s his Beach balls in the image. LOL

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 22 at 11:36 PM • permalink


    1. “one eyed willy” was the banner in the footy crowd on Saturday. Aussie vs Kiwi’s

      also, my golf is getting good!!

      smootches to tim tam xx

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 22 at 11:38 PM • permalink


    1. p.s. everyone is missing the point with Islamic gyno’s

      The religion is toxic and would never have thought of women’s anatomy. Therefore the race does not believe in medicine.

      What are the consequences of the west believe this Bull”””:: for the lamb bots?

      Posted by 1.618 on 2006 10 22 at 11:39 PM • permalink


    1. Rob C:  Beer. Barbeque. Bikinis.

      I’m with ya.  But the problem is not everyone shares our good taste.

      What are such humble pleasures against the power trip of turning over Western Civilisation and having the rule of law set aside for you and your croneys?

      Posted by Big Jim on 2006 10 22 at 11:56 PM • permalink


    1. What’s to stop the alcohol or homophobic bus or taxi driver from quitting? “You have the right to not drive an offending vehicle, ergo you have the right to seek employment elsewhere.”

      I know that Arab shopkeepers in Southern California in the 80s had no issues selling cheap booze and hardcore porn to us infidels.

      Posted by Tommy Shanks on 2006 10 23 at 12:43 AM • permalink


    1. I’ve noticed that so many of our societal problems would not be problems except that we have accepted collectivist rationals for treating people as members of a group instead of individuals.

      It is important to remember that the idea behind “the rule of law, not of men” only applies to objective laws, i.e., laws that apply to the individual–every individual equally.  This can only be done when the concept of rights is correctly understood.  Something can only be considered a right when it is based on the sovereignty of the individual; i.e., when the individual owns his own life, and government is formed only to protect his life (and that which makes his life possible–his liberty and property).  That means that no one can possess a legitimate right that infringes on the rights of another.  Therefore, no one has the “right” to a job–when another is forced to provide it.  No one has a “right” to food–when another is forced to provide it.  No one has a “right” to housing–when another is forced to provide it.  No one has a “right” to health care–when another is forced to provide it.  When another individual is forced to provide for others, it is called slavery, whether it is done by an individual or the state.  The United States came closer than any other entity to this ideal.  We’ve traveled far from it now, with our group politics, socialized medicine, minimum wage laws, etc., and politicians who make laws that either force or entice business to come to them for permission to do business, with promises of either government largess or jail.

      Society becomes ruled of by men when collectivism takes over and we end up with different laws for different groups, with politicians playing one off of the other in a vain attempt at “being fair”–a concept that has no objective rules and means only that everybody loses their sovereignty.  Most acquiesce to this particular vice in the hope that theirs will be the group that enjoys just a little more “fairness”.

      If any member of a group doesn’t want to be around any particular thing, they have the right not to be forced to take a job that would require them to do so.  Employers have a right not to hire them in the first place because of some quota applied to that particular group, or to keep someone who refuses to do the job they were hired to do.  If any individual doesn’t wish to be exposed to one thing or the other, he must refrain from putting himself in a position where he might have to do so.  He must confine himself to occupations that will not compromise his religious beliefs.  It isn’t for the rest of us to change, whether it is by being forced to hire such an individual, or by being unable to fire him because he won’t do the job for whatever personal reason.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 10 23 at 01:46 AM • permalink


    1. Probably won’t let you into a cab with vegemite now.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 10 23 at 03:18 AM • permalink


    1. #42, That is one example, yes.  The law against vegemite is arbitrary.  If there were a demonstrable harm, it would have shown up by now.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 10 23 at 04:13 AM • permalink


    1. Muslim men are so insecure, Abduls wife could not get enough of the speculum.  In fact she had a more fulfilling and deeper relationship with the instrument, than Abdul could ever offer her.

      Posted by Howzat on 2006 10 23 at 05:38 AM • permalink


    1. I am surprised that so many of such intelligence and perspicacity should have missed the obvious next step in this little saga.
      We in Oz, and I think many parts of the world, use compulsory breath testing to deter drinking drivers and hence keep the road toll down.  The great majority accept this. Further, at accidents above a certain level of severity, the police will test drivers, (if still alive).

      You get my drift, don’t you.  How long before mohammed al pigroot decides to refuse such testing, because it is an izzy and the booze thing doesn’t apply to it and the rest of the virus strain. It can’t because allah said so.  Naturally, dhimmies like lex luthor QC, CBE, VD will rupture themselves getting on TV to defend its “constitutional right” to so refuse. State issue here, so we know how enema, al’brax etc will respond.

      Was on a trip once, around the archipelago with a bunch of Indon military blokes. 90% islic.
      Shifted Scottish wine faster than Walker, Haig, Buchanan etc could brew, distill, mature, and bottle the stuff.

      And whatlaw next?


      Posted by Rod C on 2006 10 23 at 07:14 AM • permalink


    1. Just wait until the first time a taxi company tries to fire one of these jerks for not doing his job.  He’ll scream religious discrimination, and the fun will begin.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2006 10 23 at 09:27 AM • permalink


    1. What an amaaaazing soothsayer is this Pipesqeak blowhard. And what amaaaazing foresight on the bloghead’s part to not just happen upon such a prescient being but to have the wisdom and good taste to cut and paste. Yes, cut and paste. This new technology will completely overtake all reational discourse at the bloghead’s rate.

      Posted by Miranda Divide on 2006 10 23 at 02:15 PM • permalink


    1. Miranda, are you on drugs?
      its just that you to write incoherent crap and stuff.

      Posted by phillip on 2006 10 23 at 02:34 PM • permalink


    1. Miranda must have a huge pinky finger on her left hand.  And a teeny-tiny little brain which is unable to control said pinky–or anything else, for that matter.

      I normally don’t do ad hominem, but since Miranda’s musings are not offered for the purpose of discussion, but rather desparate attempts to attract attention, that’s all that is left for a kind person to do.  I’m nothing if not kind.

      Posted by saltydog on 2006 10 23 at 04:29 PM • permalink


    1. Say, go easy on Gynecologists!

      I know one…poor bastard.

      Tried to re-paint his front room through the letter slot…

      Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 23 at 05:26 PM • permalink


    1. #48
      No, Miranda is off the drugs.

      Posted by kae on 2006 10 23 at 05:31 PM • permalink


    1. Miranda’s rather scrawny specimen of humor (above) puts me in mind of a joke I heard many years ago. Stop me if you’ve heard this one.

      Two old Englishmen are sitting in their comfy leather chairs at the club, and one turns to the other and says, “I say, have you heard the one about the archaeologist who discovered two skulls belonging to Cleopatra: one as an infant and one as a young woman?” The other Englishman puts down his Times and says, “No. Let’s hear it.”

      Posted by paco on 2006 10 23 at 09:44 PM • permalink


    1. SIGH Do try for a little polish Miranda.. the word you are after is “pipsqueak”.

      Posted by crash on 2006 10 24 at 10:13 AM • permalink


    1. reational discourse at the bloghead’s rate.

      umm… that is supposed to mean something, right?

      Posted by Grimmy on 2006 10 24 at 11:04 AM • permalink


    1. Crash said:

      Do try for a little polish Miranda

      It seems to me that Miranda would be more comprehensible if she were indeed speaking Polish. 😉

      Posted by Mary in LA on 2006 10 24 at 07:05 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.