The Trials of Tears

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Via Glenn Reynolds (who notes a hilarious line by Eric Scheie) comes the following example of legal jihad, a type of warfare against civilization I have discussed here before that has, incidentally, been endorsed by the government officials of Islamic countries right under the noses of American officials.

[A] small business owner in England (a woman who operates a "urban and edgy," and "funky" hair salon) was sued by a devoutly religious Muslim woman [pictured at right --ed] who refused to work without her head covered. Which means the owner has "had to shell out $8,000 for hurting a veiled Muslim job applicant's feelings"....
Scheie goes on to note the obvious incongruity of someone opposed to the entire idea of women even displaying their hair deciding to take up such a sinful line of work and adds:
The owner here was placed in a classic damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position. Had she hired this whining, covered woman, and had her trendy urban hipster customers felt uncomfortable about having their hair cut by a self-proclaimed prude, they'd have most likely not have complained, because trendiness is infected with political correctness.

But the thing is, a haircut is a personal service. A very personal service. If you're in the least bit uncomfortable (as I have been with several haircutters), you won't go back. No one wants a confrontation even under ordinary circumstances. But when you add PC to the mix, it becomes even less likely. So, had the owner hired her and watched her customer base dwindle, what then? Fire Bushra? She'd be sued for even more. [bold added]
As with the "human rights commissions" in Canada, we see resolute jihadists making it difficult,
with the help of non-objective laws, for ordinary people to carry out the normal, day-to-day business of their lives.

In every case these are laws premised on the notion of establishing a "level playing field", but which, since they do so at the expense of protecting individual rights -- There is no "right" to remain unoffended or be handed a job. -- end up begging to be taken advantage of by the dregs of humanity.

This occurred in England, but similar types of laws exist everywhere in the West, and the cumulative effect of a torrent of such lawsuits is clearly to make non-Moslems afraid to impede the whims of Moslems. The way to fight back is to demand relentlessly,
through every available avenue, starting today, the repeal of any law that fails to protect individual rights. In the meantime, we must work for a more rational culture, where the concept of individual rights is fully understood and appreciated.

-- CAV


Joseph Kellard said...


I went to get my haircut a few weeks ago, and the place I normally go to was packed. The woman who usually cuts my hair was booked up with customers. So instead I sat down in the chair of an elderly woman who I had never seen there before. She must have been 80 years old, perhaps older. Anyway, she did a hatchet job on me (and there's not much hair left on my head to hetchet).

This got me thinking: how long has this old woman cut hair? If she has been doing for many years, has she always been such a lousy "stylist"? Or is she so bad now because she’s so old? If the last, then I'm sure the store can't fire her because she's gotten too old and incompetent. That would be "discrimination."

Meanwhile, this is a minor example in which irrational laws negatively affect our lives.

Gus Van Horn said...

If only the occasional bad haircut were all we had to worry about....