The National Post has this fascinating story about "colliding rights" today.
Faith is the woman who walked into a downtown Toronto store-front haircutting place a few weeks ago, and on being refused a haircut by the devout Muslim wielding the scissors that day, launched a human rights complaint against the barber and the shop.
According to the Post, Faith has since come around to respecting the right of a devout Muslim to refuse her a haircut, since his religion forbids contact with females that are not family.
But according to the Post, that puts her in the same league as Bill Whatcott. Bill is a long-time anti-gay activist based in Saskatchewan.
Bill is anti-gay and anti-abortion. That's shorthand for saying Bill is a Christian fundamentalist with too much time on his hands.
How does that make him "just like" a woman who wanted a haircut?
And since Faith has acknowledged the right of that particular hair-cutter to put his respect for his religious faith before her need for a haircut, and Bill Whatcott has in no way acknowledged that it might be alright for gays to marry or women to have abortions, I have no idea why the National Post would so scurrilously link these two stories in one article.
Author: "That's shorthand for saying Bill is a Christian fundamentalist with too much time on his hands".
ReplyDelete-Which in turn is shorthand for this author is a freedom-hating prejudiced bigot with too much progressive indoctrination on his mind.
This author puts haircuts and abortion in the same facile pigeon hole. Many other Muslim women wouldnt be so quick to have such a happy happy kumbaya acceptance of Sharia law. The author seems to believe so-called ''tolerance'' with its ''anything goes as long as it conforms to my prejudices" mindset, to be the primary virtue. I refer him to Bill Whatcotts pictures of aborted children, or some of the women-hating aspects of Sharia law for a much needed reality check.