What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Anti-dog sharia in Toronto

If you live in Toronto, if you own a dog, and if you know that Muslims are holding some sort of rally-protest-thing in your local public park, you'd better walk your dog somewhere else. That's what law-abiding citizen Allan Eintoss discovered recently. He happened to walk his dog Cupcake (fully licensed, on a leash, shots all up to date) in a public park where an Al Quds rally was taking place. I know that this will shock you, but Mr. Eintoss actually walked near some of the Muslims and even talked with some of them with Cupcake. Some actually petted the dog! (I guess their mommas didn't teach them that's unclean and evil.)

Then one of the men yelled at him that he was coming too close to "their women" with his dog. Two policemen came up out of nowhere, someone pushed Eintoss from behind, and (I know this will shock you again), Eintoss pushed back before the police grabbed him and handcuffed him. He was treated to a rant about how he was "inciting a riot" and had committed "assault." The police were quite uninterested in hearing about how Eintoss was himself the victim of a (minor) assault, nor in trying to find any evidence on that point. They were looking for charges with which to threaten him. They then offered him a "deal." (How's that? Walk your dog in the park near Muslims, and you're prima facie a criminal and have to accept a "deal" from the police.) He must leave the park immediately, and they would keep his name on record (as one of those troublemakers who walks his dog in the park, presumably) in case he should ever do such a thing when the Muslims had another rally, and they would in turn refrain from throwing him in jail where he would spend the weekend.

His 16-year-old son had to watch all of this, by the way. Cupcake showed her (?) vicious nature by not biting anyone or doing anything at all aggressive during this entire jackbooted travesty.

So Eintoss agreed to leave with his dog, and they graciously let him go.

Now, folks: If this isn't an application of sharia law to normal citizens living their lives peaceably in an allegedly free country, I don't know what is. And it would be nice to say, "Oh, Canada," but I've got a sinking feeling there are jurisdictions in America where it would happen, too.

We Americans tend to love our dogs. But the more we have concentrated populations of devout Muslims among us, the more situations of this kind we will have. (Remember, please, that there are taxi drivers who will refuse to take blind passengers with seeing eye dogs.) The more Muslim influence there is in our society, the more dog ownership will be marginalized and treated as scandalous and disgusting. "Keep your dog away from our women." And the police are only too happy to enforce the order.

I, for one, find that frightening.

Comments (37)

He was treated to a rant about how he was "inciting a riot" and had committed "assault." The police were quite uninterested in hearing about how Eintoss was himself the victim of a (minor) assault, nor in trying to find any evidence on that point. They were looking for charges with which to threaten him. They then offered him a "deal." (How's that? Walk your dog in the park near Muslims, and you're prima facie a criminal and have to accept a "deal" from the police.)

And this is a perfect example of why conservatives who squawk about the rule of law don't understand that true "rule of law" ultimately means that this man could have told the cops to [edited LM] if they wanted to arrest him. The charges were clearly either trumped up to coerce him. In a society governed by the rule of law, the moment they placed their hands on him to put him in cuffs for the "crime" of walking his dog in a public park where walking his dog is legal, they would have committed assault and battery upon him.

I don't think it would matter a whole lot to his current situation whether that were the law on the books or not, Mike. Probably they _did_ violate some law even as things are by doing what they did--false arrest, for example. It's not as though formally it's legal for the police just to arrest anyone, anytime, anywhere. However, practically speaking is a different matter. This guy just wants to get on with his life. He's telling his story but isn't up for trying to bring any countercharges, and who can blame him? He was just trying to walk his dog, for crying out loud. He didn't want to get into a fight with anybody, nor does he want some kind of legal battle on his hands now.

The police will always have some degree of power that, if they are corrupt or wrong-headed, they can abuse. What is creating the specific conditions for that here is a highly unhealthy mutual relationship between Muslims with a crazy anti-dog phobia and the police. The police were clearly scared out of their wits that some "incident" would occur. They took out the anger generated by this fear on the one politically permitted target--the innocent non-Muslim guy who happened to be walking his dog that the Muslims chose to get angry about. We're going to see a lot more of this. Indeed, the phony arrests of the Christian preachers in Dearborn that I've reported on so extensively were more of the same. Basically, the cops are going to get in trouble if the Muslims get angry and start some kind of riot or beat someone up, so the cops are on edge, and they are simply furious at any innocent person who makes the Muslims mad. This is just an extreme case where literally he was just walking around the park with his dog chatting with people. Which just shows how far into irrationality this kind of blaming the victim can descend.

We _could_ potentially rein it in if cities held "training seminars" that focused on not curtailing the rights of non-Muslims in order to cater to Muslim sensibilities, with career damage to follow if you do so, but it'll be a cold day in hell before that happens. On the contrary. All over the so-called free world, the police training is all in how to be sensitive to Muslims. Which means, in this case, handcuff the guy walking the dog.

It's not as though formally it's legal for the police just to arrest anyone, anytime, anywher

That's supposed to be true, but the police can intimidate law-abiding citizens and get compliance with their wishes without formally arresting anyone.

This sort of incident shows why middle-class people whose support for law enforcement could usually be counted on in days gone by, have lost all respect for the police.

The outrage in Toronto shows just how nuts the Archbishop of Canterbury is. He said, a while ago, it's inevitable that elements of Islamic sharia law would be introduced in Britain. He wasn't protesting it.

I ought to have added to my comment on Rowan Williams that his 'warning' about Sharia law being inevitably established in Britain included this submission: "There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law."

I think 'constructive accommodation' is a euphemism for surrender.

Probably they _did_ violate some law even as things are by doing what they did--false arrest, for example. It's not as though formally it's legal for the police just to arrest anyone, anytime, anywhere. However, practically speaking is a different matter. This guy just wants to get on with his life. He's telling his story but isn't up for trying to bring any countercharges, and who can blame him? He was just trying to walk his dog, for crying out loud. He didn't want to get into a fight with anybody, nor does he want some kind of legal battle on his hands now.

I'm not blaming him for wanting to get on with his life. Rather, I blame the system which leaves his relationship with the police such that in this scenario they have no fear of what might immediately happen if they attempt a false arrest. False arrest was once regarded as barely distinguishable from kidnapping (a felony which most American jurisdictions regard as sufficient grounds to vigorously use force in self-defense).

What we're seeing in the US is a steady progression toward the UK where the police are openly tools of the politically correct and more likely to abuse the victim than perp in such cases. Conservatives are still too naive about the direction things are going. It's amazing to me that, for example, with all of the vitriol against TSA and conservative fears about how they're expanding into highway patrol in Tennessee that Rand Paul's bill to disband the entire TSA organization and reprivatize its function has made no headway among conservatives. If we cannot even muster broad based support for that, I suspect efforts to actually do stuff at this level are doomed until they become unbearable.

There is nothing wrong in having a community having its own family law; that used to be the norm before the Enlightenment led to imposition of secular values over everybody.
And now we see the consequences of this homogenizing civil law as in endless troubles over definition of marriage and looming bans on male circumcision.

There is nothing wrong in having a community having its own family law; that used to be the norm before the Enlightenment led to imposition of secular values over everybody.

According to Professor Mark Cammack at SouthWestern University School of Law, "The scope of Islamic law is broader than the common law or civil law. In addition to core legal doctrines covering the family, wrongs, procedure, and commercial transactions, Islamic law also includes detailed rules regulating religious ritual and social etiquette. References to the application or proposed application of "Islamic law" or "Shariah" (also transliterated in English as Syariah) often refer narrowly to state enforcement of these social mores rather than more strictly legal doctrines."

Its seems the scope of Sharia is way beyond mere 'family law'.

Gian, you're just something. I put up a post about how an ordinary Canadian was grabbed by police and put in handcuffs for walking his dog in the park where irrational Muslims objected, and your response is to put up a comment about how bad the Enlightenment was and how sharia is no big deal because it's just "family law." I guess you're just a case where we can see how a certain type of anti-modern traditionalist comes into strange alliance with both the left and the Muslims to tell us, "Nothing to see here, folks, move along."

By the way, in England that sort of harmless "family law" means forced cousin marriages for young girls. And worse. Charming. God forbid we should "homogenize" that away. Think of all the cultural diversity we'd be missing.

There is nothing wrong in having a community having its own family law; that used to be the norm before the Enlightenment led to imposition of secular values over everybody.

Yeah, that's totally why King Henry appealed to the Pope. He was just jurisdiction shopping like an ambulance chaser. It's not like he had to carve out his own [ed.] church to get around what was a fairly universal set of laws governing marriage or anything like that.

One brief note on your good write-up: Cupcake is is a "he"!

Thanks. I didn't have time to go back and re-watch the video. I had a vague memory that they referred to Cupcake as a "he," but it seemed like a somewhat improbable male name, so I guessed wrong.

There is nothing wrong in having a community having its own family law; that used to be the norm before the Enlightenment led to imposition of secular values over everybody.
The Germanic peoples of early medieval Europe had their own tribal laws. These were chipped away not during the Enlightenment but centuries earlier, following the rediscovery of Roman law in the High Middle Ages.

One of the signs of a false religion is that it hates that member of the animal kingdom most congenial to human companionship, and thinks its presence 'contaminates' women. Human male dogs are a much bigger problem.

It is sheer insanity to allow the immigration of a group that provably, statistically, tends to force the rest of the existing population to walk on eggshells.
Frankly I think the old policy, never written down but observed, of mildly 'hazing' all new groups of immigrants was a good one. Best to know and make uncomfortable any groups inclined to try to intimidate the rest of the population into doing the eggshell walk.

Well, I don't know about "hazing," unless just walking dogs and having the police tell those who complain to go pound sand counts as "hazing."

But I do think that past facts about how demanding an immigrant group has proved to be in the past, how unreasonable, etc., are perfectly legitimate to take into account in granting permission for immigrants to enter a country.

Did medieval Christians force Jews to adopt the Christian family laws?

There are plenty of first cousin marriages in Jane Austen and Bronte sisters. 19C English did not mind them.

"Young girl" --weren't Christians girls getting married at 13 and 14 too. It was only 19 and 20C they were obliged to accept the Enlightenment notion of marriage at 18.

Not everywhere at once, but slowly and surely over the centuries Christianity has liberated people from semi-barbaric practices such as the 'forced marriages' of children, and foolish notions of 'unclean' foods and animals etc.

Did medieval Christians force Jews to adopt the Christian family laws?

The caviling is strong in this one.

Yep, and Gian ignores the forced aspect of many contemporary Islamic marriages, which I mentioned.

Gian, bag it. I now know, what I really didn't fully realize before, that you heart sharia, that you think it's just a great alternative to our wicked modern Enlightenment world because you're that kind of "traditionalist," and that you don't want to talk about Muslims getting people handcuffed for walking a dog in public parks because it doesn't fit with your narrative. That's nice and all, but you're boring me with your caviling. Maybe if I feel like it later I'll post a link to a post I did earlier in which I linked David Yerushalmi's discussions of Islamic family law, and maybe I won't.

"There are plenty of first cousin marriages in Jane Austen and Bronte sisters. 19C English did not mind them.

No, the English didn't mind and still mostly don't mind Jane Austen and Bronte sisters writing about first cousin marriage. Had Austen or Bronte sisters made the cousins marry not out of love but in obedience to "family values" enforced with deadly brutality AND if the authors seemed to endorse these "values" and the accompanying them terror the English would have minded very much.

You know very well that the talk is not about the merit, or disadvantage, of first cousin marriage, but about the eyesore of forced marriage sanctified by the murderous, grotesquely stupid islamic "values" .

But since we are at the English literature, Juliet Capulet was only 13. But it was not because of her "family values" that she wanted to marry Romeo. Were she obedient to muhammedan family values she would have married Count Paris, her family wanted her to, or ended being strangled, slaughtered or had acid applied to her face by her loving mummy and daddy and quite possible siblings had she had them.

"Young girl" --weren't Christians girls getting married at 13 and 14 too. It was only 19 and 20C they were obliged to accept the Enlightenment notion of marriage at 18.

Christian girls are not "obliged to accept the Enlightenment notion of marriage at 18", rather they can be denied civil marriage certificate before they are 18. Which is really not a big deal nowadays when secular authorities couldn't dream of preventing people under 18 moving together, have children and never even bother getting the certificate once they 18.

And BTW.,a Catholic girl can marry in the Church if she is older than 14 without giving a hoot about the "Enlightenment notion of marriage". In fact, for Catholics it is the certificate issued by the Church which testifies to a couple being really married, not the document from secular authorities.

Gian,

If you cannot appreciate the difference between how the Muslim immigrants often behave and how the Jews behaved, then you're either being willfully obtuse or your head hasn't even started to brush against the notch on the "you must be this tall to ride the ride" sign for holding discourse on such matters. Jewish law is, generally speaking, quite simpatico with Christian jurisprudence. Sharia, not so much. The cultural interpretations of Sharia from places like Pakistan with their extremely coercive elements, not even a little bit.

You need to get it through your thick head that the enemy of your enemy may also be every bit your enemy as well.

"You need to get it through your thick head that the enemy of your enemy may also be every bit your enemy as well."
A lot of people need to. I would probably be a lot more susceptible to thinking such things if I did not have a realistic acknowledgement of the problems of Islam. I would probably experience some schadenfreude if I saw the leftists around me under the Jihadist jack boot, but I would not support such things because I know neither is the truth: the true religion is Christianity.
"And BTW.,a Catholic girl can marry in the Church if she is older than 14 without giving a hoot about the "Enlightenment notion of marriage". In fact, for Catholics it is the certificate issued by the Church which testifies to a couple being really married, not the document from secular authorities."
A good point, and we should never forget this nor give in to the busy bodies who wish to destroy our culture and replace it with Modernity, nor should we forget those who want to replace it with sharia law and dhimmitude.

"The more [Jewish] influence there is in our society, the more [pork consumption] will be marginalized and treated as scandalous and disgusting. 'Keep your [pork] away from our women.' And the police are only too happy to enforce the order."

"The more [Hindu] influence there is in our society, the more [beef consumption] will be marginalized and treated as scandalous and disgusting. 'Keep your [beef] away from our women.' And the police are only too happy to enforce the order."

I take my leave of this dump.

Yes, and as we see empirically, we just have so many Jewish mobs having the police arrest people for eating their ham sandwiches in the park too "near their women." Oh, guess not. Better be sure not to let real-world facts get in the way of your equivalence-mongering.

Buddy, if you take your leave voluntarily, that will save me the trouble of sending you packing.

By the way, if anyone is interested, here is another anecdote about Muslims blocking dogs from the public. In this case, iconically, blocking dogs from an American monument:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016635.html

I spent last week and the holiday in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Since my youngest had not seen the Mount Rushmore monument (was not alive ten years ago when I was last there), we took a ride up to see it. Much to my surprise, my dog was not allowed to accompany us. It is a public and open space and I have a picture of my wife, my two oldest my previous dog and myself all sitting on the wall in front of the Monument from ten years ago. I was put aback by this.

On leaving and getting back to our car in the underground lot, I let the dog out to run a bit and an off duty park ranger commented on what a nice dog it was. I asked when the rules regarding dogs had changed and she said “recently—some people don’t feel comfortable around dogs and we had complaints.” I asked if these people complaining happened to be foreigners and she hemmed and hawed and then admitted they were—so then I asked if they happened to be Muslims and she confirmed that they were indeed.

Here is a compendium from Daniel Pipes on Muslims vs. guide dogs:

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/11/muslim-taxi-drivers-vs-seeing-eye-dogs

The point being that this is a factual matter. I didn't make up as a_conjecture_ that dog ownership will be marginalized in an increasingly Muslim society. This is a _fact_. Muslims in Western society are _in fact_ attempting to marginalize dog ownership, even in the case of guide dogs. The story in the main post shows how they succeeded in a public park in Canada. The anecdote in the previous comment shows how they have succeeded at Mt. Rushmore in the United States.

It is natural to marry within one's community. It is a symptom of the decay of Western cohesion that the Western women marry out with no consequences. That was no so even 50 years ago.

It is a hard illiberal saying but no less true for that. If you wish to defend Christendom, you must be prepared to adopt illiberal means. After all, the Christendom was not built with liberal means.

They destroy property when their notions of public decency are attacked. In this they show a better grasp of the hierarchy of values than the academic Thomists. They would not let a family member be killed in a hospital (unless they themselves want him to be killed). They do not let themselves be cowed by homosexualists and Leftists.

I can see the point you are making, even though it may not sound nice to those who react strongly against the cruelties that necessarily accompany Islamic fundamentalism.

All non-moribund groups, not excepting Jews, naturally seek to move the wider society towards their vision of Good. This is just basic political human nature. One can not fault them from trying and they have never claimed to be liberal anyway. They are not socially radical and generally pleased with some superficial changes.

So it's just ducky that they smack this guy in the back of the head and then get him arrested for walking his dog in the park, because "all non-moribund groups...naturally seek to move the wider society towards their vision of the Good."

There are a few problems with this, Gian: First, if your vision of the Good is that dog ownership is illegal, then you're not only wrong but crazy-wrong. And if we're not modernist liberal relativists (gotcha there) we care about whether someone's vision of the Good is crazy-wrong. Ain't it funny how a certain kind of pro-Muslim trad-con will lecture us all about not being modernist relativists when he's busy defending crazy Muslim behavior and then will suddenly turn into a cultural relativist when someone points out to him that it's behavior based on silly falsehood? ("Who are you to say?" "But you wouldn't like it if someone did x" etc., etc.) Second, ritual rules for one's in-group are not generally considered to require for the Good that everyone else in society obey them. This is why Jews don't try to ban ham sales. Part of the problem with Muslims is that they don't seem to understand the distinction between rules that arise from the natural law, applicable to out-group members, and ritual laws applicable only to in-group members. Meaning that it's way over-the-top to try to get people arrested for walking a dog in the park. If you want to tell "your women" (gotta love that phrase) and your children not to pet the dog, of course that's your prerogative to try. (Though "your women" aren't really your property even if you think they are, but that's just _another_ problem with Islam.)

As for marrying in-group, it's utterly stupid to imply that the extreme tribal endogamy of Islam that requires marrying within one's _family_ group (not just, say, another Muslim) is normal and required of all traditionalists. Moreover, I just luv the coy way in which Gian keeps evading the small matter of force. Which, by the way, is against Catholicism as well. Forced marriages can be annulled. Rightly so.

Thanks Gian for that reasonable but utterly unilluminating point.

I definitely blame the Muslims for trying to stigmatize and even punish dog ownership by non-Muslims, for taking on taxi driving jobs and then refusing to drive blind people with their guide dogs (one wonders what fate they prefer for blind people), for complaining about normal American families who take their dogs to the Mt. Rushmore monument. So contra Gian, I do "fault them for trying." Irrationality and the attempt to coerce others to abide by one's own made-up taboos are real phenomena, and blameworthy. I'm totally unfazed by the fact that Peter Singer would say the same about, I dunno, arresting people for infanticide. Truth matters. The truth is that it isn't going to do the slightest harm, spiritual or otherwise, to a Muslim woman to have a dog walk within a few feet of her at the park, or to a Muslim taxi driver to have a seeing eye dog in his cab. I think adult Muslims ought to be responsible for waking up and recognizing this truth and are blameworthy for not recognizing it. Of course, no one is forcing them to own dogs themselves as pets.

"the distinction between rules that arise from the natural law, applicable to out-group members, and ritual laws applicable only to in-group members."

They lack the concept of the Natural Law. Quite naturally, since their God is the Only Cause and not the First Cause.

The illiberal element can not be met liberally.

True. We can only defend our beliefs under the auspices of their superiority. Laura makes a good point in saying there are problems with Muslim immigration. And Gian is spot on with his last comment.

True that dogs pose no spiritual dangers but they offend their civic sensibility
much as wandering cows in India do to Western sensibility.

Hindus may think Americans crazy to eat cows while Orientals may think Americans crazy not to eat dogs.

Wow, what a pointless comment. Gian, you are a master of deliberately avoiding the point. But I do get that you think it's fine for the Muslims to have gotten a Toronto man handcuffed by the police for walking his licensed dog on a leash. That really tells us what we need to know.

True that dogs pose no spiritual dangers but they offend their civic sensibility much as wandering cows in India do to Western sensibility.

Hindus may think Americans crazy to eat cows while Orientals may think Americans crazy not to eat dogs.

Oh well, heaven forbid we offend someone's civic sensibility. That'd be unchrist-like or something. Next thing you know, we'll be chasing bankers out of Capitol Hill with whips.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.