We have previously discussed violence and legal measures targeting dogs by some Muslims who view canines as “unclean.” Even postcards with dogs and service dogs (and here) have raised the ire of some Muslim groups. Now this issue is getting some long-needed attention in Iran after a short film that showed stray dogs being tortured and killed by having acid injected into them.
The video was taken an industrial area of Shiraz, 900 kilometres south of Tehran. The animal activists claimed that those responsible paid $4 for each dog. As with environmentalists in China, I have always had overwhelming respect and admiration for secularists and animal (particularly dog) advocates in Muslim countries. This is more than an impressive commitment to principle but putting your actual life on the line for those principles.
The good news is that the Iranian government is acting on the video. While there was an effort to criminalize the ownership of dogs under Sharia law (and subject dog owners to up to 74 lashed last year), Vice President Masoumeh Ebtekar has called for an investigation into the video. While she referred rather mildly to the practice as “an immediate end to unconventional population control method[] for stray dogs,” she did call upon the interior ministry to “deal with the criminals responsible”.
Some Iranian celebrities like Ali Karimi, once a star on Iran’s national football team, posted a picture with his two dogs on Instagram and the message “Dogs are the kindest domestic animals. I hope those who, under any excuse, did this to these animals get what they deserve.”
Bob Stone asked …
Aridog,…Are you a fan of long haired GSD’s?
Yes I am, but I am primarily a fan of the GSD per se of many pedigree coat, and conformation variations. I kind of favor the working lines over the show lines, but to each his own…the show lines (European or immediate immigrant dogs seem to produce the dogs I like the most) The dog in my avatar was “Ari” the one long hair in his litter (solid W. German lines) and we just had to have him for his aloof demeanor and personality…as a puop he could charm you silly. He was also over-sized and was a lean 95+ pounds. He was a great companion dog and well versed in obedience and protection…I kind of find tracking boring after my first couple dogs trained to do so. The fussing about dogs that did slight loops at each turn irritated me, since real tracking dogs do this as de rigueur practice…using nose in the air as well as the ground. Best I had could find a needle in a haystack so to speak and was flawless. Best tracking dog I have known was 4th in the world and he always looped slightly at each turn…and he’s in the pedigree of our present dog “Dera.”
Sadly “Ari” passed away at 10 from an undetected cancer of the spleen, which ruptured and he bleed to death internally, finally being euthanized by my vet who got to our house after hours to help him. When we ventilated him the results were hopeless, so he passed away in my arms. We still have his companion “Dera” (a stout flat top lined sable Czech/old DDR lineage) and she never ceases to remind me of how much fun she is and was for “Ari” as well…a great playmate for “Ari” who was otherwise a very dominant dog….but played like a big puppy with “Dera.”
I was very pleased when the German SV and the United Schutzhund Clubs of America (the USCA that I belong to) decided that the Long Hair coat was an acceptable variation and now have classes dedicated to them in all categories. I don’t know about the AKC and don’t much care. I am already watching various breeders I like for adult dogs who might need homes for one reason or another and have at least achieved a BH title…to save me the rigor of those first 2 years…at my age it would be a struggle. I am first looking for another long hair when the time comes. A 80 lb plus dog hitting a sleeve at 25 mph or so might be a bit much for me about now, so I’ll skip protection training other than very basic bite work…e.g., when not to bite, and when to do so….with the Out (Aus) command embedded from the BH rating. As most good clubs around here will tell you, first you get a high scoring BH (obedience title) and then you can think about protection. Control is the most important, etc.
Finally…Bob Stone, your piece on FFS is superb on the subject of dogs & cops and I will likely read there more often as a result. A couple of others there, who also post here, have also posted great pieces without politics.
Po: “Bob Show me when and where I have ever called Darren Wilson “racist”, specifically “racist murderous cop”.
Really Po? You’ll deny the summation of your thoughts on the basis of not having used the particular words I wrote?
From the tip of the iceberg:
“The danger is present, and strangely enough, is not from Mike Brown or Muhamad, it is from young white men, in uniform or not, with a sizable chip on their shoulders who see wrong in being displaced socially, who see right in holding might and using it.
Just as young muslim men, ISIS or related, now take it upon themselves to take away muslimhood and humanity to whomever they want, young white men have taken it upon themselves to take away american rights and humanity from whomever they want.”
“As in the Trayvon martin case, the armed man, the one with the power and authority, whether conferred by gun or badge or both, initiated the conflict and concluded it with gunshot and murder.”
But that wasn’t the case; was it Po?
I tried to tell you what was wrong with the narrative you and the others were pushing in your haste to burn Wilson at the stake like a witch — but you wouldn’t listen. Furthermore, just like the rest of the mob, you had no interest in reading the Grand Jury transcripts since it might distract from that narrative of yours.
You accused me of being emotionally biased, yet it was you who was far more interested in furthering a narrative than examining facts.
A grand jury serves as “a primary security to the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive persecution; it serves the invaluable function in our society of standing between the accuser and the accused, whether the latter be an individual, minority group, or other, to determine whether a charge is founded upon reason or was dictated by an intimidating power or by malice and personal ill will.” (Wood v. Georgia 370 U.S. 375 at 390 (1962))
The sooner you admit to yourself that you were engaging in precisely the type of behavior that grand juries are meant to protect against, the better off you’ll be.
@PaulCS
The Plaintiff has the same basic burden that they had before, less the need for privity of contract. Consider what that would mean today. Bob buys a can of shrimp at Wal Mart. The shrimp was processed and canned in China by Wong Lee. The shrimp is full of bacteria, and Bob’s little “consortium” falls off as a result of the toxins.
With privity of contract, Bob has to track down whoever in China, where there are 200 million people named Lee, and then serve them, and either try to get them to the U.S. for trial, or go there and sue. As a result, Bob is screwed, metaphorically speaking. Plus, since Wal Mart can’t be sued, they have no particular incentive to double check their products, or carry liability insurance,
With strict liability, Bob can sue Wal Mart, and the broker, and everybody else in the chain. Bob can get paid back for the loss of his “consortium.”
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Paul C
The article that I copied here discusses, in great detail, the frequency with which this is occurring, and it’s not just a problem in this country.
po
Let me know when one of the dogs tip any of your cabbie friends.
I’ll buy tickets to see that one. 🙂
Bam
That hadith you offer is included here :”It is true that dogs are deemed unclean in many arab countries based on a couple of hadith”
I would love to answer your questions, I don’t dodge questions, I am not pogo, however when you offer a whole ebook, expect me to read it and reply to it, at least give me a couple of days, right?
Now what is exactly the point you are trying to make?
That Muslim cabbies hate dogs?
I know about 10 cab drivers in NYC, none of them hates dogs or refuse to transport them…especially if they tip!
@Mike A
As regards the development of strict product liability in tort out of the ashes of contractual privity and contracts/sales with implied warranties, you can read more about it here:
https://www.mackinac.org/6329
Strict product liability did not spring sua sponte out of nowhere.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Hey po, what about the hadith which alleges that an angel will not enter a place where a dog is kept? Forget about that one? I’ll bet not.
I guess all the Muslim cabbies, who are denying rides to handicapped individuals with services dogs, missed the briefing about Mohammed guaranteeing the prostitute paradise for quenching the thirst of a dying dog or the army turned in the other direction so as to allow a dog to give birth. The cabbies don’t even have to give the service dogs water. They merely have to allow them in their vehicles, yet they still refuse service to the handicapped with these service animals. Not an isolated incident. A major problem involving cab drivers, as the above-referenced article explains in great detail, yet po is not one to allow the facts to ever get in his way. Note the silence on the many detailed accounts of denial of service when Muslim cabbies are involved. Where is your righteous indignation po? Cue, as usual, questions from left field regarding pigs, which are being raised, for consumption, in deplorable conditions. Great topic, but so far removed from the story involving the poisoning of dogs that its mention borders on the absurd.
With all the kindness and compassion, allegedly, shown to dogs by Mohammed, why the widespread loathing of dogs in the Islamic world? I don’t expect an answer for that one.
bam bam – cab drivers refusing to take people with service dogs would violate the ADA.
@Mike A
First, I am trying to keep things simple here, and not write a full fledged brief. A lot of readers are not legal types. That being said, I chose Smith, because it dealt with laws of general applicability and the fact the court was not willing to grant a generalized religious exemption.
Now, what you said about RFRA is correct. RFRA takes us outside Smith. Just as Oregon could have passed a peyote exemption for various religions, RFRA passes an exemption for a broader series of conduct. Yet, the “wall of reason” that the Court erected in Smith, is not to be ignored, IMHO. The main reason is, that SCOTUS is not going to go quietly into sovereign citizen land.
Now, if we are going to grant religious people exemptions to general laws, which is permissible according to Smith, what are going to be the limits? If a RMT or something similar is not put in, the Court will either strike the laws (unlikely) or put in its own tests and standards (more likely). If we are now talking about religious exemptions, it has to be narrowed, or the Smith fears come to life, and we have every person being their own law.
Now, I said that the Court requires sincerely held beliefs, so that the effect is that the Court is already lifting the curtain, and taking a legal peep behind it. You disagreed. But, see this:
Also, Squeeky, your understanding of how strict liability developed is completely erroneous, but that is a different topic entirely.
Mike A – I have never been a fan of strict liability since the state or plaintiff has so little to prove.
Squeeky:
You misread Smith. In that case the court did not inquire into either the reasonableness of the particular religious practice or the sincerity of Mr. Smith’s beliefs. Instead, it determined that we all have to comply with laws of general application if they have a secular purpose and that the Free Exercise Clause does not require accommodation of religious objectors to those laws. Smith merely reaffirmed the doctrine first enunciated in Reynolds, discussed in my last column. “Reasonableness” had nothing to do with the decision. RFRA was enacted as a reaction to Smith and imposes a strict scrutiny test which arguably mandates religious accommodation beyond anything ever required under the case law.
You should also note that the common law regarding public accommodations extended beyond inns and common carriers.
There is no prohibition against a religion of one.
“Silence the discussion”? Hardly. I would encourage yet more discussion. I can’t wait for MikeA’s next installment of “What RFRA Hath Wrought”.
Bob
Show me when and where I have ever called Darren Wilson “racist”, specifically “racist murderous cop”.
You really don’t get that my issue with Turley is less about Islam and more about his demonizing other countries for the same ills that are rampant locally? That’s what most of us call hypocrisy!
Karen
It is true that dogs are deemed unclean in many arab countries based on a couple of hadith. However, there is another hadith where the Prophet promised paradise to a prostitute who quenched the thirst of a dying dog. he also rerouted his whole army for a dog was giving birth along the path.
However, rather deceptive the way you framed your comment so as to make it seem like Iran did indeed pass a law banning dog ownership… slick move there…pretty dishonest too.
Now that I answered your question, karen, would you mine? What do you think about gestation crates? based on your refusal to comment, you are definitely supporting them. Poor pigs being kept in a tiny case while pregnant, where they can’t turn around and move at all. They develop sores and many diseases, and I am shocked, karen, shocked you should support that. or someone who claims to support women, children and animals, you have disappointed me.
I hope you see it in your heart to start caring a little about them.
Ari
Luna, my yellow lab, is the 3rd dog I have owned. Before her I had an australian shepherd, Scruffy Rue, and as a kid, I had a mutt named Ramses 2.
Strangely, any dog that escapes in the neighborhood finds his/her way to my house.
Just to be clear, I did not bring up Islam until my 5th post, in response to bam bam. I am not making this about Islam, the usual lot are.
In an earlier article Professor Turley already indicated a need to debate where to draw the line on religious freedoms. If I recall correctly, he was uncomfortable with business owners being forced to participate in something against their religious beliefs, but he also did not want to see a return to the Jim Crow South.
The debate on where to draw the line must be made, in spite of people’s attempts to silence the discussion.
Is the line that no one should be forced to participate in an overtly religious ceremony against their will? No one can discriminate in life or death circumstances, such as police, fire, and medical? If no one is ever allowed to say no, then an OB/GYN who is against abortion can be forced to perform an abortion. A gay baker can be forced to provide a cake for an anti-gay-marriage rally. A liberal can be forced to cater to an I-Love-Ann-Coulter event. Someone can carry a ham sandwich into a mosque or the prayer room of a corporate building.
On one extreme, any business can refuse service to anyone, giving ultimate individual freedom of choice, punishable only by public opinion voting with their dollars. On the other extreme, no one can say no, ever, for any reason.
Is there a line somewhere in the middle that is reasonable?
If a cabbie refuses someone with a seeing eye dog, he is violating the ADA, leaving that blind person stranded, possibly in an unsafe area or where they could be hit by a car, not left without cupcakes.
The question is, can someone refuse to cooperate with the ADA on the grounds of religious objection? Is that a safety issue? Could that open up a niche for guide-dog friendly cabbies that would drive other cabbies out of business? Is it a viable alternative for cabbies to call dispatch and request a dog-friendly car be sent? I think this is a valid debate to be had.
I recently saw a sign at my local gas station that read that if a handicapped person required refueling assistance, they were to honk twice. An attendant would come out to pump their gas, after which they would need to exit their vehicle, enter the station, and pay. The sign said that if there was only one attendant on duty, or if a second attendant was assigned to food service, then no one would come out to pump gas.
So, apparently, there are ways around the ADA, which I had previously thought was ironclad.
@Mike A
“Common carrier” laws are usually statutes nowadays. Both Federal and State and even local. They have some basis in old English common law, but nearly all states have enacted legislation to codify the obligations and responsibilities.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
@MikeA
True-ish. But remember that we are talking about a “religious defense” to existing or future general laws and enactments – an exemption– not some sort of free floating religious get out of jail free card.
So, for example in Smith, there was a generalized peyote ban in Oregon. SCOTUS did not find it necessary to inquire beyond whether smoking peyote was “sincerely held” as you point out. Which means that the Court is already inquiring into the actual tenets of the religion. They have to, to determine whether or not it is a “sincere” belief.
There is also what I call the “de facto” reasonableness test. From Smith, the wiki review:
Sooo, to recap:
(1) IMO, SCOTUS has already permitted an initial inquiry into whether a religious belief is a SINCERE belief, which means that if the subject Church proper had absolutely no position on peyote, the claimants could not sincerely hold the belief. It would be like a Baptist claiming a sincerely held belief that involuntary human sacrifice was a defense to murder. There has to be this sort of inquiry, else each person could have their own little religion of one. Thus the defense would be based on “opinion”, not “religion.”
(2) The Court has already baked a “reasonableness” standard into Smith, as stated above.
Now, the RMT test would only attempt to measure the quanta of religious significance, all within the purlieu of an exemption.
Sooo, that is my general argument as to how I would support the RMT. It is kind of like what happened when “privity” and ” implied warranty” claims on products were recast as strict product liability. The reasoning there was that the strict liability was always there, and only had to sort of be uncovered.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
This is why I don’t like getting ahead of myself. There are both state and federal versions of RFRA. Their respective impacts on state and federal law are not identical.
Paul, no kidding, so what is your point?
Inga – it explains itself.
I would add, as well, that RFRA does not contain a “common carrier” exception. Again, I haven’t gotten there yet, but RFRA (as all statutes do) changes the common law to the extent of any conflict with its provisions.