Sunday, 27 January 2008
Pig tales and pigtails

I was in Communicado last week, an internetless, wirelessless place I visit from time to time, and so have had some catching up to do. A couple of stories caught my eye, posted here by Rebecca and Esmerelda.

The first was a regular item: the piggy story. Pigs rear their ugly but allegedly intelligent heads every now and again in our tabloids and in counter-jihad blogs such as this and Dhimmiwatch. As Rebecca points out, I consider such stories to be overblown. The pattern is as follows:

  1. Local council/bank/arts council bans mugs with piglet/piggy banks/plays about pigs because they are offfensive to Muslims.
  2. It turns out that no Muslims have complained. The killjoy was an overzealous municipal boar - sorry - bore with nothing better to do.
  3. Piggy things reinstated or were never really banned in the first place.
  4. Conclusion - the story was hammed up.

This story may be different. It may certainly be irritating. But it needs to be seen in perspective.

The second story also features pigtails. Remember Sarah Desrosiers?

Here's a reminder, from Esmerelda's post:

A Muslim woman suing a salon owner for refusing her a hairdressing job because of her headscarf has more than doubled her claim for damages, after allegedly receiving hate mail.
Bushra Noah, 19, from Acton, claims Sarah Desrosiers, who runs the Wedge salon in King's Cross, behaved in a "high-handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner" by discussing the case in public.
She claims this caused media intrusion in her life, harassment and hate mail, and left her feeling "awkward and embarrassed". As a result, Ms Noah, who is suing Ms Desrosiers for religious discrimination, has now raised her claim for damages from just over £15,000 to more than £35,000.
Ms Desrosiers, 32, insists she rejected Ms Noah because it is essential that her employees display their hair.
The salon owner denies discrimination and says she will vigorously contest the new bid for increased compensation. She said: "I am not responsible for other people sending hate mail. I needed to highlight the case because I needed to find financial help to pay my legal bills.

Hairdressing, one may argue, is a trivial job. But this is by no means a trivial case. Ms Derosiers is an entrepreneur, a hard worker and a risk taker, a type not completely stamped out by the combined efforts of the Labour government and the European Union. Despite red tape and sky-high rents, she has so far made a go of her business. Yet she could lose everything and go personally bankrupt. Ms Noah, in contrast, risks nothing. Unemployed, through lack of talent or application, like so many Muslims in the UK, she will receive legal aid from infidel taxpayers, including Derosiers, to fund what is essentially a form of jihad. For many British Muslims jihad, as I argue here, takes the form of entitlements greedily seized from, and all too easily given by the infidels in the form of welfare payments and special treatment.

I do not believe that this case will succeed. But even if it fails, the expense and stress of fighting this and other cases (the Luton schoolgirl, the niqab-wearing grammar school pupil), gradually wears down infidel resistance. As Ezra Levant puts it: "Even if we win, we lose – the process has become the punishment."

This case is about much more than hair. This is a jihad of attrition - and we are paying the enemy.

Posted on 01/27/2008 10:46 AM by Mary Jackson
27 Jan 2008
Send an emailHugh Fitzgerald

If there is not yet, in English law, punishment for "frivolous lawsuits" -- economic punishment or, as in this case ,where the Muslim plaintiff is likely judgment-proof, a jail sentence for her deliberate harassment -- then there should be. And the concept of what constitutes a "frivolous lawsuit" needs, with all kinds of people -- the cunningly greedy, the fanatical, the semi-demented --  now running litigiously loose in our lands, to be strengthened, and its application widened.

Sue the suer. Make her pay, if not in present income, in future income. If not in money, than in denial of freedom. Pour encourager les autres.

27 Jan 2008
Send an emailHugh Fitzgerald

A note in my Esperanto-Volapuk dictionary iinforms me that in both languages the word for "lawyer" comes from, is the same as, the  word for "lawyer" used in the country of Communicado. That word is "Avocado."

Since you've just returned from that land, where everything is famously kept so hush-hush, I  thought you'd be just the person to ask. Is what my Esperanto-Volapuk dictionary tells me about that word for "lawyer" in fact true?  I've been fooled too many times before.