Originally posted by DJMessiah
If the dogs are being directed by their trainers to specifically go after Muslim or Middle Eastern looking people, then it's not protection, when
they're taking away the freedom of one group in exchange for protection of another.
Well. I think you muddle two concepts here. If, as you say, Muslims are being singled out and the use of snifer dogs is specifically designed to
harass them, then I agree that would be unacceptable. But that does not appear to be the case here, nor does this have anything to do with taking away
"freedoms" of one group in exchange for the protection of another.
Whether Muslim or not, they are ALL the riding public and subject to
the same requirements.
As I have said, I do not believe using snifer free public transportation is a right. So if that's a problem for ANYBODY, then chose some alternative
mode of
private transportation.
Originally posted by DJMessiah
It seems people were spreading misinformation, making it seem that the Muslims want to be excluded from being sniffed, when all they want is not to be
touched by the dogs.
The sniffing dogs should still sniff, just not touch. Is that too much to ask for?
Those Muslims wanted the dogs to be kept from touching them. They didn't oppose being sniffed by them.
Well, again, as long as Muslims are not being uniquely singled out for snifer contact, then I see no issue here. The source article says:
But banning them from touching passengers would severely restrict their ability to do their job.
I'm not a snifer handler, so if this statement is true, and ALL passengers are subject to potential snifer contact, I say where's the problem?
Where's the discrimination? Where's the injustice?
Sorry. I see none.