When a disabled man got into a taxicab with his guide dog, the driver immediately forced the pair out of the car because of religious reasons. However, his entitlement was soon revoked after hearing the judge’s brilliantly brutal ruling.
As the West’s Muslim population grows, so does its influence on the culture. Just as we’ve seen throughout history, never once has a swelling Muslim minority ever collectively integrated with the populace of a non-Islamic nation. Disturbingly, Muslims have come to realize that using our tolerance and open-mindedness against us is the most effective way to implement and enforce Sharia compulsions.
Time after time, we hear about Muslims citing their religious beliefs in order to deny goods and services to non-Muslims, whether it is because of alcohol, pork, or dogs, all of which are considered haram (forbidden) in Islam. However, one judge wasn’t about to allow a Muslim taxi driver to take advantage of a vulnerable disabled individual’s basic human rights.
In May 2017, Zaman Khan, 29, ejected disabled Thurnby resident Martyn Richardson, 48, from his taxi solely because of his guide dog, Janet, forcing the man to walk home with his friend, 68-year-old Graham Hollis. Thanks to Khan’s refusal of the pair, Hollis was tragically killed after a 23-year-old assailant killed him with a single punch following an argument in an unrelated incident just moments later.
Wrought with grief and utter humiliation, Richardson pursued his matter with Khan in Leicester Magistrate’s Court. Incredibly, instead of capitulating to Islam like the UK courts typically do, Khan heard 7 words he never expected to encounter.
Leicester Mercury reports that on March 7, Zaman Khan was found “guilty of discrimination under the Equalities Act,” an offense which prompted the court to revoke his license and order him to pay over $1,100 in fines. Khan subsequently lost his job with ADT, a taxicab service, for discriminating against an individual requiring special needs.
“I had phoned ADT and told them I had Janet and two friends and there would be three drop-off locations,” Richardson said. “When I got in the taxi, the driver said he didn’t want the dog in his car and said he was scared of dogs. He said ‘no dog, no dog!’ I said ‘shall I get out?’ and he said ‘yes.’ I might have said ‘I’m scared of you as well.’ It was meant as a sarcastic comment. I had only sat in the taxi for a matter of five or 10 seconds. I didn’t want any fuss and thought I’d just walk home. I just wanted to get away from the situation.”
Of course, Khan denied the discrimination charge and claimed that he had only asked Richardson to exit the vehicle because the dog had licked the car’s gear stick. He alleged that he was merely looking out for his safety, absurdly suggesting that the dog’s tongue could’ve triggered the handbrake, according to the Daily Mail. However, the court could easily determine that Khan was lying, especially when he repeatedly changed his argument.
“I have no problem with dogs,” Khan told the magistrates. “I knew before I was going to the job there was a guide dog. We have the option to refuse or accept jobs, I accepted it, it didn’t put me off. The dog came in before him, its tongue was out, it was licking the side of the dashboard and gear-stick. I was worried the dog might press the button on the handbrake, applying it while I was driving. I was concerned about safety and asked him if he could please sit in the rear of the car with the dog.”
Of course, Richardson reiterated that his dog, Janet, has gone through extensive training in order to act as a guide dog and that she never licked anything in the car.
“There is no need for me to have control of her. She sits there as good as anything. She was sitting between my legs, facing me and never moved towards the gear-stick,” Richardson said. “She is trained to avoid all distractions.”
Luckily, Khan won’t be getting his license back so easily. In fact, Leicester City Council prosecutor John Moss explained that in order for him to get his license reinstated, he’d have to appear before a city council and convince them to go against the magistrate’s order.
“It will be difficult to retain that licence under these circumstances,” Moss said.
Thanks to decades of liberal policies, Islam is being appeased, allowing its tenets to gain influence in the West. However, Islam cannot coexist with any other ideology or governance because it requires complete supremacy. Not only does it dictate every aspect of a Muslim’s life, it commands the subjugation of all other religions.