O problema não está na recusa. Está na obrigação que vem atrás
O Correio da Manhã volta à questão que tratei na crónica do Observador da passada semana: O guia para “Acolhimento de refugiados” agora editado pela a Direcção-Geral da Saúde que entre outras coisas prevê a organização dos serviços de saúde em função de questões religiosas.
Escreve o CM. Refugiadas podem recusar médico homem. E logo o fantástico bastonário da Ordem dos Médicos diz que siom, que lhe parece normal: “Os profissionais de saúde estão sensibilizados para as questões do doente. Tem de se respeitar as idiossincrasias dos utentes. Existe um livrinho sobre as especificidades de cada religião.”
Esquece o idiossincrático bastonário que não é uma questão de especificidades ou idiossincrasias. Ou até do direito à recusa d eum tratamento. As Testemunhas de Jeová recusam as transfusões de sangue e estão no seu direito. Mas não obrigam os serviços de saúde a criar espaços sem sacos de plasma nem transfusões de sangue de modo a que elas não estejam rodeadas de pecado.
A questão que as mulheres muçulmanas ou os seus maridos por elas estão a levantar por essa Europa fora é outra: é simplesmente obrigar os hospitais a criarem serviços diferenciados para as atender.
E essa imposição é a todos os títulos inaceitável.
BLASFÉMIAS 
Em caso de acidente a doente:
A ambulância terá de ser conduzida com tripulação unicamente feminina…
Como aquele pai (idiota), que preferiu que a filha morresse afogada numa praia a ser sorrida por um banhista ( macho).
atenção: IINEM e socorristas nas praias!
GostarGostar
O fantástico presidente da ordem anda danado por não ter sido nomeado ministro.
Nem o avental lhe valeu. Aventais há muitos.
Os refugiados, quando perceberem o país onde estão vão querer regressar às suas terras. Para terra queimada já chega a deles.
GostarGostar
É de facto um fantástico bastonário…
Porque será que a fantasia bastonária não dá à estampa um Guia para “Acolhimento de Fumadores”, obrigando os Hospitais a “respeitar as idiossincrasias” dos fumadores, de modo que possam fumar enquanto aguardam a consulta ou estão em consulta?…
Bastonarices…
GostarGostar
Trabalho como cirurgião na Noruega há quase 40 anos. Nunca ligamos as exigências dos muçulmanos! Bem podem pedir médicos do mesmo sexo mas levam com o que está disponível. Incrível ceder nesse campo!
GostarLiked by 1 person
“A questão que as mulheres muçulmanas ou os seus maridos por elas estão a levantar por essa Europa fora é outra: é simplesmente obrigar os hospitais a criarem serviços diferenciados para as atender.
E essa imposição é a todos os títulos inaceitável.”
É obrigar a nossa sociedade a mudar de valores para acatar os de outros, por vezes bem inferiores. É como proibir de usar crucifixos para “ferir os outros”. lol
Uns querem alterar valores, nossos superiores, para nos subjugarmos aos valores alheios. Outros querem-nos imitar…
GostarLiked by 1 person
‘Bora lá a pôr mais uma cor na triagem de Manchester….
GostarGostar
Eu quero um crusifixo na sala de aulas dos meus filhos e um professor que saiba rezar o Pai Nosso todos os dias logo pela manhã
Não quero que ensinem aos meus filhos a ideologia de género na escola
Será que também vão dar um livrinho assim para os professores se comportarem perante os Cristãos ?
GostarLiked by 1 person
Eu gosto deste bastonário.
Foi graças à pressão que fez, que hoje todos os portugueses tem médico de família.
E por isso, como há médicos em excesso, não vejo o problema de selecionar médicas para as senhoras muçulmanas.
GostarGostar
Crucifixo
GostarGostar
Acho bem, a minha muher é revistada por mulher, em Aeroportos, eventos musicais e Desportivos, etc.
Portanto, como ela esta velhae quero ficar com a amante, recuso que ela seja tratada por um médico( pode ser que tenha sorte), lol
GostarGostar
Muito em breve vão-se ouvir protestos por esta interferência da religião num Estado laico….
GostarLiked by 1 person
Muito interessante. Os antigos diziam que quanto mais as pessoas se abaixavam mais se lhes via o rabo.
Estes aqui começaram por querer pôr os refugiados a limpar as matas.
Agora avançam para os médicos se sujeitarem à cultura dos refugiados.
Não demoram muito que venham propor que os naturais – indígenas comecem por ser obrigados a dar-lhes a cama e numa segunda fase a serem corridos da própria casa para eles se instalarem.
E o xenófobo sou eu !
GostarGostar
hoje na tv viam-se fantasmas de burka em penela.
nãotarda há terrorismo multicultural.
os sem abrigo, as criaancinhos com fome do tempo do PPC que se lixem
GostarLiked by 1 person
É nojenta a maneira de “submissão ao outro” que as reportagens nas TVs mostram. Autênticas lavagens cerebrais.
GostarGostar
O politicamente correcto de esquerda é a maior merda que empesta este país!!!!
GostarGostar
Eu acho muito bem que as muçulmanas não queiram ser tratadas por homens.
Estão com toda a razão, o corpo é delas e de mais ninguém.
Por mim estou pronto para me manifestar em frente à Assembleia da República, ao Continente, ao Pingo Doce ou mesmo ao Ikea.
(agora baixinho), quando elas souberem o tempo de espera de um tratamento num hospital público vão ver como elas mordem
GostarGostar
Tratamento 6 estrelas e costumisado para VIPs à custa do contribuinte.
Click to access Acolhimento-de-refugiados-manual-PNPAS.pdf
Sugiro que leiam da página 44 à 49 e pensem como se sentirão os sem-abrigo Portugueses vendo todas estas prebendas para a estranja.
GostarGostar
Um pessoa deveria poder escolher o seu médico. Por quaisquer razões.
Por isso um muçulmano ou qualquer outra pessoa que queria escolher um médico está no seu direito. E o médico deveria também no seu direito em recusar.
E se não existir aguenta-se com o que tem ou fica sem cura.
—————–
O abjecto comportamento do bastonário a permitir que uns discriminem mas outros não deve repugnar qualquer médico.
GostarGostar
Quero lá saber dos médico/as!
Eu estou indignadíssimo porque foram explicar aos refugiados de Penela o que é o Natal e ensinaram-lhes como se enfeita uma árvore!!! :O
GostarGostar
assino por baixo
GostarGostar
É apenas uma questão de respeito. Perceber os constrangimentos dos outros é coisa boa e uma forma sublime de civilidade.
.
Os países muçulmanos não têm a mesma deferência para connosco. Mas isso é problema deles.
.
Qualquer pessoa com bom senso percebe que não somos todos iguais. Há determinadas coisas, culturais, da intimidade, que devemos respeitar, se pudermos, evidentemente.
.
Por exemplo, já aqui foi referido, porque é q as mulheres são revistadas por mulheres nos aeroportos?
.
A resposta a esta pergunta responde tb à questão do post.
.
E não, nao acho que o ocidente deva abdicar dos seus valores. Deve apenas respeitar alguns daqueles que recebe desde q não choquem com os nossos.
.
Rb
GostarGostar
Sabem o que diz o Povo na sua proverbial sabedoria?
Se não estão bem , MUDEM-SE, MOVAM-SE (daqui para fora. . .)
GostarGostar
O problema de muitos “multiculturalistas” é serem hipócritas. Só falam em multiculturalismo quando lhes convém! São cobardes!
GostarGostar
The jihadis’ master plan to break us
By Amir Taheri
November 15, 2015 | 5:40am
Modal Trigger
A victim lies on the ground covered by a white sheet outside the cafe La Bonne Biere in central Paris. Photo: AFP/Getty Images
FOLLOW THE STORY
• Now more than ever, US must celebrate its exceptionalism
• Obama pays solemn tribute to victims of Paris attacks
• Wollman Rink doubles-down on security amid terror threats
• Terrorist bought detonators at fireworks store before Paris attacks
• NSA: Not tracking phones is a ‘real mistake’
• The jihadis’ master plan to break us
SEE ALL 141 STORIES
PARIS — Still under shock from Friday night’s terror attacks, Paris may need a few more days to regain its signature mood of defiant dignity. Almost everyone had expected an attack but most still hoped it would never come. Now they are all asking why it did.
It happened because the Islamic State, the latest version of the Islamo-apocalyptic movement, has decided that Western democracies, representing the “Infidel” world, are no longer prepared to fight even to preserve their comfortable lives. The Paris attacks came on the first day of the Muslim lunar month of Safar, which coincides with the anniversary of the Prophet Mohammed’s first successful “ghazva” (raid) against the “infidel” at Safwan in 623 AD.
The Islamic State is already referring to the Paris attacks as another “ghazva,” promising many more. The aim is to terrorize all mankind into submitting to the diktats of The Only True Faith.
This is how Sheikh Abu-Bakr Naji, the late theoretician of the Sunni version of the Islamo-apocalyptic movement, put it: “No one should feel safe without submitting, and those who refuse to submit must pay a high price. The aim of our movement is to turn the world into a series of wildernesses in which only those under our rule enjoy security.”
The sheikh’s neo-jihadi theory was explained a decade ago in his magnum opus “Governance in the Wilderness” (“Edarat al Tawwahush”). The book rejected al Qaeda’s theory of war based on the assumption that “the infidel” would succumb to Islamic rule with a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11 against New York and Washington. The sheikh further examines what he calls “the five schools of jihad” to reveal their inadequacies.
Modal Trigger Firefighters evacuate an injured person near the Bataclan concert hall.Photo: AFP/Getty Images
According to the sheikh, in a world dominated by “Crusaders,” it is not possible to create a proper Islamic state in a single country. He cites as example the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Although a proper Islamic regime, it did not survive “infidel” attacks and opposition by Afghan elements. The Islamic movement must become global, fighting everywhere, all the time, and on all fronts. He wants neo-jihadis to create an archipelago of “wildernesses” in non-Muslim countries, especially in the West, turning them into parallel societies alongside existing ones. They do not set up formal governments that could be vulnerable to economic pressure or even military attack.
To our neo-jihadi sheikh, these parallel societies could resemble “liberated zones” set up by Marxist guerrillas in parts of Latin America in the last century. But they could also exist within cities, under the noses of the authorities, operating as secret societies with their own rules, values and enforcement mechanisms.
The “wilderness” will provide cover for operational bases. Jihad would be everywhere rather than in just one or two countries that the “infidel” could hit with superior firepower.
The sheikh recommends “countless small operations” that render daily life unbearable rather than a few spectacular attacks such as 9/11. The idea is that the “infidel,” leaving his home every morning, should not be sure whether he would be alive in the evening.
The Islamic State is already referring to the Paris attacks as another ‘ghazva,’ promising many more.
The sheikh believed that, if subjected to constant intimidation and fear of death, most non-Muslims, especially in the West, would submit to Islam in exchange for a minimum of tranquility. The only Western power still capable of resisting was the United States. But that, too, would change with a new president. (That was before Obama was elected.) In any case, the sheikh, quoting historian Paul Kennedy, has no doubt that “America is destined to fall.”
The sheikh’s theory is built on the concept of terror as the main organizing principle of the mini-states he hopes to set up in preparation for the coming caliphate.
The Islamic State’s message is stark: Western civilization is doomed. Its last bastion, America, lacks the will for war. The infidel loves life and treats it as an endless feast. Jihadis have to ruin that feast and persuade the “infidel” to abandon this world in exchange for greater rewards in the next.
Modal Trigger A boy looks at the floral tributes that have been laid in front of Le Carillon restaurant.Photo: Getty Images
The Paris “ghazva” used a tactic that some call “symphonic” because it offered several forms of terrorism in different themes, mixing regular military-style assaults with classical terrorism and kamikaze operations. Thus we had suicide attacks aimed at a sports stadium packed with 80,000 people, random shooting from at least two cars on people in restaurants and terrace cafes, a raid on a concert hall and the holding of hostages, and a gun battle with the security forces.
Terrorism is a beast with an extraordinary ability to mutate. As soon as its victims have learned to cope with its methods, it develops new ones. Groups of anarchists throwing bombs follow the lone assassin who targets a king or a political leader. The hijacking of passenger jets is replaced by the transformation of aircraft into missiles against fixed buildings. All the time, the intention is to terrorize the largest number of people, eroding the ordinary man’s confidence in the ability of the authorities to protect him, and, in the long run, persuading a majority of the people, who just want to live their lives, to trade their freedom for the security that the terrorist promises in his utopia.
Paris was attacked not because of what the French do, as some blame-the-West intellectuals claim, but because of what the French are: infidels who refuse to see the light of Islam. The hope is that just as the Prophet forced the Arab tribes to accept Islam in exchange for protection, the “infidel” nations will also decide that it is in their best interest to submit.
Today, however, I see no sign the French tend toward submission. As always, the terrorists may end up like the man who, having won a great many tokens at the roulette table, is surprised when the casino tells him his winnings cannot be cashed.
Filed under france , isis , paris , paris terror attacks , terrorism
Share this article:
Share this:
• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google
• Email
• Copy
•
GostarGostar
After the horrific terror attacks in Paris, French President François Hollande is talking a lot about a “strategy” to deal with the threat posed by ISIS, one he hopes to sell to President Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin within the next week or so.
What should such a strategy look like?
The community
If we use as a metaphor the Russian matryoshka nesting dolls, the Paris killers represented the smallest of the dolls.
The bigger doll within which they were nested is the network of radical Islamist groups that have struck roots throughout France and, indeed, in all Western democracies. That second doll is nested within a third one which is often called “the Muslim community” in non-Muslim societies.
The third doll may not even know what is nesting inside it but, perhaps without wanting it, provides the sociological depth needed for radical groups. In Maoist terms, it amounts to the water in which the militant “fish” thrive. That is done by creating suburbs and chunks of downtowns that have a certain Islamic je ne sais quoi about them with shops and restaurants that serve no alcoholic drinks, women in the mandatory hijab, men with ISIS-approved beards and no moustaches, and mosques that are for political propaganda rather than religious rites and discussions.
Hollande and leaders of other major powers targeted, including the United States, Russia and China, can deal with the two smaller dolls. Through new legislation as well as a more serious educational effort, the community could be made aware of the danger it poses as a human shield for terrorists by constantly cultivating a form of apartheid based on religious misconceptions.
Communities themselves can do more. Islam has no mechanism for excommunication, but it is incumbent on every Muslim to make it clear he does not share the beliefs and deeds of any other Muslims if those are in conflict with his. This could be done in simple, visually effective, ways by discarding the type of hijab now associated with Khomeinists, Taliban and ISIS.
The next doll, the radical sleeper cells in Western cities, could be detected and uprooted by properly working within the law.
It may come as a surprise to some, but France does not have a special unit to combat terrorism; it has a unit to deal with “grand banditry” and “organized crime.” But terrorism is a particular kind of threat, especially terrorism built on a religious matrix.
In 1996, the G-7 summit in Lyon, presided over by France’s then-President Jacques Chirac, approved 45 measures to combat terrorism. The fact is that none of those were put into effect. Also in the 1990s, France spearheaded a global debate on how to fight terrorism, mainly by seeking joint action through the United Nations. However, the whole process was bogged down in the conflict about how to define terrorism with the sick cliché that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
Twenty years and so many atrocities later, in more than 30 countries on every continent, it is perhaps time for France and the European Union to persuade the UN to provide the international framework needed to combat terrorism based on the principle that one man’s terrorist is every man’s terrorist.
Cowardly sickos
The doll that represents ISIS is, paradoxically, the easiest to face and defeat. Provided that its victims, among them almost all Western democracies, really want to do it.
Initially, ISIS appeared as a spectacular success because it managed to “conquer” territory as large as the United Kingdom. But it did so largely because it faced no opposition. It moved into Raqqa after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s troops had fled, many think because he wanted them to leave. ISIS then moved into Mosul and Ramadi, in Iraq, again because local units of the Iraqi army, feeling no loyalty to a Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad that discriminated against Arab Sunnis, didn’t see why they should fight.
In fact, ISIS has fought two major battles, over Kobane in Syria and Sinjar in Iraq, and lost both to a coalition of Kurdish fighters.
A shell explodes in Kobane, Syria.Photo: AFP/Getty Images
This is not surprising. ISIS patterns its military strategy on that of the Prophet Mohammed that is to say organizing “ghazva” (raids) against soft targets. The Muslim warrior has always been known as the Ghazi, a man who takes part in a ghazva. However, a ghazva is regarded as religiously licit only if the ghazis are more than 50% sure of victory. Otherwise they should return and wait for a better day. That is what the Prophet himself did in his only attempt at ghazva against the Byzantines.
Waging at least one annual ghazva became an almost religious obligation for Islamic caliphs and rulers from the 8th century onwards. And for a long while the ghazis enjoyed a number of advantages. They could decide the time and place for launching their raid as well as which target to choose, thus always having the initiative. Their enemies were forced merely to react, often long after the event.
It took the Persians and the Byzantines almost two centuries to learn the trick. They understood that, if facing no resistance, the ghazi moves rapidly ahead, like a knife in butter; but would come to a halt if he hit something hard on his way. In Persia, the Buyids decided to use the tactic against the Arabs, by becoming “counter-ghazis.” The ghazva knife was blunted and several Iranian provinces never fell to the Islamic “holy warriors.” It was not until 1071 that the ghazis, this time Turks not Arabs, managed to defeat the Byzantines at the Battle of Manizkert.
Continuing the tradition, ISIS goes where it is easy to go and flees from where it is difficult to resist. It just moved into Palmyra because nobody wanted to stop it. Next, it tried to enter Suwaida and amassed a large number of fighters and weapons for the ghazva. The city in southwest Syria had the advantage of being home to the Druze minority, providing ISIS with a tempting target. (Islamists regard the Druze as heretics who must be put to death.)
“If we use as a metaphor the Russian matryoshka nesting dolls, the Paris killers represented the smallest of the dolls.”
ISIS carried out two probing attacks on two Druze villages in Al-Huqf close to the Jordanian border in May and June 2015, cutting the heads of five “miscreants.” Druze fighters then came in from Suwaida and engaged ISIS in a mini battle, killing 11 of them. ISIS quietly withdrew.
ISIS understood that the Druze would not quietly go to slaughter as had done the peace-loving Yazadis in Iraq. As Druze fighters poured into Suwaida for the showdown, ISIS realized that the cost-benefit of the projected ghazva was not worth the effort. The caravan of ghazis had to make a U-turn back to Palmyra and Raqqa.
ISIS is not a classical terrorist organization. It is an enemy of humanity. Thus, despite what President Obama says about merely “containing and degrading” it, it must be defeated and destroyed.
So far ISIS has been relatively successful because it has not hit anything hard on its way. The homeopathic airstrikes, reluctantly ordered by Obama, have boosted ISIS’s narrative of Islamic victimhood without doing much real damage.ISIS has simply factored in the attacks as part of the daily hazards, especially because its agents all the way are capable of warning about the approach of bombers over their cellular phones.
ISIS has been in control of the rhythm and tempo of this war, even choosing the cadence of the mini battles it fights.
If Hollande manages to create a new coalition, the aim should be to wrest the initiative away from ISIS. That means turning a low-intensity war into one of medium intensity with wider and more frequent airstrikes and raids by Special Forces to destroy ISIS’s logistics and cancel its territorial contiguity. This could be done only if the local militias, many of them allied to ISIS because of fear or in exchange for arms and money, are confident that the major powers seek ISIS’s “defeat and destruction,” regardless of how long that might take.
In his message to Congress, Obama asked for permission to take action in Syria but insisted that he was not looking for something “unendurable,” (sic) presumably meaning a short campaign. Last month, Kerry corrected that by inventing a word of his own, “multi-year,” that is how long he thinks fighting ISIS would take.
There are plenty of people who want to fight ISIS in Syria and Iraq: the Kurds, the Turkmans, the Druze and the less obnoxious Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Shaam (Freemen of the Levant), Jibhat al-Nasr (The Victory Front), not to mention Sunni Arab tribes on both sides of the border.
Many areas ISIS operates in are held by emirs who could be persuaded to switch sides. With their help, ISIS territory could be turned into a patchwork of conflicting authorities vulnerable on all sides. ISIS’s decision to masquerade as a state, a “caliphate,” may be its chief attraction for Western “volunteers for martyrdom” in search of an Islamic dream. But in military terms, this could be ISIS’s Achilles’ heel because it offers a range of easy targets for airstrikes. Why these are not hit remains a mystery, at least to this writer.
It was precisely by raising the intensity of a low-intensity war that US Gen. David Petraeus managed to destroy al Qaeda in Iraq. An adapted version of that strategy could help us get rid of ISIS. But that requires US leadership.
Head of the snake
Finally, we have the largest doll in which all others are nested: Islam itself.
Islam, having started as a religion, has atrophied into a matrix for diverse and often conflicting political ideologies. Lacking a hierarchical structure, it has become a generic brand, unable to propose a coherent ethical and moral discipline for its adepts, who could become mystic Sufis or cold-blooded mass murderers.
Also because it has had no living theology for at least 200 years, contemporary Islam is incapable of offering a religious approach, let alone an analysis, of the key issues of the modern world.
No Western leader, as President Obama and Hollande have done, can say of the attacks: “This is not Islam.” Many Muslims, quite a few in fact, think otherwise. It would be more prudent for French leaders not to pose as arbiters of what is and what is not Islam.
Neither Hollande nor any other outsider could tackle the problems of the biggest doll. That is something that Muslims themselves must do.
Filed under barack obama , françois hollande , isis , paris , paris terror attacks , syria , terrorism
Share this article:
GostarGostar
Há um certo fanatismo que tem de ser combatido: não vejo onde está o problema em recusar ser atendido por um profissional de saúde do sexo oposto. Religião (e a perseguição religiosa que por aqui anda neste blog) não têm nada a ver. É uma escolha politica não permitir a escolha do médico de familia, (coisa que se consegue no privado mas não no publico), é um atentado à liberdade individual (não especificamente religiosa) obrigar-me a ter que aceitar um médico contra a minha vontade.
A partir do momento em que o acesso às profissões de saúde são iguais para qualquer género, o direito à escolha do atendimento também o deve ser. Eu pessoalmente incomoda-me ser atendido por uma médica, que não me observa e atende com o mesmo cuidado, e à minha mulher incomoda ser atendida por um médico, que não a atende com a seriedade que se espera. Somos cristãos.
Olhando isto de outra perspectiva, a decisão não passa por diferenças religiosas e culturais, passa por acabar com a ideia que o Estado sabe sempre o que é melhor para nós, assumindo que somos uns mentecaptos incapacitadas diminuidos de inteligência própria. Não sou
GostarGostar
Já agora, só para acrescentar, uma resposta ao Pacheco:
“Agora avançam para os médicos se sujeitarem à cultura dos refugiados.”
Mas sujeitar os cidadãos à vontade dos médicos, sem opção de escolha é aceitável?!
GostarGostar