Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

[MrShangles]

Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.


This is great. Unless you liked the nation you grew up in. Then it sucks for you.

Cause we wouldn’t want immigrants to assimilate to us, we gotta change for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cecilie1200]

I have to say, I don't actually have a problem with it. If an Orthodox Jew were to be elected to the House, I wouldn't expect him to remove his yarmulke. There's a difference between a fashion statement and a religious requirement.

A yarmulke is religious headwear.

Allowing it would violate the rule.

Hence, the rule change.

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Where is the religious rule that a Jewish female must cover her hair at all times?

I'm not aware of one. I am aware that some jewish sects require the male to cover HIS hair, or part of it, at least in public.

There are conservative Jewish sects that require women to cover their hair, as well. I believe Hasidic Jewish women accomplish this by wearing wigs, rather than by wearing hats or scarves.

This might someday also become an issue from a cultural perspective as well as religious, since there are numerous cultures in the world which consider it shockingly immodest for women to go out without a head covering, on a par with showing up in a bikini.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Could a member of Congress carry a gun into a session of Congress?

The answer is no, rendering your argument that she has a Constitutional right to wear her hijjab as stupid as you are.

No, absolutely NO member of Congress - or staffer, or anyone else who isn't law enforcement - can carry a gun in the Capitol. What the **** that has to do with changing the dress code so she can wear her hijab is beyond anyone rational.

Seriously, between you and Eric, I have to wonder if the local mental hospital didn't just get a new computer in the dayroom or something.

Dude. He crushed you.

Dude, all that means is "He agreed with me, so it was OBVIOUSLY a win."

And I'm not a dude.

No, I crushed your "Congress can't restrict her RIGHT" argument to pieces by pointing out that Congress doesn't permit it's members to carry firearms into chambers. That you are an idiot and didn't understand that point is of little concern to me..

It used to allow it....before the Civil War. But maybe you should petition them to allow it again.

Why would I , when I don't care what rules they have for themselves ? I merely point out that you no more have a right to wear a head covering as a member of Congress than you do to carry a gun.

 

[Correll]

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

Once again, the crux of the problem seems to be that you feel left out and are demanding special treatment. "How come she gets to wear a hat when I can't?" You do this on so many fronts, Correll. Grow up.

You are mistaken. My point is that she is receiving special treatment, having the rules changed for her.

 

[Correll]

And now we have a leftie pretending to be too stupid to understand the meaning of the word "you".


ON some level, doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

You don’t speak for lefties, you speak only for yourself. And you called the Constitution, “toilet paper.” I always knew you hate America.

It is one thing to disagree with what I say, as I spoke for lefties.


It is another to take in another step and pretend that thought I was speaking for myself.


Specifically it is the act of lying. YOu are a liar. Nothing you say, should ever be trusted or given any credibility other than it's own internal logic. Which it generally has none.

I repeat my question. Doesn't it bother you to be so pathetic?

Of course you were speaking for yourself, you don’t speak for lefties.

But I did. You can challenge me on that, or dispute my claim about what lefties say,


but pretending I said it speaking for myself, is just you being a dishonest asshole.


You lost this one, Move on, you are just making a fool of yourself, and everyone already knows that, so wasting time.

Shits the idiot who thinks the Constitution is there for him to wipe his ass.

You can challenge me on that, or dispute my claim about what lefties say,


but pretending I said it speaking for myself, is just you being a dishonest asshole.


You lost this one, Move on, you are just making a fool of yourself, and everyone already knows that, so wasting time.

 

[Correll]

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Great, let me know when you can come up with a compelling reason to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment rights.

No hats during sessions is completely reasonable. If she can't accept that, doesn't have to attend.

If it were completely reasonable, why doesn't the Senate have the same "completely reasonable" rule?

BTW....I am amazed at how frightened certain people are of a woman in a hijab.

This is not about a woman in a hijab, but about the mindset that we need to adjust to them instead of the other way around.

"We have to adjust to them"? We are being made to wear hijabs now? Where is THAT rule?

THe context is that the rule forbidding hats has been changed to adjust to this woman.


That you are pretending to be confused about and think that I am worried that I will be forced to wear a hijab, is just you pretending to be even stupider than you are, in order to be an asshole.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.

I haven't seen any evidence so far that any of them do, or that they even give a damn one way or the other. It's entirely possible many of them didn't even realize this rule existed, since hats are largely out of fashion relative to the business wear common to Congressmembers on the floor.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual. It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison.

Is it? Or are you just not able to deal with conceptual thinking?
Breastfeeding a child on the floor of Congress does not violate any Constitutional restrictions against government making a preference in treatment of one religion over another which is exactly what this Omar issue is all about.
Next time you want to compare things make sure you are comparing apple to apples instead of apples to oranges.
Hijab to ten commandments is apples to apples.Tammy Duckworth to hijab is breasts to apples. Your Duckworth comparison is not pertinent in any salient or important way.
I know, details details.

The problem with the Moore situation wasn't the 10 commandments, it was having those commandments put on public display in a courthouse in the form of a large monument. I believe another poster mentioned that Moore would have been allowed to wear a shirt with the commandments printed on them, which seems like a glaringly obvious way to point out the fallacy of your argument. It is not the content of Moore's expression of religious conviction that was the problem, instead it was the form that expression took.

The claim that Roy Moore would be allowed to wear clothing with the ten commandments printed on them is pure imaginary hogwash! The ACLU would be suing him
so fast it would be breath taking They won't allow little crosses put up on remote mountain top memorials but they would allow the ten commandments in Moore's courtroom? Bullshit!

If you are claiming people would be okay with Moore's proselytizing if only it weren't on a slab of stone then I have to conclude you haven't lived in America very long, if you indeed live here at all.
I'm not defending what Moore did, placing a slab of stone in his courthouse. But I'm defending the concept of equal treatment under the law and allowing Omar to have her way with regards to her religion but not Moore is a
******* in your face disparate application of the law.
Either people don't want to acknowledge that or they are just too damned dumb!

Your entire argument seems to be based on the false premise that any form of religious expression is the same as any other form. As I've stated previously, personal expression =/= public expression. Religious clothing or jewelry is a personal expression. A multi-ton monument placed in a courthouse is a public expression, and one that can be seen as part of the government.

Except that's not a false premise! A Star of David is not the same as Omar's hijab but they are both undeniably symbols of religious faith. If the star was ten feet tall or merely a dashboard ornament the
comparison does not change. Try to wrap your brain around that!

 

[OldLady]

So we should just allow old rules to stay in effect forever. Great thinking. Sometimes it is one case that pushes reform.

That is a nice strawman you have there. I'm sure you are proud of it. I respectfully decline your invitation to join you in playing with it.


My statement stands.



Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Nonsense. You have no evidence she receives special treatment because she’s a naturalized citizen.

lol!!! 181 year old rule, shit canned just for her? That's special treatment.


Ask me how many times some organization or group or community changed the rules just to make me happy?

Once again, the crux of the problem seems to be that you feel left out and are demanding special treatment. "How come she gets to wear a hat when I can't?" You do this on so many fronts, Correll. Grow up.

You are mistaken. My point is that she is receiving special treatment, having the rules changed for her.

Even if that were true, so what?

 

[bodecea]

Demographic shift is changing the face of the nation. And we are changing our rules to accommodate the newcomers.


This is great. Unless you liked the nation you grew up in. Then it sucks for you.

Cause we wouldn’t want immigrants to assimilate to us, we gotta change for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So....from your sarcasm, you want to prevent women thru-out the U.S. from wearing a hijab?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Some men allege, women have to cover up, because there is not enough moral fortitude to go around.

Yes, Daniel, Muslim men have sex on the brain more than any religion I ever saw. Almost all their rules have to do with keeping their women from straying or from other men stealing them. lol

And in fact , most Muslim sects would forbid this woman from being a politician anyway. She's a Muslim when it's convenient for her, which isn't that unusual for religious people, but certainly takes away from the argument that this change HAD to be made so she didn't violate her religion, since her religion actually forbids her from serving anything except dinner anyway.

It's definitely a blend of culture and old religious laws. She was no doubt raised that it is the proper thing to do. It's like Rosie said, it wouldn't be lady-like to go around with her hair hanging out in public What our mama taught us can stick with us forever, ya know.

I mean I'm cool with it, I don't think it's something to get worked up about at all, but the fact remains she can't claim "my religion says I have to cover my head so change the rules" when her religion tells her she shouldn't be there in the first place........

Which is why I earlier was surprised that this was limited to religious head wear.

The truth is, this is yet another subject that is neither worth defending nor attacking.

You make it sound as if she is picking and choosing which parts of her religion to (conveniently) follow, and that is being unfair to her, imo. You don't know what her "religion" tells her by having read excerpts from the Koran anymore than you can discern how a Methodist in 2018 will live based on reading the Bible.

It's not being unfair to her, it's merely stating facts , I even stated that it isn't that unusual for religious people . Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.

And you can't just ignore the fact that we KNOW Muslims, and others but in this thread we are talking about Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister. That doesn't mean it is, that just means you have to consider it and take it seriously if you are even the least bit concerned about our country.

 

[bodecea]

Tammy Duckworth was brought into this because another poster complained about rules being changed to accommodate an individual. It's kind of odd that someone who thinks putting a large monument on display in a courthouse is the same as wearing a hijab would suddenly fail to see any points of similarity in another comparison.

Is it? Or are you just not able to deal with conceptual thinking?
Breastfeeding a child on the floor of Congress does not violate any Constitutional restrictions against government
making a preference in treatment of one religion over another which is exactly what this Omar issue is all about.
Next time you want to compare things make sure you are comparing apple to apples instead of apples to oranges.
Hijab to ten commandments is apples to apples.Tammy Duckworth to hijab is breasts to apples.

The problem with the Moore situation wasn't the 10 commandments, it was having those commandments put on public display in a courthouse in the form of a large monument. I believe another poster mentioned that Moore would have been allowed to wear a shirt with the commandments printed on them, which seems like a glaringly obvious way to point out the fallacy of your argument. It is not the content of Moore's expression of religious conviction that was the problem, instead it was the form that expression took.

The claim that Roy Moore would be allowed to wear clothing with the ten commandments printed on them is pure imaginary hogwash! The ACLU would be suing him
so fast it would be breath taking They won't allow little crosses put up on remote mountain top memorials but they would allow the ten commandments in Moore's courtroom? Bullshit!

If you are claiming people would be okay with Moore's proselytizing if only it weren't on a slab of stone then I have to conclude you haven't lived in America very long, if you indeed live here at all.
I'm not defending what Moore did, placing a slab of stone in his courthouse. But I'm defending the concept of equal treatment under the law and allowing Omar to have her way with regards to her religion but not Moore is a
******* in your face disparate application of the law.
Either people don't want to acknowledge that or they are just too damned dumb!

Your entire argument seems to be based on the false premise that any form of religious expression is the same as any other form. As I've stated previously, personal expression =/= public expression. Religious clothing or jewelry is a personal expression. A multi-ton monument placed in a courthouse is a public expression, and one that can be seen as part of the government.

Except that's not a false premise! A Star of David is not the same as Omar's hijab but they are both undeniably symbols of religious faith. If the star was ten feet tall or merely a dashboard ornament the
comparison does not change. Try to wrap your brain around that!

On what basis would the ACLU be able to sue Moore for a personal clothing choice? Point out the precedent, please.

 

[bodecea]

Yes, Daniel, Muslim men have sex on the brain more than any religion I ever saw. Almost all their rules have to do with keeping their women from straying or from other men stealing them. lol

And in fact , most Muslim sects would forbid this woman from being a politician anyway. She's a Muslim when it's convenient for her, which isn't that unusual for religious people, but certainly takes away from the argument that this change HAD to be made so she didn't violate her religion, since her religion actually forbids her from serving anything except dinner anyway.

It's definitely a blend of culture and old religious laws. She was no doubt raised that it is the proper thing to do. It's like Rosie said, it wouldn't be lady-like to go around with her hair hanging out in public What our mama taught us can stick with us forever, ya know.

I mean I'm cool with it, I don't think it's something to get worked up about at all, but the fact remains she can't claim "my religion says I have to cover my head so change the rules" when her religion tells her she shouldn't be there in the first place........

Which is why I earlier was surprised that this was limited to religious head wear.

The truth is, this is yet another subject that is neither worth defending nor attacking.

You make it sound as if she is picking and choosing which parts of her religion to (conveniently) follow, and that is being unfair to her, imo. You don't know what her "religion" tells her by having read excerpts from the Koran anymore than you can discern how a Methodist in 2018 will live based on reading the Bible.

It's not being unfair to her, it's merely stating facts , I even stated that it isn't that unusual for religious people . Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.

And you can't just ignore the fact that we KNOW Muslims, and others but in this thread we are talking about Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister. That doesn't mean it is, that just means you have to consider it and take it seriously if you are even the least bit concerned about our country.

Again, the fear, fear, fear of deplorables for a woman in a hijab.

 

[Correll]

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Dumbfuck, with the lone exception of running for president of the United States of America, a citizen with “generations of American-ness” behind them are entitled to ALL the same rights and privileges as a citizen who was naturalized.

Just admit it, you hate Muslims and it’s driving you apeshit that a Muslim is going to get to wear a hijab in Congress.

Changing the rules for an individual's personal convenience is NOT a privilege that Americans have. If it was, we basically wouldn't have any rules.

And good choice of the word "Privilege", because that is what we are seeing in the quest for "diversity" and "tolerance".


Some people get special treatment, with the rules being changed or just ignored for their convenience or benefit.

Deciding which rules we want to change and who we want to accommodate and why IS a privilege that Americans have. And the Americans whose rule this is and who are actually affected by it have exercised this privilege. The only people pissed off about it are people who, noticeably, are butting into something that really doesn't concern them.

Remember what you were saying earlier about "defining our community"? The fact still applies that the two Muslim women in question are actually members of the community in question, having been duly elected to Congress, and you and I are NOT members of that community, having not even run for office. Which means THEY have far more legitimate right to have input into the rules of that community than either of us do.

You put forth a scenario where the community was able to discuss this rule and have input freely and seriously and honestly.


I doubt that.


I don't know it the dems held a vote or not, but any input opposing this would have been demagogued to the Nth degree, thus your claim of "input" is, imo, NOT TRUE.


These changes are not something we as a community are choosing to do, it is being forced on us.

I have no reason to believe that the proposed rules change package didn't get every bit as much discussion as any rules change package does when the majority changes hands. If you can show me otherwise, go ahead.

I suspect you know even less about how rules changes are put in place than I do, and you're just running off half-cocked to pitch a fit over something you just noticed for the first time.

These changes are not something that has anything to do with any community WE are a part of, so not one damned thing is being "forced" on YOU at all.

This is an example of an the national mindset where it is on US to adjust to them instead of the other way around.


Plenty of changes are occurring that are effecting me and mine communities, and it is silly of you to pretend this is some isolated incident.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

What do you mean, “our ways?” They’re not “our ways,” they’re House ways and we are not members of the House. They make up their own rules and it’s customary for the House to change some rules at the start of a new session.

This one has stood for 181 years.


Till the black muslim female had a problem with it. Then everyone else has to change to accommodate her.

The point though is they didn't have to change, they chose to. Just like IF the Republicans win the House back they can choose to change the rule again and if they do, this woman will have to comply. Seriously this isn't that big of a deal.

The republicans won't dare. They would be vilified by the Media and Pop Culture as Evul and Racist.


We are NOT free to make changes. Some changes are forced down our throats and any resistance or attempt to change them back is met with massive resistance.

I think it's more like the Republicans wouldn't bother, because who gives a shit?

You keep blathering about "we are not free to make changes", just as though you still labor under the mistaken idea that YOU have ever gotten to make changes in the day-to-day running of Congress. YOU are not a member of Congress. You are not a Congressional staffer. You aren't even the Capitol building janitor. This is 100% nothing to do with you and none of your business. NOTHING is being "forced down your throat", because it doesn't affect you except to the extent that you want to sit around stewing and being outraged by the knowledge that some "black Muslim" - to quote your frequent phrase - is DARING to be in Congress without knuckling under to how you think she should be.

 

[DandyDonovan]

And in fact , most Muslim sects would forbid this woman from being a politician anyway. She's a Muslim when it's convenient for her, which isn't that unusual for religious people, but certainly takes away from the argument that this change HAD to be made so she didn't violate her religion, since her religion actually forbids her from serving anything except dinner anyway.

It's definitely a blend of culture and old religious laws. She was no doubt raised that it is the proper thing to do. It's like Rosie said, it wouldn't be lady-like to go around with her hair hanging out in public What our mama taught us can stick with us forever, ya know.

I mean I'm cool with it, I don't think it's something to get worked up about at all, but the fact remains she can't claim "my religion says I have to cover my head so change the rules" when her religion tells her she shouldn't be there in the first place........

Which is why I earlier was surprised that this was limited to religious head wear.

The truth is, this is yet another subject that is neither worth defending nor attacking.

You make it sound as if she is picking and choosing which parts of her religion to (conveniently) follow, and that is being unfair to her, imo. You don't know what her "religion" tells her by having read excerpts from the Koran anymore than you can discern how a Methodist in 2018 will live based on reading the Bible.

It's not being unfair to her, it's merely stating facts , I even stated that it isn't that unusual for religious people . Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.

And you can't just ignore the fact that we KNOW Muslims, and others but in this thread we are talking about Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister. That doesn't mean it is, that just means you have to consider it and take it seriously if you are even the least bit concerned about our country.

Again, the fear, fear, fear of deplorables for a woman in a hijab.

If you can't debate a point without resorting to childish remarks , and to make matters worse you didn't even debate the point, then you have no place in serious discussion.

 

[Correll]

Except it was not changed for a Jew with generations of American-ness behind him, but for a newcomer.

Well, at least you're honest that your objection is hypocritical.

HOw it is it hypocritical to want newcomers to adopt to our ways, instead of the other way around?

Newcomers? Damn those Germans who came here and brought those stupid trees for Christmas time! Why didn't they adapt to our non-christmas celebrating ways? If it was good enough for the Puritans, why wasn't it good enough for them?

Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

Allowing religious headwear on the floor of the House, something which is already allowed in the Senate, is "changing too much, too fast and for the worse"?

Wow. Are you really pretending to be unaware of the massive changes occurring in this nation?


I reject this pretense. You are not that stupid.


My point stands. Your dishonesty does not challenge it.


Cultural diffusion is fine. That is not what we are seeing here, today. We are changing too much, too fast and for the worse.

 

[Faun]

I don't believe we should be in an uproar over people peacefully practicing their religion. Not even Islam.

So peacefully practice it at home and not in a supposedly secular environment. What's good for all other religions is good for Islam too. Ilhan Omar's expression of her religion is out of place in a political body that professes to believe in separation of church and state. Or are we just burying that essential basic aspect of America?

She’s allowed to wear it now on public grounds.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mean the obvious solution here is House Republicans should all get MAGA hats if they wish to protest this.

Trumpism has become a religion now? I read that only religious headgear is allowed.

Oh, I hadn't read that. Only religious headgear? That seems a weird rule to have in Congress. What happened to separation of church and state?

Rather than simply abolish the rule, the Democrats proposed an exemption for religious wear. If I had to guess, they want to head off some nutcase accidentally getting elected and showing up in a Scarlett O'Hara cartwheel sun hat to make some sort of point.

They don't want to conflict with religious exercise, but they don't want to open the door to the House floor becoming a circus.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, Daniel, Muslim men have sex on the brain more than any religion I ever saw. Almost all their rules have to do with keeping their women from straying or from other men stealing them. lol

And in fact , most Muslim sects would forbid this woman from being a politician anyway. She's a Muslim when it's convenient for her, which isn't that unusual for religious people, but certainly takes away from the argument that this change HAD to be made so she didn't violate her religion, since her religion actually forbids her from serving anything except dinner anyway.

It's definitely a blend of culture and old religious laws. She was no doubt raised that it is the proper thing to do. It's like Rosie said, it wouldn't be lady-like to go around with her hair hanging out in public What our mama taught us can stick with us forever, ya know.

I mean I'm cool with it, I don't think it's something to get worked up about at all, but the fact remains she can't claim "my religion says I have to cover my head so change the rules" when her religion tells her she shouldn't be there in the first place........

Which is why I earlier was surprised that this was limited to religious head wear.

The truth is, this is yet another subject that is neither worth defending nor attacking.

You make it sound as if she is picking and choosing which parts of her religion to (conveniently) follow, and that is being unfair to her, imo. You don't know what her "religion" tells her by having read excerpts from the Koran anymore than you can discern how a Methodist in 2018 will live based on reading the Bible.

It's not being unfair to her, it's merely stating facts , I even stated that it isn't that unusual for religious people . Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.

And you can't just ignore the fact that we KNOW Muslims, and others but in this thread we are talking about Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister. That doesn't mean it is, that just means you have to consider it and take it seriously if you are even the least bit concerned about our country.

Do you know of any Muslim sects which require women to wear a head covering at all time, but also allow them to become politicians? I do not.
Donovan, I don't know any practicing Muslims. Do you? How do you know so much about their faith? Or are you just guessing? Be honest. What mosque are you active in, what Muslim families are you close with, to know how young women are raised in their faith in this country?

Muslims, use our country's laws , rules, and customs against us, so you MUST consider that this woman getting this rule changed is simply the first step in something much more sinister.
Not buying that one.