China

Brickbat: Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette

|

Christian Ries

The Chinese government has ordered Muslim store and restaurant owners in Xinjiang to not only sell alcoholic beverages and cigarettes but to prominently display them. Those who refuse may have their stores closed and face prosecution. The move is part of an effort to undermine Islam in the mainly Muslim area, which also includes barring government employees and children from attending mosques.

Advertisement

NEXT: California State Employees Get Protections Against Traffic Citations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While here in the home of religious freedom and tolerance we only force Christian bakers to bake cakes for gay weddings to undermine their religion.

    1. It only took 2 minutes for that to be said. The Commentariat never disappoints 🙂

      1. And yet you don’t see the obvious parallels?

        1. Susan did put a smiley face at the end. I don’t see that comment as criticism.

      2. Is the comparison inaccurate?

        1. I’ll take it a step further. Why should Muslim store owners get to impose their values on customers by not offering them the products they want. Sure, the store owners might think alcohol and tobacco are immoral. But, refusing to sell these products amounts to discrimination against those who don’t share those values.

          1. Clearly Bill, not stocking a particular item or set of items is preventing every consumer who is alive from having any possible access to the item(s) in question.

            Government is merely levelling the playing field here, so that everyone (except the bigoted and selfish shop owners) has equal rights.

            /sarc

          2. because it’s their store? “Discriminate” does not inherently imply malevolent motivation (you’d want to be discriminatory when choosing a car to buy). they’re “discriminating” against customers theyre being discriminatory in the items they sell, i.e. not selling items they think are immoral or whatever. ill take it a step further. why should anyone else get to impose THEIR values on the store owners? Besides all of that nobody should be in the business of legislating morality or motivation – this is just as wrong as muslim countries not allowing stores to sell alcohol (not really very wrong in itself but emblematic of deeper problems which could be used for evil).

            1. *not* discriminating against customers

            2. Sarcasm, Eman (and Charles), how doe it work?

              My point was that every argument that is used to demand fundamentalist bakers make gay wedding cakes can equally be used to support the Chinese government’s position.

              1. how *does* it work?

                1. I like “doe” better. Ima start using it.

              2. ah over my head. sarcasm is hard to get across the internet, and there are enough trolls about you cant assume something that sounds like it has to be a joke actually is one.

                1. pretty much everything about giant asian para-communes sounds like a joke

                  1. Tell me there’s Asian Giant Para-Commune sex somewhere on teh internet….

                    /Rule 34

              3. I understood your points, Bill, and attempted to carry on in similar fashion. I was being sarcastic as well.

                1. Maybe I should look up how it works.

                  1. Which will bring us back to “doe”.

        2. The big difference here is that this is America. You can, if you choose, work to abolish laws to which you object to. It isn’t easy, but few things that are worthwhile really are. In fact there are several states which are indeed in the process of overturning and outlawing anti-discrimination ordinances.

          I’m no booster of these things but the reality of them is far more complex than the predictable, asinine comparisons to communist dogma make it out.

          1. So, Susan, if the Chinese had a vote and decided “Yeah, screw the Muslims!”, you’d be honkey-dorey with this?

            1. I think she’s just pointing out that such occurrences are far less likely in America, and that when things along those gen’l lines occur, they’rfe far less extreme or severe, because it’s a democracy (or republic, whichever synonym you prefer).

              1. I think she’s just pointing out that such occurrences are far less likely in America, and that when things along those gen’l lines occur, they’rfe far less extreme or severe,

                Tell that to the guy fined $150 grand.

        3. Yes. The comparison is inaccurate. If a store doesn’t sell cakes, they can’t be forced to sell cakes to gays. It’s still wrong to force homophobic bakers to bake cakes for gays, but it’s not an accurate comparison.

          1. That strikes me as a rather trivial distinction. Purchasing something for someone who wants a particular product is the service offered by retailers. That they refuse to make purchases for those who want alcohol or tobacco is just as much discrimination as the homophobic baker.

            1. Trivial? Not at all. The Chinese shopkeepers are being forced to carry products they don’t want to carry. The equivalent would be a bakery that stopped serving cakes to everybody out of the fear that their product might be consumed by a homosexual, and then being forced by the state to resume baking cakes specifically because of their homophobia. That’s just not happening in this country. I think even the most militant statist posing as gay-rights activist would agree that the homophobic baker may simply stop baking cakes if they are afraid of baking cakes for gays.

              1. All you’re doing is restating your previous point. I fail to see why dictating your customers is somehow more acceptable than dictating your product.

              2. All you’re doing is restating your previous point. I fail to see why dictating your customers is somehow more acceptable than dictating your product.

    2. And pay for someone else’s birth control.

  2. The Chinese government also successfully sued Coors, forcing them to ship cold to Xinjiang.

  3. I don’t think this will undermine Islam. Piss them off,yes.The chi coms didn’t think this through. I just don’t buy all the China will rule the world soon crap..Their still a country made up of mostly poor people with a corrupt elite.

    1. Yeah, what were they thinking? Oh, well, I can buy booze here, I guess I’ll do that instead of taking up Islam.

  4. I don’t think this will undermine Islam. Piss them off,yes.The chi coms didn’t think this through. I just don’t buy all the China will rule the world soon crap..Their still a country made up of mostly poor people with a corrupt elite.

    1. “The chi coms didn’t think this through.”

      Who needs to think when you have the biggest fist?

      1. Reason has the Fist of Etiquette, does this mean we will rule?!

        1. …does this mean we will rule?

          Libertarians – always scheming to take over the world and leave you alone.

          1. YOU BASTARDS!

            *shakes Fist of Etiquette*

  5. …to not only sell alcoholic beverages and cigarettes but to prominently display them.

    What, no Mohammed portraits?

    1. The Central Party likes to drink, they could care less about looking on pictures of Mo.

      1. How about a picture of Mo cracking open a cold one?

        1. Instead of “Piss Christ” you could have “Beer Mohammed”!

          1. Alliteration please, Mohammed Mead.

            1. Wait, I’ve got it! The Party could send out a picture with all the major religious figures sitting around a table slamming various beverages – it would be in the fashion of “Dogs Playing Poker”…Christ quaffing wine, Mo slamming a mead, Buddha deep into a soju, etc.

              1. i really really like this idea! i bet it would piss off more than just muslims too, like “my religious figure would NEVER drink with [fill in the blank]”

              2. I would buy that painting.

                1. I thought you posed for that painting, FM?

                  1. His payment was being able to consume the prop drink.

        2. How about a picture of Mao cracking open a cold one?

    2. What, no Mohammed portraits?

      Smoking a Camel?

      1. Why you racis- Oh, the cigarette.

  6. Pasties? Have a slice of National Sandwich Week instead.

    This week it’s British Sandwich Week (10-16 May), a national campaign celebrating the butty made famous by John Montague, the 4th Earl of Sandwich in the 1700s.

    It’s rumoured the lazy blighter didn’t want to stop playing cards to eat while he was on a 24-hour gambling marathon, so he requested the cook bring him a snack consisting of meat between two slices of bread so he didn’t have to stop and use a knife and fork.

    From then on fellow gamblers are alleged to have requested ‘the same as Sandwich’, and a national institution was born.

    1. A similar story is told of the Spanish grandee, Don Enchilada.

      1. Citation?

        Cause all I found was “Enchilada is the past participle of Spanish enchilar, ‘to add chili pepper to’, literally to ‘season (or decorate) with chili'” Whereas the Earl of Sandwich is still an active title (the current Earl as of a few years ago even decided to capitalize on the title by selling a line of pre-packaged sandwiches with his signature on the box)

        1. To be totally fair, I made up that story.

          1. But it’s totally true that the egg roll was invented when Lord Egg Roll wanted something to eat while he was playing Maj Johg.

            1. +1 Haitei

        2. “the current Earl as of a few years ago even decided to capitalize on the title by selling a line of pre-packaged sandwiches with his signature on the box”

          That’s pretty good.

          1. Leave it to british nobility to take 300+ years to cash in on their name.

            1. +1 inbred (or not the sharpest tools in the shed).

              1. Well, until owning land was no longer enough to make you rich, that sort of thing was beneath them.

        3. I love it. I can see him decked in ermine, saying, “For years you’ve been buying the me-toos that come & go, and perhaps you even made your own weak imitations, but you knew there was only one original. Now get the authentic sandwich from the Earl. Still fresh.”

          Too bad that approach was undercut when the Burger King started silently offering sandwiches pulled out from under his cloak to everybody on TV.

    2. Ahh, the modern day British version of the sandwich is a sad, limp, stale thing, nothing compared to the beauty of a deli (NYC preferably) sandwich in America – filled with corned beef, roast beef, Virginia ham. Let’s not forget the pickles and coleslaw.

      1. Ditch the slaw, which actually reduces the amount of flavor in the bundle, and you might have something there. Lets replace the slaw with pastrami, and the pickes with sourkraut (you get your cabbage back Lady B)

        1. I think this is really about personal taste.
          Why not Spam, Spam, Spam, and Spam?

          With a little Spam on the side, of course.

          1. Have you tried grilled spam and cheese?

            1. In the coming zombie/economic collapse apocalypse, the only kind of meat available will be the kind you kill yourself or the previously canned variety. So, either Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam. Or, you keep what you kill.

            2. Y-Y-Y-Y-Yes…..yes….I….I have. More than once. On purpose…

              *looks guiltily at ground*

            3. No, but I’ve diced Spam (as an alternative to sliced hot dogs) for a version of pasta carbonara.

  7. This stunningly degenerate, underdeveloped shitpit is the model pinkos glamorize and idolize? The sooner these fucks drown in the inevitable implosion of their retarded country, the better.

    1. Not pinkos, authoritarians. The real commies can tell that they don’t even pretend to be actual communists anymore.

  8. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.work-cash.com

  9. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.work-cash.com

  10. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.work-cash.com

  11. Does anyone know where I could find a link to start making cash now?

    1. Wow – wish I’d thought of that one weird trick!

    2. I’m sure myrtis wolmstead will have the answer.

    3. Be careful. If you click on that link, the Chinese government will force you to sell booze and smokes. But you will make $8596 a month, so there’s that. ?~?

  12. I’m surprised they don’t make them serve pork…

  13. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    ==================
    try this site ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.