From the BBC:
Schools will be able to ban pupils from wearing full-face veils on security, safety or learning grounds under new uniforms guidance issued by ministers.
It says efforts must be made to accommodate religious clothing, but stresses the importance of teachers and pupils being able to make eye contact.
It comes after a girl failed in a legal bid to overturn her school’s niqab ban.
Islamic groups have been divided in their response – some “shocked” and others welcoming the guidance.
Headteachers’ leaders have applauded the decision, saying that it would provide “clarity” and “reassurance” for schools.
A small step for the British in what I imagine will be an increasing effort to extricate themselves from their erstwhile embrace of multiculturalism as a grounding social principle, but an important one nonetheless. And what is key here is that they didn’t take the path of least resistence and simply ban all religious symbols—the response from France and, increasingly, the response from school boards in the US.
By insisting that the issue is one of putative safety rather than religious freedom, the Brits have set a kind of international precedent that I’m hopeful will follow here as a perfectly straightforward application of our own laws. Which is to say, as “ethnocentric” as it is likely to strike some people, it is completely appropriate, in my estimation, that any bans on the niqab in US schools should be upheld on public safety grounds (though we’ll hear much talk about how it’s really to ensure that the student is being properly educated, and much counter claims from civil liberties groups that to “protect” against a presumed threat, one must already be engaging in a form of religious profiling, and in singling out devout Muslims as potential threats, the law is effectively assuming that Muslims represent a greater risk to public safety than do, members of other organized religions), and that the inevitable First Amendment arguments will fall flat—the real benefit of which is that such legal clarity could actually mark an effective starting point from which to battle our own scourge of boutique multiculturalism.
The issue of religious dress has become an increasingly complicated one for schools in recent years, with a handful of high profile court cases over the right to wear a full veil.
A court victory by a Buckinghamshire school (which cannot be named for legal reasons) has prompted the updated guidance.
The school argued the veil made communication between teachers and pupils difficult and thus hampered learning.
Teachers needed to be able to tell if a pupil was enthusiastic, paying attention or even distressed but full-face veils prevented this, it said.
This position was upheld by the High Court – which refused to grant a judicial review – and is expected to form a key part of the guidance.
It is, of course, not possible to make the same argument against a small crucifix, or a yarmulke—and so there is no reason that any US Court would risk running afoul of the First Amendment should it rule in favor of schools proposing a specific ban that, for all the talk we’ll hear about “targeting,” applies to a specific piece of religious garb.
From a structural standpoint, such rulings, I think, will certainly help weaken the multiculturalist movement in this country—which, insofar as it is predicated on an antiliberal notion about authenticity and group membership, would certainly mark a net cultural positive for the US.
The danger, however, comes from the potential compensation. That is, will the First Amendment demand the advent of US madrassas, should devout Muslims move to pull out of public schooling? And if so, how does US law provide for oversight should those madrassas become radicalized—particularly if the claim is that what we call “radicalization” is, in actuality, in keeping with the dominant form of Islam being exported from Saudi Arabia? Because it seems to me it would be hard to argue that the First Amendment allows for freedom of religion—except for religion that, given its inherent theocratic bent, runs afoul of our own social structure.
This is, as I’ve noted here before, a concern that certain Germans are grappling with—and one that most liberal democracies will, sooner or later, be forced to face head on. Can a theocratic religion that demands of its adherence fidelity to religious law over the laws of the state live peaceably inside a representative democracy that relies on the rule of law to maintain social order?
There were divided responses from the Muslim community.
The chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, said he was “dismayed” by the DfES guidance.
[…]
The guidance has divided opinion within the Muslim community
“Successive ministers dealing with education issues have failed to give proper guidance when requested by human rights campaigners about schools’ obligations regarding religious dress, including the head scarf.
“To now proceed to issue guidance against Muslim communities is simply shocking,” he said.
But the Muslim Council of Britain’s education spokesman, Tahir Alam, said that the new guidance did not “alter the position very much” and said “the vast majority of schools are able to solve these issues locally”.
Dr Tag Hargey of the Muslim Education Centre welcomed the guidance.
“When you conceal the face, that actually not only dehumanises the person involved, but also creates a chasm, a gap, a bridge of non-understanding between communities and I think the sooner we can get rid of this veil, this face veiling, this face masking in Muslim societies across Britain, so much the better.”
[…]
Ayshah Ishmael, a teacher at a Muslim girls’ school in Preston who wears the niqab away from the classroom, told the BBC wearing the veil promoted equality.
She said: “You’re judged for who you are and not what you are, so I think there are two arguments to the whole equality issue.”
I find this last dubious—to me, that is perhaps a potential effect of a dehumanizing method of patriarchal control (life gives you niqabs, make niqab-ade!)—but to others, “hijabing” (see item 4), viewed in the context of Western culture, is seen as a potentially “radical” act of personal empowerment.
Again, I tend to disagree with this assertion, but at the same time, such decisions—if they are protected on both ends (ie., not mandatory, under US law; not banned outright under US law, except in those specific circumstances where public safety takes precedence over appeals to religious freedom)—are in the end personal ones, and so are beyond the purview of this particular post. Though I will say that I find this tendency to view Otherness uncritically (or perhaps “exotically”) rather dangerous, as it reaffirms the very ideas that undergird multiculturalist dogma.
And that, I suppose, is my primary concern as Western liberal states continue to accomodate Muslim immigration: can a theocratic religion exist inside a liberal democracy without stretching to the breaking point our laws allowing for individual freedom?
(Previous: “Sexing the Sharia”; “Veil of Arrogance”; “Academic Freedom?”; h/t LGF)
And no, that wasn’t really a rhetorical question.
Hijabing? Do that be like concubining?
I see a lot of hypocracy here in that Many muslims are quite selective in the laws they choose to obey.
Newt has been talking about instilling American values in the immigration process. They must be able to speak english, they must give up voting in their previous country and they must pass an American history test.
Theoretically, if the immigration process mandated an oath that the laws of the United States takes precedence, that could be a way of promoting American values without limiting free expression.
Can a theocratic religion that demands of its adherence fidelity to religious law over the laws of the state live peaceably inside a representative democracy that relies on the rule of law to maintain social order?
This is basically an apt question to be asked of Catholics. And the answer is obviously “yes” in that case (perfidious Jesuits notwithstanding). Yet with the Muslims we are… not so sure.
Because ultimately, it is the disordered ethics of Islam, not some academic abstraction about conflicting “fidelity”, that is at the heart of the problem. The limits of the utility of legalism are always reached when the cold hard facts of moralities– good ones and bad ones– intrude on the intricately assembled artifices of codified law.
I’ve been trying to find that magic exo-Judeo-Christian secular legal phraseology that will make all the good stuff legal and the bad stuff illegal (while still allowing for the appropriate amount of iffy stuff in the margins), for no other reason than to assuage my post- deconstruction, post- binary desire to avoid the horrible moment of decision, where I have to take a stand for more than just the dispassionate abstractions of “religious freedom” and stand squarely on this side, in this place, and say, with no stain of irony, that it is wrong to entomb your women, and for no other reason than it is wrong.
On a scale of one to ten, that was an eleven.
I would hope that the eventual process by which the US Supreme court ends up addressing this conundrum is the same approach the Brits have-use common sense for godsakes.
Common sense is not necessarily the basis from which court decisions spring, but hopefully Justice will peek out from underneath her blindfold to get the lay of the land. So she doesn’t stumble.
“Creeds must disagree: it is the whole fun of the thing. If I think the universe is triangular, and you think it is square, there cannot be room for two universes. We may argue politely, we may argue humanely, we may argue with great mutual benefit: but, obviously, we must argue. Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent’s faith is to say I must not discuss it.”
— G.K. Chesterton, Illustrated London News, Oct. 10, 1908
Remove the “fun” part, and you’ve got a pithy parse of the present problem.
Look at this again:
I can’t see how that, as said, means anything.
But note that we all–the reporter obviously, but even Jeff–know precisely how to pretend that it does, because we all know precisely what spin she’s obligated to, though she’s actually said nothing.
Fitting.
What’s the other one?
We know what we’re supposed to pretend here, but how are we supposed to pretend it? How is what she doesn’t actually say actually supposed to be said to work?
See, the veil, by collapsing the who (the face) into a what (the de-differentiating uniform of a subjugated mass), summons the equality fairies, like in, you know, prison. Or a nunnery.
Not that? Then what?
She doesn’t say it. I’ve never heard anyone say it. I can make a leftist argument for anything, but I’m stumped on this one. And so are they.
(I don’t think feminist “arguments” are arguments, especially on this. They can’t admit that body-fear is their motivation for everything, so “My Pet Other says so, and it’s rude and pointless to shout ‘BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY!’ at a pet, so shut up, cocklover” is all they have.)
Well, the “what,” I imagine, is a woman. Whereas the who is an individual person who happens to be a woman.
I think the idea here is akin to separating yourself from the rest based on a kind of individual merit. In short, its an argument for house slaves.
Not sure if post-enlightenment Muslims would call this kind of thing “Aunt Jazeera-ism” or not, but I can see how they might.
Incidentally, where is everybody? I don’t think many people are reading this site anymore, sad to say.
Sure, why not? In many cases, there’s no real intersection between the theocracy and the liberal democracy. For example, I don’t care if you run around in a burqa all day in your own home. Nor do I care if you wear it to the grocery store. The store owner, however, might wish to have all his customers’ faces be visible, and that’s his right as the store owner. Unmask or stay out of his store, it’s that simple. And not at all uncommon; every convenience store in my neighborhood already has a sign disallowing hoods and ski masks.
Where they do intersect, well, maybe the real problem is that it’s a spot where government shouldn’t be in the first place, like schools. But assuming that it’s too problematic to fix that issue correctly, it will be necessary to allow schools enough autonomy to exercise some degree of proprietorship as in the case of the store owner.
There’s another logical problem here that isn’t often discussed. The philosophy that looks upon the veil as a religious necessity also dictates that a woman shouldn’t be in social situations with men to whom she is not closely related unless she is accompanied by such a man. If you believe that a woman should be veiled in public, you should also believe that she shouldn’t be in school at all.
A little logical consistency, and the problem is solved. But of course, they’re not looking to solve a problem, they’re looking to create one.
I think Jim in KC and Pablo are missing the larger point here. It’s not just that this particular theocratic persuasion desires to practice their customs/beliefs within the larger (democratic) society; it’s that they desire to impose their customs and beliefs upon the larger society whether they like it or not.
That’s why the problem with accommodating Islam in a democratic society is different from accommodating, say, the Amish. The Amish, I presume, would wish that everyone held the same beliefs that they do, but they wouldn’t dream of imposing those beliefs. Islam, on the other hand, starts on the premise that everyone is, or should be, if not a believer, then at least subject to those beliefs in the form of law.
This is one of those situations that Jimmy Madison couldn’t have foreseen.
Where is everyone? I don’t know about Colo, but here in the midwest (Ohio) the sun is out and everybody is running around afraid because they’re not sure if it’s dangerous.
Other than that scary yellow disk in the sky thing, I’m here reading away.
Hence my last line:
Point taken, Pablo. I was probably just too eager to register my response to Jeff’s exit question (funny, I never used to be a spring-butt in school).
I do think that the Constitutional questions raised by the growing existence of an aggressively theocratic minority in this country are going to be thorny, to say the least. The 1st Amendment may not be a suicide pact, but somebody better start looking for an escape clause.
If you’d just sack that Collins guy, people would come back in droves, Jeff.
I don’t see this as a particularly difficult question. The 1st amendment might say that congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof, but congress sure as hell does make laws about it all the damn time. They just aren’t targeted (cough) specifically at any given religion. Frintsance, Kali Cultists don’t get an exemption to run around murdering folks in order to push back the end of the world. Mormons don’t get an exemption for polygamy. Wanna be a Satanist? Go right ahead—but you cannot sacrifice the Virgin Connnie Swayle. And muslims don’t get to hide their faces in situations that require positive ID.
Well, they can desire in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.
I will grant that there are silly and unserious people out there who–at least rhetorically–would support that imposition, but when the chips are down, will even the most ardent multiculturalist submit to sharia law? I think not.
Yes, Jim, but unfortunately, by the time the chips are down, the cost in lives and treasure to deal with it will have increased astronomically.
Incidentally, where is everybody? I don’t think many people are reading this site anymore, sad to say.
Too much Collins, not enough Goldstein.
Dan, that’s just how it’s done, unfortunately, in far too many areas. Imagine if Detroit had listened to Deming immediately after WWII.
I think we’re being a little paranoid here.
From the Iraq poll that caused such a bother yesterday:
How often do you attend mosque?
Daily 5
Several times a week 9
Once a week 17
Monthly 10
Several times a year 7
Once a year or less 4
Never 49
Percent of adults who attend religious services at least once a week:
[url=”http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_rate.htm” target=”_blank”]
United States[/url] 44%
Iraq 31%
Hmmm.
Dear Jeff,
My religion requires that I drop peyote and go to the grocery store with reflective shades on. The grocery store owner doesn’t like it, because I bounced a check there, once. What should I do?
Confused in Vermont
http://www.askimam.org/
Phil,
It’s just “Connie Swail” now
Alphie,
This is the face of your friends. The ones you think we should hand Iraq over to. This is how they measure the worth of children.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070320/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqmilitary_070320203409
Why should anyone consider anything you type as anything other than nauseating?
Paranoid about what, Alphie? Because, you know, it isn’t us Christianists that fly planes into buildings.
As to Jeff’s (second) question; I’m here and reading. I didn’t respond, because I was afraid my initial response would be perceived as anti-Islamic.
Are you trying to equate blowing up children with wearing a veil, JPT?
I just found it interesting that half of all Iraqis had never set foot inside a mosque and a far greater percentage of Americans attend regular religious services than Iraqis.
Those numbers would seem to contradict the picture our anti-Islam friends are trying to paint.
Well, alphie, you’re not only a serial liar, you’re a stupid one as well. From the very page you link,
You’re not worth the 90 seconds it took to punk you.
Can we get a new24 troll? This one sucks.
Are you saying Iraqis don’t fib to pollsters, too, Phil?
I’d bet Iraqis over-estimate their religious service attendance at about the same rate as Americans.
No, you stupid fucking piece of shit. I’m saying that there is no distinction in my mind between the people who use children as decoys to penetrate a checkpoint and then blow them up after they serve the purpose, and apologists for those people like yourself.
Whether I point that out in this thread or any other thread you pollute with your presence is irrelevant. It’s your abhorrent lack of character and ethics that revolts me. Not your opinion on veils or your sneering version of dialog.
I would replace those children with your wretched self in a heartbeat, alphie.
Meetings most of the day. Then had to grind away at the big-ass project that’s due June 26th.
Why? Because they’re culturally identical to Americans?
Are you saying Christians are better than Muslims because they lie to pollsters more, Rob?
JPT,
Can you give me a rough guess what percentage of Muslims would support the act you linked to?
Not the point. The point is, you do.
I do what, JPT?
Guess how many Muslims support blowing up kids?
How many Christians support throwing kids off bridges, drowning them in bathtubs or strapping them into a car and driving them into a lake because they’d become “evil”?
In both cases, I would guess very few.
No alpo, you support the people who blow up children. You root for them. You want them to win. And you’re not Muslim, are you, you vile piece of shit?
What the fuck does Iraqi mosque attendance have to do with dress codes and the influence of sharia law in western secular nations?
Are you calling me a baby killer, Pablo?
Did the soldiers at Abu Ghraib represent all U.S. military personnel, btw?
Or were they just a few bad apples?
I was resisting induction into an identity group. Which turned out not to be so hard after all. Instead of celebrating the unity and beauty of being diabetics, all they wanted to talk about was how to keep our blood sugar under control.
INSULINISTS!
No, alphie, I’m calling you a baby-killerophile. You don’t do it, but you support those who do, you filthy little scumbag. Reading is fundamental, whereas you’re just plain mental.
Abu Ghraib? We locked those morons up, remember?
tw: methods17
Even the TW generator is on to you, alpo.
Pablo,
Are you really trying to associate 60+% of Americans and all the insurgents in Iraq with this one act?
That’s the best you can do?
You’re an apologist for terrorists who consign children to horrific deaths for political ends. You go beyond apologizing. You want to enable them further by removing the forces that would shield those children from monsters like that for your political ends.
I fervently hope you and the rest of the human garbage you travel with, jihadists and their apologists, someday experience what those children did, you fucking piece of shit.
No alpo. You are not 60+% of Americans. You are a scumbag, and these are your friends. Is that clear enough?
Don’t you just love the way alpo is sticking up for the insurgents by telling us that this abhorrent attack isn’t indicative of the civilian slaughtering insurgency in general.
Such a nasty little cheerleader.
No, I’m saying you don’t even bother to read or comprehend the webpages you link. It didn’t support your claim.
Imbecile.
Pablo,
As we learned yesterday, 70% of attacks in Iraq are directed against our troops.
Clearly, few of the bad guys are aiming at civilians.
Why do you guys try to paint a regular old insurgency as some kind of religious jihad?
To make our occupation of Iraq more appealing to our own religious fanatics, maybe?
Oh My God. I just laughed so fucking hard I think I threw my back out. Seriously.
Next time, B Moe, throw alphie out instead.
McGehee,
We’re not all Insulinists. Welcome to the club.
No. There was no sense of comparison in my statement.
Only a dishonest twat would read it that way.
Er, no. That was what you claimed yesterday. You utterly failed to document your claim, and the truth of it is in doubt. The biggest reason it’s in doubt is because of your habit of pulling stunts like the one I quoted at the beginning of this comment.
I dunno. Because the people committing the atrocities keep saying they’re doing it because of their religion?
Nah. Can’t be that, can it?
This coming from the ‘tard that claimed US troops randomly bomb nearby buildings as soon as anyone takes a pot shot at them.
Hell, I bet he fell for the “white phosphorous is a chemical weapon” crap, too. He laps up enemy propaganda like a lesbian between her lover’s legs.
I see, a report from the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Drector of National Intelligence is not sufficient documentation to dent a neocon fairy tale, Rob?
Color me surprised!
Fanfuckingtastic!!!! This has got to be a joke. Nobody, and I mean nobody, on this planet can be so industriously dense and still be able to type.
Because it is, dumbass.
I was there for a year. This isn’t some European style secular leftist “peoples” movement fighting us over there.
These are Al-Quaeda wahabbie Sunnis and Iranian Shi’ite revolutionary movement soldiers stirring up the shit. They are goading each other TRYING to start a sectarian conflict. Zarqawi said as much.
We were catching Iranian spies in Karbala in the summer of 2003. We processed many Farsi speaking folk into Abu Ghuraib that fall and winter.
Quit trying to shoe horn this into your bullshit leftist worldview. It doesn’t fit.
You guys are the ones who want to keep your costly, ineffective social program going forever, SGT Ted.
That makes you the lefties to my Reagan Republican eyes.
Using children as decoys is the last and lowest possible feignt of the scum that plagues the Middle East. I realize that this is a different culture that is informed by older imperatives than mine. But it’s bullshit. Using children is bullshit; no glory with any god I know of.
And that all adds to my disgust with this pointless occupation. We did what we set out to do: Uproot the sick dictatorship. We dropped the ball on post-invasion details (looting, etc.), and ongoing plans.
But I want to let go of any place that accepts using children as pawns in some kind of freakish, unending culture of death, whose hagiarchy I neither respect nor understand. I say let them wade in their own blood, until history rights or forgets it.
So we have to contort our values and impose some kind of phony quasi-government, and enforce it with menacing mega-bases, and we’re there forever. Bullshit.
I know there are those over in Iraq who seek freedom, and I applaud and support them. It’s time to go, and let them fight the good fight.
Reagan Republican eyes – uh huh. Yeah.
I would name thee “Moby”, except that would be giving far too much credit. Why don’t you go back to Jules’ site for another lesson or two?
Damn, I never thought anyone would start to make PIATOR or actus look good…
Yeah, fuck anyone who stands with us against this crap – lets get a little Cambodia on. “Never again” becomes a plaintive whine of “Are we home yet?”
Frankly, cynn, that is the most disgusting thing you have ever posted on this site, and I have lost what respect I did have for you. You realize you are saying that we should simply throw up our hands and walk away, not caring how many die because of it. Not on my watch, dammit.
I’m going to go puke and not read any more of this tonight.
Using children is bullshit, protecting children is not.
Maj. John, I hope you at least read what I have to say. I have immense respect for you and your service. I am simply repulsed by what this insurgency/terrorists accepts as collateral damage these days. If these are your buds, then I owe you an aplolgy. If not, and I hope to god not, and i’m sure you will be hugely offended.
Have you no comprehension of what these people repeat over and over again? That they have no intention of stopping in Iraq, the mideast, Asia, Europe? That they fully intend to do the same thing here when the time comes? Across the whole world?
You can’t wish it away. That is their cant, their dogma, their belief. It is the inevitable outcome of jihad. The tenets of their religion places the burden on the pure believer to demand the whole world bow to sharia or die.
The sneering apologists like alphie won’t be thanked. They’ll have their throats cut And you’ll burn your driver’s license and wear a burqa or be stoned to death.
Cynn, you are upset that terrorists use children as decoys, but your answer is to just abandon those same children to those terrorists.
No wonder Major John is disgusted with you. I know I am.
How ‘bout black raincoats? Ain’t no fun hiding my face if I can’t wear my black raincoat too…
What I would want is to nail you through the balls into that back seat in place of those kids and let you watch the timer count down, you piece of jihadi shit.
But it’s too late for those kids. Your friends made their political statement and are planning the next one. Let’s just pray that somewhere, sometime in the future, a balance will be struck, those plans will include you, and you go out screaming in terror like those kids.
Maj. John, the last post attributed to me was not written by me.
It isn’t collateral damage, it’s their entire fucking point.
Magic Boyfriend? Cabana boys? Big literate cockroaches?
Interesting. Some of the posters I normally regard as being tolerant to the point of martyrdom, (JPT) have apparently finally got really cross with alphie.
Pablo in my view sums the whole thing up best. They aren’t trying to solve a problem, they are trying to create one.
In the United Kingdom, most of us have always thought that you manage the integration process of immigrants so much better in the US than we do. The requirement to speak English (thank you Hym*n K*pl*n), the taking of the oath of allegiance, the requirement, as we saw it, for your immigrants to be proud to become Americans, to want to integrate.
We thought that you had it right and we had it horribly wrong.
It is encouraging that one school in Buckinghamshire has managed temporarily to thwart the racist ambitions of the Islamists in Britain. But it was only one school, and there are many that go the other way.
More encouraging though is that I believe this particular legal battle was funded by local muslims who were damned if they were going to see their decent school corrupted by Islamist agitators.
Jeff, I hope you don’t really feel that your site is being neglected. It is one of the few worth visiting.
I’m new here.
Why isn’t alphie simply ignored. He some sort of pet or something?
Thanks.
Many of the american indian cultures, notably the plains tribes, could decide individually, in council, or by a type of collective gestalt that an individual had been involved in some transgression or shown some habitual behavior that indicated he/she didn’t possess the traits of a true human. They would simply ignore the existence of someone once they decided that that person could not be dignified as a human being. It went beyond shunning. They’d look through the individual. He/she would become something that simply wasn’t there. Inveterate lying was one of the affronts that could trigger this.
How do you square that with your bizarre fantasy about my teste satchel, JPT?
Shut your fucking piehole, jihadi
So Rob, you are The Great Everybody? Tell me this then – last summer I had a 6 foot putt on 18 to win 83 bucks, and I specifically thought to myself, “Dear Lord, the One Who is Everywhere and Everybody, please let me make this putt and I will stop reading Protein Wisdom and commenting about alphie’s vapidity.” …………Well? I’m still here.
….oh, and have you notice those new compact flourescent light bulbs? They take a while to come on and when they do they’re not that bright anyway? That’s alphie.
I wish. There are some things I’d certainly change around here.
Incidentally, does anyone want to buy a gross of Buckinghamshire Runnin’ Butler head scarves really cheap? They’ve got the nike swoosh on them. They won’t last long. Anyone?
They did give me a brochure for various forms of club ID, marketed as—get this—medical alert tags.
I was so hoping for a secret decoder ring. Since I misplaced the one I got for becoming a PW minion.
We settled on minion, did we?
I was sort of holding out for henchman.
But I will go with the majority on this.
Zombies.
PW’s horde of mindless zombies think that…The brain eating zombie’s over at Pasty’s just…Jeff’s leading his mentally challenged zombies against…
Zombies are cool.
Except for that whole eating brains thing. I’m supposed to eat less fat these days…
Besides, among the trolls we get, the pickin’s are a mite slim anyway.
Yah, but you don’t get movies called ‘Night of the Living Minion’, or ‘Dawn of the Henchmen’. Gotta go with public recognition.