Woman offended by seeing-eye dog ejects blind man from bus

Note: My opinion is that the woman in the story is probably a Muslim because Muslims have an aversion to dogs, but the news article is not conclusive on this point.

ECM likes dogs, while I like birds. He sent me this story from the Reading Post in the UK.


A driver told a blind cancer sufferer to get off his bus when a woman and her children became hysterical at the sight of his guide dog.

George Herridge, 71, told how the mum flew into a rage and shouted at him in a foreign language. A passenger explained she wanted him to get off the bus during the incident on May 20.

ECM also sent me this story from the UK Telegraph, linked by David Thompson, about the death of initiative and outrage.


Few people now dare to challenge just simple, inconsiderate behaviour in others – behaviour which flies well under the criminality radar but which manages to alienate and intimidate. It’s this which is the most worrying, though understandable, aspect to it all. There is a section of our society that remains awfully polite about such issues, and prefers to see such non-reaction as part of a British desire not to make a fuss or cause embarrassment. It’s a nice, quaint idea but it no longer plays: they simply don’t get the fact that now, it’s all about fear.

And alongside this fear is the sense that the order of things has become so inverted that one will be on shaky ground if one does indeed speak up. Most people now register some degree of outrage at being asked to desist, no matter how politely you do it. You are the rude troublemaker in their eyes. For some kind of order to be restored, back-up is crucial. And formal authority has more or less left the scene. You are on your own.

I actually blame secularism for eroding the objective morality that was, until recently, dominant in the West. The moral relativism that emerged as objective morality declined does not allow people to rationally oppose injustice. Instead, people just keep quiet. If moral relativism is true, you can’t make moral judgments against anyone.

7 thoughts on “Woman offended by seeing-eye dog ejects blind man from bus”

  1. Wintery, I suggest you re-read the article. It was never stated that the woman who objected to the dog was Muslim. It’s possible that she (or her daughter) had an irrational fear of dogs. I think the bus driver handled the situation poorly.

    Either way, how do you turn this issue (allegedly about a Muslim’s feelings about a dog being unclean) into a problem caused by atheists?

    As far as nobody intervening on behalf of the blind man (with the dog), perhaps the other passengers deferred to the authority of the bus driver, who is responsible for the passengers and who should be aware of the bus company’s policies. In which case, the problem would not be relativism brought about by atheists, but rather authoritarianism brought about by millenia of organized religions.


      1. Thanks!

        The article says that one of the passengers told the bus driver that the child was afraid of the dog. I doubt there was a religious aspect to the story at all, although people from other cultures don’t all choose or treat pets the same.

        I’m really surprised that bus drivers don’t have a policy in place for when this happens. In the US, I’m sure it would be against the ADA for a bus driver to ask the blind person to leave. I suppose if the woman/child had a problem with the dog, they would be asked to get off and wait for the next bus.


  2. If we took a poll, I wonder how many of us would hold the opinion that it is the mother and child that should have gotten off the bus instead of the blind man. If I were a betting man, I’d wager that most people regardless of religious/non-religious affiliation, would side with the blind man.
    The question then is, why?
    The blind man is handicapped (if anyone tells me to say that he’s not handicapped but specially-abled, I’ll scream)by his lack of sight and therefore in a weaker position in terms of his ability to survive. The child has her sight as well as a protective mother and is thus in a stronger position. The dog poses no threat but if naturalism is true, that’s no reason for the stronger party to refrain from ejecting the weaker party, particularly if the weaker party is causing them some inconvenience.
    Why do we favor the blind man? Precisely because the blind man is the weaker party and needs our help. Who teaches us that we should protect the weak rather than favor the strong? Jesus Christ taught that. And to give credit where it’s due, so do some other religions. The only worldview upon which such compassion is unnecessary and even irrational if it is counter to one’s self interest, is atheism. If atheism is true, there is no reason to favor the weak over the strong.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s