The debate surrounding requests by some Muslims that police sniffer dogs wear rubber booties, to protect homes from the 'ritually unclean' canines, seems like a moot argument. As far as the Kennel Club, among others, knows these rubber booties do not interfere with the work of police dogs in any way. Therefore, any outcry of special treatment of Muslims mustn't be rooted in practical fact but cultural insensitivity.



Britain is a liberal democratic country and a tenant of liberalism is cultural inclusion. Governments, even Gordon Brown's government, rule by consent - that is, government can only be legitimate when the majority of people are willing given transfer some of their authority to it. This principal, of course, is not new; it was first elucidated by philosopher John Locke in the late 1600s. What can an old, dead, white man tell us about sniffer dogs and rubber booties? He wrote, in his magnum opus Two Treatise on Government that, "nobody doubts but an express Consent of any man, entering into any Society, makes him a perfect Member of that Society, a subject of that government." Locke, the founder of liberal democracy, argued that immigrant give their express consent, the highest form of consent, to the existing government and social norms of their new country.

What can an old, dead, white man tell us about sniffer dogs and rubber booties? He wrote, in his magnum opus Two Treatise on Government that, "nobody doubts but an express Consent of any man, entering into any Society, makes him a perfect Member of that Society, a subject of that government." Locke, the founder of liberal democracy, argued that immigrant give their express consent, the highest form of consent, to the existing government and social norms of their new country.

I doubt anyone in Britain considered the needs for rubber booties on sniffer dogs before the current debate. Immigrant groups who find British culture incompatible with their own have no ground, according to Locke, to demand separate treatment. The beauty of the modern world is its plurality; if an individual does not agree with the standards of his or her country, they have the ability to move to another nation where their behaviour is acceptable.

I, nor Locke, would suggest that sniffer dogs could never wear rubber booties. If Muslims, and others offended by unclean dogs, could muster the votes and convince the majority to consent to such measures, then all sniffer dogs could be outfitted with proper footwear. However, until that time, it is irresponsible and unethical of government to offer special treatment to any minority group.

History has proven that special or separate treatment of minority groups is not equality. Under democracy all people must be equal before that law, and it is repressible to contrive systems to any other effect. All dogs should wear footwear, or none at all. If an individual is offended by this, he has two options, move to another country or convince the majority of the righteousness of his point of view. The minority has no right to impose its view on the majority, but it does have the right to campaign and attempt to convince the majority of the rectitude of their position.