Tipsheet

Here's How the Left Will Ban Dogs to Appease Islamists

Amy Curtis
Amy Curtis  |  March 09, 2026 12:30 PM

Back in February, the U.K. said dogs were an obstacle to its latest diversity scheme, namely turning the "too white" English countryside into a more "diverse" (read: Islamic) place to live. Not long after, a Muslim in New York said she was glad the city was "coming to Islam" when it came to dogs.

Islam believes dogs are filthy and they're haram in many places, of course. But people in the West love their dogs, and the pet industry in the U.K. makes over £10 billion. In the U.S., that figure is $157 billion for 2025. Most of that is driven by dog ownership, so of course the politicians can't come and outright ban all dogs.

The backlash would be swift and severe. Instead, they're going to find backdoor ways to ban dogs, and the U.K. seems to have found one of them.

Here's more:

Sixty-seven dog breeds could be banned in Britain if new breeding guidelines set by parliament become mandatory, campaigners have warned. 

The all-party parliamentary group (APPG) for animal welfare has launched a new tool to determine if a dog is healthy. 

The cross-party committee has developed a 10-point checklist of extreme physical characteristics which can make for a poorly pooch. 

They include mottled colouration, excessive skin folds, bulging outward-turning eyes, drooping eyelids, under or overbite and a muzzle that interrupts breathing.  

The assessment - which is currently voluntary but expected to become law within five years - aims to drive out breeds with these sorts of exaggerated attributes. 

It comes after studies have shown animals of these varieties can sometimes suffer pain, discomfort and frustration from birth.

Some of the breeds that would be banned include the Border Collie, the Boxer, the Great Dane, Daschunds, the Newfoundland, the Shih Tzu, and the St. Bernard.

The Left does this in America, too. Instead of banning guns or free speech, they make the cost of ammo and gun ownership cost-prohibitive, or they use corporations like Facebook and pre-Elon Musk Twitter to circumvent the pesky Constitution.

Yes. Mass migration without integration has consequences.

Will they, though? So far, they've let the Left steamroll them.

Right. It's not about "animal welfare concerns" because they'd ban halal slaughter.

It's about appeasing the Islamists who don't like dogs.

Yes. And then parts of the U.S. That's how this always goes.