Tuesday, 26 January 2010

Muslim Litigation Jihad and Lawfare - using our laws against us.

Funky urban hairstyle


Sue the unbelievers wherever you find them
Although Muslims claim that Shariah law is Allah's law, and all infidel systems are 'man-made' and inferior, they are keen enough to use our laws against us.

Litigation Jihad or 'Lawfare' is used for three main purposes:

(1) Extortion of damages payments for bogus claims of discrimination or 'Islamophobia'.

(2) Use of both genuine legal systems and 'quangoroo courts' to silence any criticism of Islam.

(3) General harassment of kuffars and sabotage of kuffar society.



Headscarf hairdresser brings case
The owner of a London hair salon is being taken to an industrial tribunal by a Muslim teenager who says her headscarf cost her a job. Sarah Desrosiers, owner of Wedge salon in King's Cross, said she would fight the case and insisted she had not discriminated against Bushra Noah. Ms Noah, 19, is claiming direct and indirect religious discrimination. Ms Desrosiers said she would expect a hairdresser to have her hair on show while working.

I'm hoping for her to understand that she can't get away with treating people like that
Bushra Noah Ms Noah, from Acton in west London, said wearing a headscarf was central to her religion and would not have affected her ability to carry out her job. Ms Noah told BBC London: "I'm hoping for her to understand that she can't get away with treating people like that. "And just because I wear a headscarf doesn't mean... I can't work there." She said that during her interview with Ms Desroriers in March this year, the salon owner had said she felt "uncomfortable" with Miss Noah's wearing of a headscarf. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7087346.stm

Litigation Jihad to intimidate airlines and passengers
Flying Imams' lawsuit "appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety" In "The Real Target of the 6 Imams’ Discrimination Suit" in the Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten repeats what I have maintained from the beginning: that the entire Flying Imams incident is an attempt to get religious profiling outlawed, thus giving jihadists a free hand in airports -- no matter how suspiciously they are acting, officials will be afraid to question them. Note also that the Flying Imams' lawsuit wants to sue the passengers who complained about their activity also.

Their lawsuit appears to be the latest component in a national campaign to intimidate airlines and government agencies from acting prudently to ensure passenger safety. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is advising the imams, is also calling for congressional hearings and promoting federal legislation to “end racial profiling” in air travel. If the legislation passes, airport personnel who disproportionately question passengers who are Muslim or of Middle Eastern origin could be subject to sanctions. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/03/flying-imams-lawsuit-appears-to-be-the-latest-component-in-a-national-campaign-to-intimidate-airline.html

Quangoroo Court asked to shut down free speech
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — A couple of years ago, a Canadian magazine published an article arguing that the rise of Islam threatened Western values. The article’s tone was mocking and biting, but it said nothing that conservative magazines and blogs in the United States do not say every day without fear of legal reprisal. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal will soon rule on whether the cover story of the October 23, 2006, issue of Maclean’s magazine violated a provincial hate speech law. Two members of the Canadian Islamic Congress say the magazine, Maclean’s, Canada’s leading newsweekly, violated a provincial hate speech law by stirring up hatred against Muslims. They say the magazine should be forbidden from saying similar things, forced to publish a rebuttal and made to compensate Muslims for injuring their “dignity, feelings and self-respect.” http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/06/new-york-times-isnt-sure-that-free-speech-is-such-a-good-idea.html



"Insulting Islam" now a million-dollar offense
Easa Begzad will not get one million dollars from the Hayward, California, Police Department to compensate for insults to Islam made by two Hayward police officers. But it seems that he will not because the officers were able to convince the jury that they didn't make the remarks. Does that mean that if the jury had been convinced that the officers had called Islamic art "garbage," they would have given Begzad his million? From the looks of this report, no one seems to have been saying, "Hey, they called some posters on your wall 'garbage.' That may show them to be boors and idiots, so don't invite them to your next dinner party. But it doesn't entitle you to one red cent."

This case should never have advanced as far as it did. The fact that it did manifests once again that the mentality of dhimmi subservience has advanced with stunning rapidity in the U.S. Can you imagine some Christian bringing suit because someone called Christian religious art "garbage"? He'd be laughed out of court. But not Easa Begzad. "Insulting Islam" is apparently now a potential million-dollar offense. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/10/california-jury-throws-out-muslim-mans-lawsuit.html



UK Muslim cop sues: other cops "laughed at his beard"
Javid Iqbal, poor lamb, says that the big bad mean "white" police officers made fun of him. Shouldn't police officers be made of stronger stuff? Could it be that Javid Iqbal is merely trying to stir up resentment among Muslims toward the British authorities, once again deflect attention away from Islamic terrorist activity by portraying Muslims as victims, and divert attention away also from his miserable performance as a police officer? Now, it would be "Islamophobic" to suspect any of that, of course, but couldn't Javid Iqbal have taken the taunts with patience and shown up his tormentors by doing a good job? Why was that option out of the question?

Litigation Jihad Update: "Muslim PC sues after workmates 'laughed at his beard,'" by Andrew Levy for the Daily Mail, March 9 http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/03/uk-muslim-cop-sues-other-cops-laughed-at-his-beard.html




Quadriplegic Muslim sues UK spy service after spy application rejected
"Suleman, a Muslim, said he wanted to protect Britain and to take a stand against extremists." If he really wanted to protect Britain, he wouldn't tie up its resources with frivolous lawsuits like this. Litigation Jihad Update: "Wheelchair-bound man sues MI5 after application for spy job rejected," from the Telegraph, March 9 (thanks to all who sent this in): A wheelchair-bound former bus driver is suing MI5 for £363,000, after his application for a job tracking down suspects was rejected. Sajad Suleman, 35, admitted he could not move his arms or legs when he applied to be a Mobile Surveillance Officer but still claimed he should have been the "preferred candidate" out of the 1,092 who applied.
He said the role – "all about observing people or places either on foot or by vehicle" – could have been adapted and he could have travelled and tracked targets by train, coach or taxi. The service should have also paid for his health care, he said. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/03/quadriplegic-muslim-sues-uk-spy-service-after-spy-application-rejected.html



Norway: New hijab wearer sues for discrimination
Allowing hijab at work is usually couched in terms of enabling immigrant women to work. However, in two recent cases, the women in question had taken up wearing a hijab recently, one quite recently. Maybe it is not surprising: women who wear a hijab for traditional reasons are more likely to be traditional in every aspect of their lives. Women who take it up in order to make a statement, would go out of their way to ensure they make an impact.

Fouzia Tanveer (20) was denied a job at a 7-Eleven because she wears a hijab. Tanveer is now turning to the Equality and Discrimination Ombudsman. Such cases come up every so often, and I did not see this one as unusual, except for one issue: Tanveer started wearing a hijab the day before she started working. She came to her job interview without a headscarf, and at that time she never wore a headscarf before. She tried it on in the shop and didn't feel like taking it off. When she came to work, she asked one of the employees if she could wear a hijab. The employee called his boss, the same guy who interviewed her, who said she should take it off. Tanveer says she asked just to be certain, but didn't expect a negative response. She doesn't think it's relevant how long she's been going with a hijab. She says it's now part of her identity. She read that 7-Elven support free choice and she doesn't understand why they don't respect hers. She says she not taking up the issue because she wants her job back. She says she's doing it for other girls who wear a hijab and want to work.
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/03/norway-new-hijab-wearer-sues-for.html



France: Human rights organization sues Wilders
A French 'human rights organization' is summoning Geert Wilders to court.
The head of the PVV party is accused of inciting to hatred of Muslims. "Wilders made statements about French Muslims, about Muslims in Paris and Marseilles, which incite to racial hatred," says lawyer Yassine Bouzrou. He lodged the complaint on behalf of the organization, which is being studied by the public prosecution. If Wilders is found guilty, he can be sentenced for one year in prison. Wilders was not aware of the complaint yesterday evening. "I hear this for the the first time," he said. "The wold is becoming small with trials and procedures everywhere: from the Netherlands, Jordan and England to France. Dreadful. But I'll naturally fight back judicially. They won't prevail over me."
Last week the PVV head signed an official appeal against the UK's refusal to let him into the country. The French complaint is based on Wilders' speech in New York last September. "Paris is now surrounded by a ring of Muslim neighborhoods," he said then. "Many neighbourhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves."

He called the riots in the suburbs in 2005 a "Muslim intifada". Bouzrou came to the conclusion that the expressions are criminal. "Wilders says in that speech also that one in three French Muslims supports suicide attacks. With that he suggests that one in three French Muslims is a potential terrorist. Where he does he get all of this? How did he get ot it? Wilders makes serious accusations which are based on nothing." Bouzrou made the complaint for the French human rights organization ADDH. They work together with the Collective against Islamophobia in the fight against Muslim hatred. "A politician may express his idea. But Wilders makes dangerous statements about something of which he has no understanding. These are not political ideas, but insults and prejudices," says the lawyer. http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2009/03/france-human-rights-organization-sues.html



Minnesota: Muslims at chicken plant win $1.35 million in discrimination suit
The $365,000 in cash payments was settled last November, as we noted here. The settlement as a whole seems based on Muslim worker complaints that they were denied prayer breaks during work hours, and that they had to sign "forms acknowledging they would be required to handle pork." It is likely that the company devised those forms precisely in order to avoid religious discrimination lawsuits like this one. After all, there are plenty of jobs these workers could have taken that would not have required them to handle pork. No one was forcing them to take this one. And that is why this whole lawsuit is more redolent of a stealth jihad initiative to intimidate American businesses into conforming to Sharia norms, rather than a genuine discrimination case. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/04/minnesota-muslims-at-chicken-plant-win-135-million-in-discrimination-suit.html



Muslim chef 'stress' over pork
A Muslim chef was "stressed and humiliated" after being switched to a job where he was expected to cook pork products, a tribunal has heard. Hasanali Khoja from Edgware, north-west London, said even wearing gloves or using tongs to cook would not protect him from the risk of splashes. Mr Khoja, who was working for the Metropolitan Police, also alleges that racist gestures were made at him. The 60-year-old chef is claiming religious discrimination. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8044099.stm



Greece: Muslim associations sue policeman for allegedly desecrating a Koran
And "demand" an apology. More on this story. "Greek Muslim associations sue policeman," from SETimes.com, May 26: ATHENS, Greece -- Muslim associations in Athens have filed a lawsuit against a policeman who allegedly desecrated a copy of the Koran last week, media reported on Monday (May 25th). Last Thursday, the policeman allegedly took a Koran from a customer during a police check at an Athens coffee shop, ripped it apart, threw it on the floor and stomped on it. Police say the officer did not know it was Islam's holy book. http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/05/greece-muslim-associations-sue-policeman-for-allegedly-desecrating-a-koran.html



UK: Muslim cocktail waitress awarded $4,700 for being made to wear "indecent" dress
What was a pious Muslim doing working as a cocktail waitress, anyway? And what did she expect to wear inside a bar -- a burqa? Not coincidentally, she dresses more "indecently" than she was asked to in the bar on her Facebook page -- indicating that this was all about intimidating the dhimmis, and of course, it worked. Absurd Brittania Alert: "Muslim cocktail waitress gets £3,000 for sexual harassment after bar ordered her to wear 'indecent' dress," from the Daily Mail, June 15 (thanks to Ayeesha): http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/06/uk-muslim-cocktail-waitress-awarded-4700-for-being-made-to-wear-indecent-dress.html




Canadian Human Rights Commission wants more censorship
I'm still shaking my head over the Canadian Human Rights Commission's grotesque memo to Parliament. It's a political stunt -- designed to save Jennifer Lynch's job as chief commissar, and to protect the CHRC's North Korea-style powers of political censorship. It's an attempt to mau-mau Parliament into forgetting the CHRC's abusive and corrupt conduct.

Ezra Levant Being Sued By Muslim Fool - Robert Spencer Calls For Financial Help
Islamic supremacists can't handle free speech. They can't abide any negative talk about Muhammad and Islam, even if that negative talk consists essentially of quoting other Islamic supremacists in their use of the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify violence and that same Islamic supremacism. Sharia norms dictate that a dhimmi who speaks ill of Muhammad or Islam forfeits his contract of "protection" and thus may lawfully be killed. And in our own day, the Organization of the Islamic Conference is working at the United Nations to criminalize "criticism" of Islam, which means any honest talk about how jihadists justify their behavior by reference to Islamic teachings. In the U.S., thuggish groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations work to stifle free speech about Islam and defame those who engage in it. In Canada, meanwhile, there is Khurram Awan.

Fearless, peerless Kathy Shaidle has the news on the latest attempt by a Muslim to silence free speech about Islam and jihad: [...] You may remember Khurrum Awan as the lone male "sock puppet" who foolishly accused Mark Steyn of "Islamophobia" and took him to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. You'd think Awan's humiliating defeat in that wrongheaded battle would have taught him a lesson.
Nope.
Now Khurrum Awan is suing Ezra Levant, for libel. http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2009/07/ezra-levant-being-sued-by-muslim-fool.html

AND

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has given itself another report card.
The last one, released in November, 2008, didn't quite work out as planned: Professor Richard Moon, who was paid $50,000 by the CHRC to write a short review of its conduct, surprised everybody by calling for the repeal of the commission's censorship powers. The CHRC immediately garbaged Moon's report. Its press release accompanying the report didn't even mention Moon's chief recommendation, and announced instead that a do-over review would start immediately. Needless to say, no outsider was trusted to write this one. It's not surprising that the CHRC gave itself a glowing review this time. But what is remarkable is that, far from being chastened by the public condemnation its bad behaviour has provoked, the CHRC has called for even more censorship in Canada. http://ezralevant.com/2009/06/canadian-human-rights-commissi.html



Bin Laden slur Muslim PC wins £11,000 payout in racism claim
A DEVOUT Muslim police officer who claims his boss compared him to Osama Bin Laden, mocked his beard and referred to his prayers as “shouting and wailing”, has won £11,000 in damages against West Midlands Police.

PC Tariq Dost, of Small Heath, said the comments made by his former line manager Darren Yates left him feeling hurt, humiliated and depressed. An employment tribunal upheld PC Dost’s allegations that he had been treated with religious and racial discrimination and awarded the figure of £11,000 based on a psychiatric report measuring the scale of his hurt. Employment judge Hughes said: “The remarks made were offensive and more so because PC Dost is a very religious man.” After the trial, PC Dost said: “I feel vindicated and very happy that the tribunal has found that West Midlands Police has treated me in a racially discriminatory manner and it saddens me that I have had to bring this action to get some form of justice. It wasn’t about the money as I had already refused two offers made to me by West Midlands Police. It was about the principle.”

But PC Dost, who was himself disciplined by West Midlands Police over his attitude towards women, had further allegations of victimisation rejected. He claimed his punishment for remarks made towards a female colleague where he boasted about his sexual performance and use of Viagra was harsher than that doled out to Mr Yates. PC Dost was fined 13 days’ pay and removed from his post as positive action officer, where he mentored ethnic minorities and women to apply to the police force, after discussing the sex drug with colleagues and telling one she wouldn’t be able to walk when he’d finished with her. http://www.birminghammail.net/news/birmingham-news/2009/06/27/bin-laden-slur-muslim-pc-wins-11-000-payout-in-racism-claim-97319-23999823/


Legal action probes and harasses
The recent legal action undertaken by a Saudi law firm against the publishers of the Turban Bomb cartoon prompted a lot of discussion about the audacity of Islamic demands on the infidel West and what might be an appropriate response. Rather than simply react to the ostensible issue itself — in this case, the demand that newspapers apologize for their actions and promise never to publish a Motoon again — it’s important to look beneath the surface and examine what’s really going on here.

As I have said previously, this legal action is a probe. It serves several functions:
1. It tests Western cultural defenses,
2. It games our legal system in order to strain and weaken it, and
3. It preoccupies public attention and ties up resources while other probes and more serious offensives are mounted on different fronts.

Every moment we spend being outraged or pointing out the vileness of Muslim behavior or demanding that our governments do something is wasted. All of these outcomes contribute to the success of the probe from the point of view of the prober. Anything that sucks up our time, energy, and financial resources is a winner from the point of view of Islam. Whether the incident is a bomb on a bus, a public conflict over the construction of a mosque, or a lawsuit against the publishers of a cartoon, our various responses have up until now served the interests of the expansion of radical Islam. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/09/barking-up-wrong-tree.html



Muslim extremist lawyer earns £4.5 million for representing jihadists
A headscarf-wearing Muslim extremist lawyer who specialises in representing Islamist terrorists in Britain has earned more than £4.5 million from the taxpayers’ purse for defending those invaders’ criminal actions. Ms Mudassar Arani, a refugee from Uganda, has represented three of the 21/7 bombers: Abu Hamza, ‘dirty bomb’ plotter Dhiren Barot, and Sulayman Zain ul abiden; individuals arrested in connection with Zacarias Moussaoui the 20th 9/11 terrorist arrested in America; and the wives and families of people identified as the ‘top ten’ al-Qa’eda terrorists. Ms Arani, who was accused of trying to bribe a witness in the 21/7 case, billed taxpayers almost one million pounds in the last year alone. Her firm’s legal aid fees of £4,445,533 have been racked up over the past eight years. According to the Legal Services Commission, which is responsible for funding legal aid, her company was paid for “wages for solicitors, case workers, support staff and overheads, such as offices costs.” Ms Arani has had a chequered career since Britain gave her ’sanctuary’ from Idi Amin nearly 40 years ago. During the trial of the 21/7 bombers she was accused by a QC of attempting to bribe another solicitor’s client. http://bnp.org.uk/2009/07/islamists-bomb-britain-but-british-taxpayers-pay-millions-for-their-legal-aid/



Another headscarf, another lawsuit
A popular national chain of clothing stores is being sued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for allegedly not hiring a Muslim Tulsa teenager because she wears a hijab, a religiously mandated head scarf. The EEOC filed the lawsuit Wednesday against Abercrombie & Fitch in U.S. District Court in Tulsa, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, modified in 1991, as the basis for the action. The suit says that Samantha Elauf, 17, applied in June 2008 for a sales job at the Abercrombie Kids store in Woodland Hills Mall.

A district manager allegedly told her that the hijab, which Elauf wears in observance of her religious beliefs, did not fit the store's image. "Defendant refused to hire Ms. Elauf because she wears a hijab, claiming that the wearing of headgear was prohibited by its Look Policy, and, further, failed to accommodate her religious beliefs by making an exception to the Look Policy," the lawsuit states. Elauf went to the Council on American-Islamic Relations-Oklahoma, which helped her file a complaint with the EEOC in Oklahoma City. The Civil Rights Act protects people from discrimination based upon religion in hiring and in the terms of their employment, an EEOC press release says.

The law requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee unless doing so would create an "undue hardship" for the employer. Michelle M. Robertson, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC, stated, "It is unlawful for employers to treat applicants or workers differently based on their religious beliefs or practices in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring and job assignments." http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090918_11_A11_Apopul517991&archive=yes



Libel Lawfare videos http://beernsandwiches.blogspot.com/2009/06/libel-lawfare-silencing-criticism-of.html


Why we must stop legitimizing Muslim grievances
'There is no surer path to Muslim violence than through the legitimization of Muslim grievance. And once you accept the legitimacy of the grievance, then you are also bound to accept the legitimacy of the violence that follows.

Violence begins with grievance. Grievance is the pretext for violence and the narrative for the violence. Liberals make a fetish of separating the grievance from the violence, emphasizing constructive means of resolving the grievance. But what do you do when the grievance and the violence are inseparable?

Grievance is the stories that Muslims tell themselves to justify their violence. To explain why they kill children and why they murder the innocent. The list of grievances is an endless as the violence. Every act of violence carries its own narrative. The endless Muslim conflicts throughout the world all carry their burden of history. But it isn't a history that can be resolved with a tolerance session... More





2 comments:

Anonymous said...

It is coming to the point that free speech is dead. Prefacing a comment by labling it a parody, spoof, or satire will become your only protection from litigation.

ZION WILL TRIUMPH said...

war is coming, THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT.