Hertz fires 25 Muslim drivers in break dispute

At last! A company that's not intimidated by threats of Islamic violence or concerned with appearing politically correct. Hats of to Hertz.

We can now expect the likes of CAIR to scream like a stuck pig about discrimination and persecution of a religious minority and how it's necessary for Muslims to pray 5 times per day. Let's hope Hetz stands strong against the oncoming media smears and threats of law suits by the Obama "justice" department.

FROM EMIRATES247.COM:

Hertz fires 25 Muslim drivers in break dispute
By AP

Published Friday, October 21, 2011

Hertz is firing 25 Muslim drivers at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport who have refused to agree to clock out for daily breaks during which they normally pray.

The workers drive the company's rental cars to and from the airport for cleaning and refueling. They are among 34 Hertz employees suspended Sept. 30 for failing to clock out before breaks.

The Seattle Times reports that Hertz says nine of the 34 signed the agreement and have returned to their jobs.

Hertz spokesman Rich Broome says the company made it clear the workers needed to agree to the clock-out conditions by the end of the day Thursday if they wanted to be reinstated. The newspaper says termination letters have been sent to the 25.

The company has said some workers were taking longer than the 10 minutes allowed.

Observant Muslims pray five times a day.

The terror suspect said she didn't have to rise

Inch by inch, step by step the Islamists are winning the jihad. In this case a woman being tried for raising money for Islamic terrorists is defying the judge in her trial by not standing at the beginning of each session. Since the judge has allowed her to do this several times without jailing her for contempt, he has allowed her to take control of his courtroom. Her refusal to stand is a direct challenge to the authority of the government. We have got to realize that a dedicated jihadi will continue to fight with any means at their disposal.

FROM TWINCITIES.COM:

The terror suspect said she didn't have to rise. The judge disagreed.

By David Hanners
dhanners@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 10/03/2011 11:00:05 PM CDT

Jury selection was expected to continue today in the trial of two Minnesota women accused of raising money for terrorists, but one of them might have to watch the trial on closed-circuit TV from a holding cell.

Testing the waning patience of Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, defendant Amina Farah Ali refused to stand Monday when court was called to order or recessed during jury selection in her trial with co-defendant Hawo Mohamed Hassan in federal court in Minneapolis.

Ali, 35, of Rochester, claimed that her Muslim teachings - in particular, her interpretation of hadith, collections of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad - made her believe it was wrong to stand when a clerk cried, "All rise."

"I was told that there's a freedom of religion in this country," Ali told the judge at one point. "I don't think I should be punished or inconvenienced in any way for practicing my religion."

Davis, unmoved, said it wasn't a matter of religious freedom but rather court decorum. By the time jury selection ended for the day at 4:30 p.m., he had found her in contempt five times and vowed to keep doing it every time she refused to stand.

He said there was a limit, though. Ali had been free while she awaited trial, and Davis ordered her taken into custody and told her that if she persisted, she would watch the trial via television in a separate room.

Over the lunch hour, court technicians set up and tested the video feed.

Ali's co-defendant, Hassan, 64, also of Rochester, rose when court was called to order, as did about a dozen Somali women and a handful of men in the gallery. At one point, a female spectator did not rise when the judge entered the courtroom, but a court security officer told her to stand, and she did.

Article continues HERE.

Muslim Convert Janice Brown Cries "Religious Discrimination"

Propaganda jihad in action. Just looking for an excuse to play the victim and garner support from a gullible public. The really sad part is that the hospital will grovel in abject dhimmitude and Islam will have and another inroad into the control of Western civilization.

REPOSTED FROM ANSWERINGMUSLIMS.COM:


Muslim Convert Janice Brown Cries "Religious Discrimination"
after Hospital Refuses to Engage in Gender Discrimination

Muslims are trying really, really hard to be the victims, and the media are trying really, really hard to make their wish come true.

Janice Brown is a convert to Islam. Based on her reading of the Qur'an, she believes that it would be a sin to take off her clothes in the presence of a male doctor. Hence, when she needed treatment for hemorrhoidal bleeding, she requested a female doctor. The hospital, however, refused to discriminate based on gender. That is, they refused to seek out a female doctor for Brown when a perfectly capable male doctor was available. The result? Brown is now claiming that, by refusing to discriminate against a doctor based on gender, the hospital discriminated against a Muslim based on religion. The media are supporting her, and the hospital is launching an investigation.

Now for the hilarious part. In the video below, Brown quotes from the Hilali-Khan translation of Surah 24:31 to explain why she can't take off her clothes in front of a male doctor. Apparently, no one over at Fox News bothered to read the entire verse when they decided to take Brown's discrimination claim seriously. The verse reads:

And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts, etc.) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like palms of hands or one eye or both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer dress like veil, gloves, head-cover, apron, etc.), and to draw their veils all over Juyubihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms, etc.) and not to reveal their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husband's sons, their brothers or their brother's sons, or their sister's sons, or their (Muslim) women (i.e. their sisters in Islam), or the (female) slaves whom their right hands possess, or old male servants who lack vigour, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And all of you beg Allah to forgive you all, O believers, that you may be successful.

Notice that this translation commands Brown to cover her face (except for one or both eyes). Yet when she's being interviewed for her anti-Muslim discrimination clip, she wears a simple hijab:

Notice also that the translation she quotes never says it's okay for female doctors to examine her. The Hilali-Khan translation only allows certain men, Muslim women, female slaves, and children to see Brown's "adornment." Hence, her request to the hospital should have gone something like this:

"I need to see a doctor. But I will only allow a doctor to examine me if the doctor is my husband, or my father, or my husband's father, or my son, or my husband's son, or my brother, or my brother's son, or my sister's son, or my sister in Islam, or my female slave, or an old male servant who lacks vigor, or a small child. And if you do not provide me with such a doctor, you are a hate-mongering, Islamophobic bigot who is discriminating against my religion!"

On a side note, I have to ask a question. What's more disturbing: (a) letting a trained male medical doctor treat your hemorrhoidal bleeding, or (b) letting your son, your stepson, your nephew, old men, and young children look at your vagina? According to Brown, (b) is perfectly acceptable, while (a) is an abomination.

Strange religion she converted to.

NOTE, THE EMBED WILL NOT WORK. PLEASE FOLLOW THE LINK ABOVE TO VIEW THE VIDEO

The jihad of the word erupts in Denmark yet again

Here's what "hate speech" laws lead to.  Islamists will use the very hate speech laws they insisted upon, supposedly to protect them from "Islamophobia", to silence any criticism of Islam. 


FROM SPECTATOR.CO.UK:

The jihad of the word erupts in Denmark yet again
Sunday, 8th August 2010

A chilling development in Denmark illustrates just how ‘hate speech’ laws, which were introduced by deluded western liberals, are being used to stifle and criminalise the expression of legitimate opinion and essential debate -- the prerequisite of a liberal society. Lars Hedegaard is president of Denmark’s International Free Press Society, which is devoted to fighting to preserve freedom of expression -- particularly against the threat from radical Islam to shut it down on the spurious grounds of ‘Islamophobia’. The inevitable has now happened: as Nathaniel Sugarman writes at The Legal Project,
Hedegaard finds himself facing prosecution for ‘racism’ over remarks he has made about Islam.

    The basis for Hedegaard's prosecution was an interview from December 2009 in which he made controversial statements about Islam. These assertions included critiques of what Hedegaard saw as Islam's permissiveness regarding child abuse and bearing false witness, as well as Islam's general intolerance concerning apostacism and critical speech. Snaphanen, a Danish blog, published the original interview, and Hedegaard has since clarified some of his remarks.

    Hedegaard's statements earned him a hate speech charge under Danish law. While Denmark's constitution ostensibly protects freedom of expression and forbids censorship (see Section 77), the Criminal code provides that "expressing and spreading racial hatred" is a criminal offense punishable with up to two years imprisonment. (Article 266b).

It seems this is not the first such prosecution in Denmark:

    On June 16, 2010, the Danish parliament voted to strip a lawmaker of immunity so that he could face charges over anti-Muslim comments. The politician, Jesper Langballe, is a veteran member of the Danish People's Party (PPD) and a crucial ally of the center-right government. In January 2010, he penned a newspaper column discussing the status of women in Islam and the "Islamisation of Europe." Included was the statement that "Muslims kill their daughters over crimes of honour and turn a blind eye while they are raped by their uncles." He is currently awaiting trial for violating Article 266b—the same hate speech statute that will likely be applied to Hedegaard.

There is however a ray of light for Denmark: it seems that the Justice Minister is now considering amending the hate speech laws on the grounds that they could be misused to restrict free speech. If so, this would underscore Denmark's general reputation for robustness in defence of its core civilisational values. It's a reputation which has nevertheless taken a knock from its adoption of these illiberal hate crime laws in the first place -- but remember the heroic Jyllands-Posten, whose staff found themselves under a death sentence for publishing the Mohammed cartoons.

However, the possible amendment of Denmark's hate laws is scant consolation for other western countries, with the UN having decided to criminalise all criticism of sharia law, as reported here. Until and unless western liberals finally understand that radical Islamists are not a minority whose human rights need to be defended but are instead a mortal threat to human rights which must be defeated -- and crucially, that the UN is the vehicle of Islamist oppression and must in turn be fought by all who care about human rights  -- the light of freedom will continue to be extinguished in the west.

Palestinian-American Fired for Sexting at Work Claims Anti-Muslim Bias

Ah yes, playing the race card, or more accurately, playing the religion card.  In addition, Mohammad Aref “Mike” Shehadeh gets to wage legal jihad against the infidels.

FROM YIDWITHLID:

Palestinian-American Fired for Sexting at Work Claims Anti-Muslim Bias
This is something that could only happen in our overly PC litigious society. Former Homestead Florida City Manager Mohammad Aref “Mike” Shehadeh, a man of Palestinian descent  was fired from his nearly $180,000 city government job after allegedly viewing a fetish website at work and sending sexually suggestive text messages to a subordinate on his city-issued Blackberry.


Shehadeh filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and a complaint U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit seeks $1.3 million over contentions that he was fired without reason. His EEOC complaint said it was discrimination:

    Petitioner was constantly subject to a discriminatory work environment and discriminatory practices against him based on his religion [Muslim] and ethnicity [Arab-Palestinian],”

The truth is that he was fired for conduct unbecoming a city manager  after a private investigative firm reported the results of its probe into his work activities. The probe revealed that Shehadeh used his city computer to spend time at Arab dating websites, with more than 300 visits. The probe also founded solicited business for his brother’s firm, engaged in political activities on behalf of some council members, and visited Goddess Qetesh.com, a dominatrix website.

    The hostess of GoddessQetesh.com describes herself as being interested in forced bi-curious activities, and states that she is seeking personal and financial slave servants.

    The hostess further states that she enjoys doling out whippings, public humiliation and other risqué desires.

All of that is OK  on your own computer but not at work and not directed to you subordinate. Just two days after Homestead council members voted 6 to 1 to fire Shehadeh from his $179,431-a-year job, concerns surfaced about his use of a city-issued Blackberry to engage in countless incidents of “sexting.” His sexting parter, former Deputy City Manager Johanna Faddis,was also fired.

Who does Shehadeh say his oppressor is? Who else the Vice mayor with the Jewish sounding name

    The complaint, he cites numerous incidents involving Homestead Vice Mayor Judy Waldman and her husband as examples of religious and national origin bigotry that he endured.“For years, Petitioner was subjected to harassment, blackmail, threats and mental anguish at the hands of Waldman,” the complaint alleges.

    The complaint further states that, during one encounter, Waldman’s husband referred to him as the “Palestinian City Manager.”

    “Since there is pending litigation, I am reluctant to comment,” Waldman said when contacted. “However, statements made in the complaint are false and outrageous.” Waldman is a life-long Christian and former Sunday school teacher. Her husband is a non-practicing Jew, Waldman explained.

    She said she regularly gave out Christmas gifts to city employees, including Shehadeh, who always accepted them. She said the complaint is the first time she has been made aware that Shehadeh does not recognize Christmas.

Do you notice that nowhere does Shehadeh deny the sexting and porn site visiting. His sexting partner has not complained that she was fired, and despite the fact that he said he was subjected to harassment for years, there were no complaints before they found him using the city's computer to visit GoddessQetesh.com.

Our overly politically correct society has made it easy to use charges of harassment and discrimination as a way to blunt real workplace disciplinary actions. The reason is simple, our society is too afraid of offending people. Sadly the false discrimination charges often work, which increases the fear. It is a never-ending cycle that serves to cast doubt on real discrimination when it happens.

'American Taliban' asks to join prison prayer suit

Even from within prison, Islamists continue to wage jihad against the West through lawsuits intended to further the Islamic takeover of the free world.  In this case, as always, the ACLU is waiting in the wings to aid and abet the Muslim attack on freedom.

FROM WAVE3.COM:

'American Taliban' asks to join prison prayer suit

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh is seeking to join a lawsuit that claims Muslim inmates held in a special unit at the federal prison in Indiana aren't allowed to pray in groups as often as their religion demands.

The lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana contends that Muslims in the Terre Haute prison's restrictive Communications Management Unit should be allowed to pray in groups daily. But the Bureau of Prisons argues the unit includes Muslims from several different sects that have varying requirements for group prayer.

The ACLU is waiting to see whether a federal judge will approve its requests to include Lindh in the lawsuit and for class-action status.

Lindh is serving a 20-year sentence at the prison for aiding Afghanistan's now-defunct Taliban government.

Combating Lawfare

A look at the Muslim use of "lawfare" in the global jihad.
 
FROM JEWISHWORLDREVIEW.COM:

Combating Lawfare

By Steven Emerson

Federal courts are slowly becoming a new battlefield in the war on terror, with combatants setting aside traditional weapons and arming themselves instead with domestic and international laws. Responding to this phenomenon, the inaugural meeting of The Lawfare Project convened last week in New York to discuss The Use of the Law as a Weapon of War.

Major General Charles Dunlap coined the term lawfare, identifying it as:

    "a cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents. Rather than seeking battlefield victories, per se, challengers try to destroy the will to fight by undermining the public support that is indispensable when democracies like the U.S. conduct military interventions."

Dunlap recognized some time ago, as Supreme Court Attorney (France) Francois-Henri Briard said at the conference, "the law may be a weapon, and litigation a battlefield."

The day-long conference brought together diverse panels of experts from around the world. Their discussions focused on the ever-growing threat from Islamists' exploitation of international and domestic legal systems to intimidate and silence their critics. In particular, as the organizers explained, the conference focused on the manipulation of the legal system for three strategic purposes:

   1. To thwart free speech on issues of national security and public concern.
   2. To delegitimize and diminish the sovereignty of democratic states.
   3. To inhibit the right and ability of democracies to defend themselves against terrorism.

Setting the stage, the participants identified the scope of lawfare, providing some context for the issue. In 400 B.C. Chinese General Sun Tzu wrote in The Art of War, that in fighting a stronger foe, "success begins by seizing something which your opponents hold dear; then he will be amenable to your will." As the panel discussions demonstrated, America and the West hold dear the rule of law, and so our enemies have met with some success in attempting to hijack Western legal and moral principles to turn international media and public opinion against us.

Think being the victim of a frivolous lawsuit simply for speaking out against terrorism sounds crazy? Think again. Discussing this very issue on radio, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation (MASF) Mahdi Bray explained:

    "Folks, that's got to be the next horizon for our community. In order to deal with these haters, these bashers, these Islamophobes, we've got to be willing to spend our money in a court of law. And not necessarily because we don't look for money, but we need to be able to say we need to spend our money and make you spend your money, and you're gonna stop doing this to us."

In 2005, the Islamic Society of Boston filed a lawsuit charging defamation against over a dozen defendants, including the Boston Herald, Fox 25 News, and Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson. The defendants were targeted by ISB for publicly speaking about the Islamic Society's connections to radical Islam and for raising questions about the construction of its Saudi-funded mosque in Boston. Two years after instituting the lawsuit, and immediately following the discovery phase of the litigation, ISB dropped its case.

Similarly, in 2007, KinderUSA, sued terrorism analyst Matthew Levitt, claiming it was libeled in Levitt's book, Hamas: Politics, Charity and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad. In the book, Levitt included KinderUSA among "other American-based charities [which] continue to fund Hamas" after the Holy Land Foundation closed its doors. KinderUSA dropped the case four months later after Levitt and publisher Yale University Press filed motions invoking California's anti-SLAPP provisions-claiming the litigation was intended more to squelch the book than to produce any courtroom damages.

The Islamist movement, as Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer, have explained in an article titled "Legal Jihad": How Islamist Lawfare Tactics are Targeting Free Speech, "is made up of two wings-that which operates violently, propagating suicide-homicide bombing and other terrorist activities, and that which operates lawfully, conducting a 'soft jihad' within our media, government and court systems, through Shari'a banking and within our school system." These groups work together:

    "For example, one tenet of Shari'a law is to punish those who criticize Islam and to silence speech considered blasphemous of its prophet Mohammad. While the violent arm of the Islamist movement attempts to silence speech by murdering film directors such as Theo Van Gogh and by forcing thinkers such as Wafa Sultan into hiding out of fear for her life, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western court systems, hiring lawyers and suing to silence its critics."

These lawsuits are being used as a weapon of war against counter-terrorism experts, law enforcement personnel, politicians and anyone working to disseminate information on Islamist terrorism and its sources of financing. These lawsuits are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants.

Rather than simply identifying a problem without proposing solutions, panelists had many ideas for combating lawfare.

First, in the face of frivolous suits intended to stymie debate, those who truly believe in the application of the rule of law to achieve justice must stand up and defend themselves against the allegations. As Utah Attorney General Mark L. Shurtleff explained during the conference, "the best defense to the legal manipulations of our adversaries is to take the offense and stand firm, as the Roman historian Livy wrote, with 'pride in our own past and our achievements.'" As Shurtleff stated, the battle will truly be lost if we cede the ground.

More than simply playing defense, panelists agreed that reverence to the rule of law demands proactive action-filing civil suits against the supporters of terrorist groups to ensure that they are as bankrupt as the ideologies that they support.

The war on terrorism today is virtually without borders and must be fought accordingly. While the United States has devoted tremendous federal resources to shutting down the support structure of terrorist groups, private citizens have already recognized that more can still be done. They have taken up arms against the support structure of terrorist groups, using the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1990 to hit these white-collar terrorists where it hurts the most-their checkbooks.

In May 2005, the parents of David Boim, a 17 year old New Yorker who was killed in a Hamas terrorist attack in the West Bank, filed a lawsuit against U.S.-based organizations and individuals that provided logistical and financial support to Hamas. In December 2008, a federal appeals court ruling upheld the $156 million judgment against three of the charities. Similarly, in 2005 victims of Hamas suicide bombings sued National Westminster, a British-based bank, seeking to recover money from Hamas linked accounts.

As current Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Gabriela Shalev explained during the conference, "those engaging in lawfare are misusing the laws of war and the open-mindedness of democracies" to undermine the rule of law and diminish legitimate grievances. Rather than sit idly by and allow this to happen, the conference participants proposed a call for action-fight back.

'Freedom of speech' victory

Here's an important victory in the lawfare war being waged by Muslims against the West.  Happily, this case has been dismissed against a Christian couple charged with a hate crime in Britain.  The alleged crime being "insulting" a Muslim.  Unfortunately, the Christian couple have suffered significant financial losses due to the adverse publicity and legal expenses.  Hopefully they will be able to recoup their losses from the Muslim who brought this bogus lawsuit.

FROM DAILYMAIL.CO.UK:

'Freedom of speech' victory as Christian hoteliers are CLEARED of insulting Muslim woman as judge slams her evidence
By Daily Mail Reporter 

Last updated at 5:12 PM on 09th December 2009

Christian hoteliers accused of insulting a Muslim guest for wearing the hijab and berating her for her beliefs were dramatically cleared this afternoon.
Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words which were religiously aggravated against white British Muslim convert Ericka Tazi, 60.

District Judge Richard Clancy, who heard the case in the absence of a jury, told the couple that religion and politics was the 'tinderbox which set the whole thing alight and it would appear because of strongly entrenched positions that is what has happened here'.

Explaining his reasons for dismissing the case, he said Mrs Tazi's claim that she was verbally attacked by the couple for up to an hour had not been borne out by other prosecution witnesses, who suggested that any discussions lasted around seven minutes.

Judge Clancy also highlighted Mrs Tazi's use of language. When describing how she was provoked by the couple about her hijab she used words to the effect of: 'Would you prefer it if I got my tits out?'
He said: 'I mention this because when I read that together with what she said about 'them taking the piss' it doesn't quite form the same religious view that was put to me on the stand'.
Judge Clancy said: 'I'm not satisfied on the facts that this case has been made out.'
His decision was greeted by prolonged applause from the couple's supporters in the public gallery.

Outside, Sharon Vogelenzang told reporters: 'We've been found innocent of any crime. It has been a very difficult nine months and we are looking forward to rebuilding our business and getting on with our lives.

'We would like to thank all those who have supported us, our family, our friends, our church and Christians all around the world, and non-Christians.

'And as Christmas approaches we wish everybody peace and goodwill.'
Mrs Tazi told the court yesterday that she was left traumatised after being insulted by the couple while a guest at The Bounty House Hotel in Aintree, Liverpool, on March 20.
She said they laughed at her when she came down wearing a hijab on her final day at the hotel and shouted at her, saying her Islamic dress was a form of bondage and that she had provoked an argument by wearing it.
Mrs Tazi, who converted to Islam when she married a Muslim 18 months ago, was staying at the hotel while she attended a pain management clinic at Aintree Hospital for her fibromyalgia.

She claimed Mr Vogelenzang called the prophet Mohammed a murderer and a warlord and likened him to Saddam Hussein and Hitler.
But the couple denied her version of events and claimed Mrs Tazi told them Jesus was a minor prophet and that the Bible was untrue.

Earlier, the court heard how the Vogelenzangs' B&B had suffered as a result of the case.
Benjamin Vogelenzang, 53, accused Mrs Tanzi of trying to ruin his business during heated scenes in court.
The hotelier raised his voice and thumped the witness box before he was told to behave by Judge Clancy.

His 54-year-old wife, Sharon, told the court that takings were down by 80 per cent since they were prosecuted for a public order offence.
READ IT ALL:

Christian couple in court over comments about Islam

This is truly a case that will have far reaching repercussions if this couple are found guilty of "insulting" Islam.  Unfortunately, if they are found not guilty, another Muslim will step forward with another bogus case.  The tragedy is that such a case could even be accepted by a court.  It shows just how far Islamists have come in cowing Britain. 

FROM CHRISYTIANTODAY.COM:

Christian couple in court over comments about Islam
by Jenna Lyle
Posted: Tuesday, December 8, 2009, 11:31 (GMT)

Christian hotel owners Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang go on trial today for comments they made about Islam.

The couple, who own the Bounty House Hotel in Liverpool, are being prosecuted for a religiously aggravated public disorder after a Muslim guest complained they had made offensive comments to her on March 20.

They allegedly described Muslim dress for women as “bondage” and described the Prophet Mohammed as a “warlord”.
Their legal defence is being funded by the Christian Institute. Its director Colin Hart is appealing to Christians to pray for the couple as they stand before Liverpool Magistrates' Court today and tomorrow.

“We believe that it is the first case of its kind in the UK and could have significant implications for the religious freedom of all Christians,” he said.
Christian Institute spokesman Mike Judge said previously that there were “significant free speech and religious liberty issues at stake”.

The Vogelenzangs fear the court case could lead to financial ruin after a nearby hospital stopped referring patients to the hotel over the accusations. The Christian Institute said the move had led to an 80 per cent drop in the hotel’s income. They face a £5,000 fine and criminal record if found guilty.

Their defence lawyer David Whiting said: “Ben and Sharon do not accept they were threatening, abusive or insulting.”

Australian court brands Muslim leader a racist

At last, a judge with the balls to call a Muslim practicing legal jihad what he is: a dangerous man and a racist. Good for the judge, hopefully this is not an insolated incident, and judges throughout the West will stand up to Muslim scare tactics.

FROM EARTHTIMES.ORG:

Australian court brands Muslim leader a racist

Sydney - Australia's best-known Muslim leader "holds views which can properly be described as racist," a Supreme Court judge said Friday when deciding against him in a defamation action he brought against a Sydney radio station. Keysar Trad, head of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, is the spokesman for Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, the mufti of Sydney's biggest mosque.

He sought damages from 2GB radio station for its description of him as a dangerous individual who incited violence, hatred, and racism.

Justice Peter McClelland echoed that view, saying the Lebanese-born father of 11 was a dangerous person and had had encouraged hostility between Muslims and non-Muslims.

"Many of his remarks are distasteful and appear to condone violence," McClelland said. "I'm also satisfied that he encourages others to hold those views. In particular, he holds views derogatory of Jewish people."

Dare To Be Different

Another aspect of Islamic Jihad is lawfare, the suing in court to achieve inclusion of Sharia law into Western society. And the administration, Congress and judicial branch sleepwalk into Sharia and are dragging the entire population into an Islamic hell.

FROM STRATEGYPAGE.COM:

Dare To Be Different

April 18, 2009: American counter-terrorism organizations believe they have discovered a new form of Islamic terrorism. It's basically intimidation via staged controversy. One tactic has Islamic clerics boarding an aircraft as a group and deliberately acting suspiciously, but legally, hoping to attract the attention of security officials and being removed from the aircraft. In one case, three years ago, the six clerics involved then sued, claiming discrimination. They also tried to sue other passengers who had pointed out the odd behavior to flight crew. A year before, a similar incident occurred at a football stadium in New Jersey.

The tactic may seem strange to Westerners, but Islamic radicals discuss among themselves the need to create fear and confusion in Western nations they plan to convert to Islam. Many Islamic radical leaders living in Western nations openly speak of somehow converting Western nations to Islam, as part of the plan (a favorite of al Qaeda) to turn the entire planet into an Islamic state. Using the Western legal system to harass the local population and government, and creating situations where Moslems can claim discrimination and oppression, are two tactics often mentioned.

A third benefit of these methods is to make non-Moslems reluctant to report odd activity by Moslems, especially terrorists or activists. Since the Islamic radicals believe it is a sure thing that they will succeed, they believe any attention is good for their cause. The reality is that it does not work out that way. The attention makes most Westerners hostile to the demonstrative and combative Moslems. It's basically mutual incomprehension. Islamic radicals believe that this hostility towards Moslems will make it easier for the radicals to recruit, and make security forces more reluctant to oppose violent behavior by Moslems.

Muslim Girl Gets 400G From Nevada School District in Head Scarf Bully Case

This is a case of preemptive dhimmitude. Lets see, to summarize; a 14 year old Muslim girl makes unsubstantiated allegations of bullying, files a lawsuit for religious persecution, quits school before the end of the year, moves to Egypt, gets married (at 14) and then collects, without even going to court, $350,000 in a settlement from her dhimmi school district.

I wonder if when she arrived in Egypt, she joined the 95% of Egyptian women who have their clitoris' cut out to make them suitable for their Muslim lord and master?

Adults somewhere in the background filed the suit for her. CAIR perhaps? Mr. Cox claims it was to end "lengthy and expensive litigation." But why, once she left the country, did the school districts attorney Robert Cox settle the completely unsubstantiated allegations?

Unfortunately, this cowardly settlement is all too common and only encourages other groundless nusence suits. The next suit, and there will be a next suit, will demand even more compensation and outrageous accommodations to Muslim "sensibilities".

All I can say is that Mr. Cox and the school district have just given Islamic Jihad another victory in it's war on the Western world.

Where will you be when the Jihad hits the street?

All Muslims are slaves. Muslim women doubly so.

FROM FOXNEWS,COM:
Muslim Girl Gets 400G From Nevada School District in Head Scarf Bully Case
Wednesday, April 08, 2009

A Nevada school district agreed to pay $400,000 to a Muslim girl and her friend over allegations that other students threatened to kill her in the stairwell for wearing a religious head scarf and the staff did nothing to stop it.

The Washoe County School District in the Reno area will give Egyptian former student Jana Elhifny $350,000 and her non-Muslim friend and supporter Stephanie Hart $50,000 as part of the civil settlement.
Elhifny and her family came to Reno from Egypt in 2003, and the girl enrolled as a freshman at North Valleys High School.

She didn't finish the year after she told teachers and administrators that someone had threatened to kill her in the stairwell because of her Muslim hijab or head scarf, the district's independent attorney in the case, Robert Cox, told FOXNews.com.

Shortly afterwards, Cox said, Elhifny filed the lawsuit and returned to Egypt, where she married her fiancé.

The lawsuit, handled by U.S. District Court in Reno, alleges that Elhifny faced death threats and harassment and school administrators did nothing to stop the abuse.
Cox said that wasn't true, and the teen was unable to give any description of her tormenter — including his or her gender, size and tone of voice.

He said the high school tried to investigate her claims but was unsuccessful because of the lack of information.
"The district did an incredibly thorough investigation," Cox told FOXNews.com in a phone interview. "They could never identify the person who perpetrated these acts. ... The district did everything it could do to try to help this young woman who is an Egyptian and of the Islam faith."

Cox said school officials couldn't confirm the stairwell death threat story.
"They tried to prove that, tried to track down who it was, but without a description ... that couldn't be done," he said. "The district did watch her constantly and had people in the hallway."

He said the settlement was agreed upon to end lengthy and "expensive litigation." The case has been fought in the courts for the past four years, according to Cox.
Lawyers for the girls praised them for their bravery in bringing the suit in a joint press released issued by counsel for both sides.

"Ms. Elhifny and Ms. Hart had the courage to stand up for themselves and defend their right to a safe education," said Peter Obstler, a San Francisco attorney who handled the young women's lawsuits with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada.
Hart, a non-Muslim who says she was ostracized when she befriended Elhifny at North Valleys High School and also dropped out, will receive $50,000. Cox said she was a supporter of Elhifny's rather than a victim and never complained to school officials before getting involved in the lawsuit.

The settlement was announced early Wednesday. The monetary award will be paid by the district's insurance carrier.
The district also agreed to work with lawyers on harassment and discrimination policies.

Attempts to reach Elhifny in Egypt and Hart, who now has a child and resides in California, weren't immediately successful.
FOXNews.com's Catherine Donaldson-Evans and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Deputy leader of Muslim group to sue Government in row over extremism

Dr Daud Abdullah is demanding a 'substantial payout' or he will take court action

Here's another case of Islamic "lawfare" in the form of threats of another frivolous lawsuit filed for it's harassment value. The government is showing a bit of backbone for now, but must not allow itself to be bullied into a settlement before going to trial.

These frivolous suits serve several purposes for the Muslim Lawfare Jihadists.
1. They tie up the judicial system requiring government lawyers to defend against the claims and in some cases the government must also provide council to the claimant.
2. Even a loss is exploited by claiming "Islamophobia" and getting sympathetic press coverage.
3. As these cases are repeatedly filed, they become part of the "Great Lie" that their loss in court must be a result of Islamophobia.
4. They just wear people down with their constant harassment in the court system.

Notice too, that it's mostly the successful Muslims that bring these type of suits. If the threat of a lawsuit dosen't work, there's always the threat of direct violence.

FROM THE DAILYMAIL.CO.UK:

Deputy leader of Muslim group to sue Government in row over extremism
By James Slack

Last updated at 10:55 PM on 03rd April 2009

The deputy leader of Britain's leading Muslim group is suing the Government for defamation in an extremism row which could cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Dr Daud Abdullah, deputy secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, has sent a solicitor's letter to Communities Secretary Hazel Blears demanding a 'substantial' payout or he will drag the Government to court.
Any legal costs would be met from public funds - along with any payout to Dr Abdullah, who is also a member of the once Government-backed Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board.
READ IT ALL:

Merrill Lynch Settles Discrimination Suit

Another short sighted decision that gives islam another victory over the West. Western businesses must stop accommodating muslim demands and fight every islamic lawsuit to the end, rather than take the "easy way out" and settle these cases. With each settlement, it becomes easier to submit to the Global Jihad.

Western businesses and governments must stop hiring muslims, as each hire is a potential stealth jihad lawsuit.

FROM THE NYTIMES.COM:

Merrill Lynch Settles Discrimination Suit

Merrill Lynch agreed to pay $1.55 million and improve employee training to settle a lawsuit that claimed discrimination in the firing of an analyst because he was an Iranian Muslim. The settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on Tuesday resolved allegations that Merrill had fired Majid Borumand, a quantitative analyst, because of his religion and national origin in August 2005, and retained and promoted a less qualified person. Merrill denied the charges in a lawsuit filed by the agency in federal court in Manhattan in June 2007. […]

"soone or later you shall pay"

More threats from representatives of the "religion of peace".

FROM JIHADWATCH.ORG:

August 10, 2008
"soone or later you shall pay"

The courageous Iranian dissident Amil Imani sent me this email he received yesterday:
From: ahmed Islam Subject: soone or later you shall pay To: [Amil Imani] Date: Saturday, August 9, 2008, 7:08 PM
be the wrath of god upon you

Meanwhile, the Canadian publisher Ezra Levant, who has been persecuted by Muslims and Canadian Human Rights Commissions for daring to publish the Muhammad cartoons and thereby causing distress to the fragile sensibilities of Muslims in Canada, was the recipient of a similar threat from the "moderate" leader who filed the complaint against him, Syed Soharwardy, during a debate with him on Toronto radio:

The debate degenerated pretty quickly. That's the second time Soharwardy and I have spoken; the first was the day the cartoons rolled off the press back in 2006. He didn't like how that debate went, either, and promptly asked the Calgary police to arrest me. They didn't, so he filed his human rights complaint. I have no idea what he's going to do now, after yesterday's brutal debate.

But he did give me a warning: I'll "soon pay", he shouted, with half of Toronto as his witness, his voice rising to a girlish trill.

Welcome to the New World Order! And please, read all of Levant's piece.
Posted at August 10, 2008 6:03 AM

The Jihad against Free Speech

Here's a detailed look at one aspect of the islamic lawfare being waged against America and the West.

FROM FRONTPAGEMAG.COM:

The Jihad against Free Speech

By Patrick Poole

FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/31/2008
In June, the US Treasury Department listed the entire the Saudi-run “charity”, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a specially designated global terrorist entity for its active and longstanding role in financing international terrorism. Between 2002-2004, thirteen different Al-Haramain branches had been individually designated, including the US branch based in Ashland, Oregon, charged with providing funds to Al-Qaeda. This new announcement applies now to the entire organization worldwide.
One important element to note in connection with the recent Al-Haramain designation is that on at least two separate occasions it had used legal threats against US media organization to coerce retractions following reports of its ties to the international terror network – ties that are now considered well-established by both the US government and the media.
These incidents are instructive on how Islamic extremists have previously used lawfare strategies to silence those asking questions about their activities, and give us insight into how these legal theats are being used today to scuttle media investigations.
READ IT ALL:

Dearborn: Two Muslim women sue McDonalds for $10 million for not hiring them over Islamic attire

Another case of lawfare being waged by islamists against America. Now two women are suing McDonalds because they were told they had to wear the McDonalds uniform or they would not even be considered for a position.
An obvious ploy to:
A: Reap a huge monetary windfall through a frivolous suit.
B: Wear down the kuffar through repeated lawsuits.
C: Carry forward the jihad against the West.

It'll be interesting to see if the 300 pound fast food gorilla will roll over to islam. Since these women are taking on a company with deep pockets, the ensuing suit could be very important in determining just how far muslims will be able to go to impose their 7th century "religion" on the West.

FROM DHIMMIWATCH:

Dearborn: Two Muslim women sue McDonalds for $10 million for not hiring them over Islamic attire

Fast food restaurants have employee dress codes not only for appearances, but for hygiene and safety. With that in mind, this case is sounding a lot like the case of the women wanting to wear Islamic attire in a Midwestern tortilla factory.
The local health inspector isn't going to take kindly to long sleeves potentially brushing perishable food, and/or the grill and fryer oil, to say nothing of guidelines for hand-washing (see also: the debate over short sleeves in British hospitals).

Then there is the matter of long attire and the potential need to make a quick exit in the event of a fire or robbery.
There are many functional reasons for demanding standardized attire, but there is also the matter of allowing special treatment for a small part of the work force. And would the uniform issue be the end of the demands for accommodation? For example, would these women refuse to make a burger with bacon?

"Two Muslim women sue McDonald's, alleging discrimination," by Gregg Krupa for the Detroit News, July 24:

DEARBORN -- Two Muslim women say that a McDonald's restaurant refused to hire them, and insulted them during job interviews because they wear traditional Islamic dress.
Toi Whitfield, 20, of Detroit and Quiana Pugh, 25, of Dearborn sued McDonald's, the owner of the local franchise and its unidentified manager in Wayne County Circuit Court on Thursday. Their representative said they are considering filing civil rights complaints with the federal and state governments.
"I applied for the McDonald's position maybe two weeks ago and he simply (told me) I had to make a choice and remove my hijab, or I would not be able to establish employment there," Pugh said.
"When I walked away, I was definitely hurt by it and disturbed. I was confused that it could happen here in Dearborn, with so many Muslims," she said.
A man who would not identify himself at the restaurant, on Ford Road near Schaefer, referred all questions to representatives for McDonald's. "We're just trying to figure out what is going on," he said.
The man said the manager in question at the restaurant would not have a comment.
The women are seeking $10 million in a suit.

CAIR’s Medical School Grievance Theater

Another case of islamic lawfare. It's beginning to look like muslims will sue for any ridiculous reason just to sue. Even if they have no case, they will sue to harass the kuffar and wear down the system.

FROM FRONTPAGEMAG.COM:

CAIR’s Medical School Grievance Theater
By Patrick Poole

FrontPageMagazine.com | 7/17/2008
When Iram Qureshi of Dublin, Ohio was dismissed from the West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine last month after having to repeat her first year and then failing two “systems” in her second year after she stopped attending classes, she did what any normal American Muslim woman would seem to do these days – she called the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and sued.
Tragically, perhaps fatally one day for one of her future patients, a Kanawha County Circuit Court judge has granted her a temporary restraining order so that she could resume her “studies” and clinical rotation beginning this month while her dismissal appeal is reviewed, the Charleston Gazette reports.

Curiously, the Charleston Gazette waits until half-way through their article before telling readers that the cause of her dismissal was poor academic performance, not religious discrimination.
Her academic failure, however, hasn’t stopped her attorney, James McQueen, from making a series of allegations of religious discrimination in her defense, including her reluctance to conduct chest and pelvic examinations on male subjects. She claims that her alleged persecution grew so bad, she stopped attending classes altogether and is now forced to take anxiety medication.
Qureshi’s pretended plight has garnered significant attention in the medical community nationwide, with at least one medical student online forum engaging in extensive debate about the situation, including some of Qureshi’s classmates. Many of the participating students seem unsympathetic to her claims for preferred treatment even beyond what many other female Muslim students have agreed to, as the following comments represent:
I do not think it would be fair for Muslim or any other students to be assigned to same sex partners during lab. There are plenty of female Muslim students who have successfully completed programs who I'm sure all have not been afforded this preference. I can see if you choose an area of women's health as your residency, but for your 3rd and 4th year you are going to be required to treat both men and women. If it an issue for the student not to be touched, the same argument could be made that they would not feel comfortable touching a man, which as a student of medicine is not feasible.
READ IT ALL:

Dhimmitude is no defense: Hamas UK sues dhimmi blog

Here's another lawfare attack by a muslim against a blogger. Lawfare against non-muslim bloggers and writers is becoming a major avenue of attack.

FROM DHIMMIWATCH:

Dhimmitude is no defense: Hamas UK sues dhimmi blog

At the UK blog Harry's Place, it is slowly dawning upon them that not just "Robert Spencer and his ilk" are responsible for people getting the idea that the Islamic concept of jihad may have something to do with terrorism. Somehow it seems to have escaped their notice -- up until that item was posted in May 2008 -- that Muslims are not committing acts of terror around the world and explaining and justifying them by reference to Islamic jihad theology. They still, however, think that "jihad is what you make of it," as if words have no meaning and Islamic theology has no content -- as if you could easily read The Brothers Karamazov as a cookbook or Mein Kampf as an adventure novel, or of course the Qur'an and Sunnah and rulings of all the madhahib as not counseling warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers. And they approvingly quote the mendacious Sheila Musaji as an authority for all this. Now they have been appropriately rewarded for their cluelessness and dhimmitude: Harry's Place is being sued by a jihadist.
Details here.

Even clueless dhimmis have the right to free speech, and if it is curtailed for them, it is curtailed for everyone. Thus Harry's Place deserves the support of all free people.
Posted at July 15, 2008 7:20 AM

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?

Here we go again with lawfare attacks by Muslims for being "insulted". This tactic has been carried out for years, but now Muslims are devising a large scale coordinated legal attacks against the West.
FROM YAHOONEWS.COM:

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued?

By RUKMINI CALLIMACHI, Associated Press Writer Fri Mar 14, 6:26 PM ET
DAKAR, Senegal - The Muslim world has created a battle plan to defend its religion from political cartoonists and bigots.
Concerned about what they see as a rise in the defamation of Islam, leaders of the world's Muslim nations are considering taking legal action against those that slight their religion or its sacred symbols. It was a key issue during a two-day summit that ended Friday in this western Africa capital.
The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.
Though the legal measures being considered have not been spelled out, the idea pits many Muslims against principles of freedom of speech enshrined in the constitutions of numerous Western governments.
"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."
READ IT ALL: