Skip to main content

John Alabi

A recent case in Canada highlights the growing subversion of Western Legal systems, where every opportunity taken to use our laws against the interests of the population and State.

The case was brought to my attention at JihadWatch, and involves an Ontario landlord who was taken to court accused of discrimination under the Human Rights Code for refusing to take off his shoes in his tenant's apartment.

On the surface, this is quite a simple, and easily resolved case, requiring a reprimand and possibly a small fine and agreement to behave differently in future (although even this may be inappropriate, as Mr Alabi had already acquiesced to their demands, see below). It is, after all, perfectly reasonable, if not usual, for people to ask visitors to remove outdoor shoes when entering their living space, and over the years I personally have, on several occasions, complied with such requests.

What is different here, is that a simple landlord/tenant dispute is being used to set legal precedent regarding one person's imposition of their own religious observances, onto another, non-practicing individual.

In Mr Alabi's defence, it is admitted by the tenants in para [48] that he did indeed remove his shoes on a subsequent visit, so he apparently came to recognize their specific needs and submitted to their request, why then was this legal action taken?

Just how a person's choice of footwear could be turned into an issue of Human Rights and religious discrimination, should be of the greatest concern to us as citizens and state.

The first eight paragraphs of evidence submitted deal with the tenant's religion, and the word Muslim is used NINE times with the word Quran used FOUR times, while the phrase "Prophet Muhammad" is used THREE times. What, I ask again, does this have to do with a pair of shoes?

It may also  be worth noting that within these same lines, the word God is used only once.

So why such emphasis on these religious rituals, was Mr. Alabi supposed to know about the peculiarities of Muslim behaviours, and if so, just how would he know that what these individuals professed was what any and all Muslims would do and expect non-Muslims to do? Are we not constantly being told about the 'different interpretations' of Islam?

And coming from Nigeria, Mr Alabi has probably witnessed Muslims laying prayer mats on the dusty dirty streets to perform their religious duties, I have myself seen this in France, where on one occasion not even a mat was used, right outside a public toilet where presumably the Muslims had gone to wash prior to their prayers.

Having introduced "the practices of the Prophet Muhammed" into this legal action, these same practices cannot then be withdrawn arbitrarily and we must conclude that this vicious and unnecessary case was motivated by these very same religious imperatives.

That their "Prophet Muhammed" kept slaves and referred to blacks as raisin heads is well documented, and we must cause concern as to why this case was pursued, even after Mr Alabi accepted their request for him to remove his shoes, was this done for simple racist motivation on their behalf?

We must take their evidential statements as presented, namely that they pray in a particular manner because: "His (Muhammed's) teachings have been passed down from generation to generation." They also admit to dressing according to their prophet's instructions: "These rules come from the Quran and from quotations from the Prophet Muhammed."

So we may reasonably conclude that their attitude towards a black African landlord would immediately be one of resentment and malice, this is indeed borne out by Mr Adabi's claim that their request for him to remove his shoes "was motivated by a desire to make him look bad in front of prospective tenants rather than being sincerely linked to their religious practices."

In Arabic, the word for a black slave is Abd, which has also come to mean 'black man', with no distinction between his being slave or not, and remember that the applicants, "both identify as Arab Muslims". If we couple this with the fact that Muhammed captured and kept slaves, it is not unreasonable to conclude that their behaviour towards their landlord was most likely motivated by racial and religious prejudice.

If we take this prejudice, along with the following example of one of the many Quranic statements extolling Muslim supremacy over non-Muslims:

You are the best nation produced [as an example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are defiantly disobedient.

Can we not recognize their desire to seek retribution from a simple man who is both black and also "defiantly disobedient"?

But this shamefulness does not end there, because, if introducing his whole religious angle presented as 'evidence', were not bad enough, it is even more problematical when we realize how many Muslim prayers actually cursing this unsuspecting landlord, were being said under his own roof.

And what of these various 'religious activities' conducted on his property?

Was he aware that his tenants had re-designated part of their lodging as a 'Place of worship' and does their lease even permit such use? If they now say that it was not a specific place of worship, but merely a room where prayers were said, then their whole case about the religious significance of the room is brought into question.

I find it incredible that in this 21st Century, religious interpretation and fervor are being used in courts of civil law to impose codes of conduct on non-practicing, and unsuspecting people of different, or even of no faith.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jim Gardiner

It seems that the British Justice system is continuing to over reach it's prerogative in dealing with British citizens. A recent case, which on first viewing, seems rather silly and an unnecessary waste of police and court's time, on further scrutiny, looks like an absolute and nonsensical  miscarriage of justice . It concerns a British burger vendor , who, in conversation with a customer, stated that there was a problem with muslim "no-go" zones in Manchester, at which point the customer, a Mr. Palmer, denounced the claim as an urban myth. The vendor (Mr. Gardiner) promptly produced evidence supporting his statement which the customer refused to read, preferring to remain in ignorance of the facts. The vendor was understandably upset that his truthful and heartfelt assertions had been slighted by someone who refused to examine the facts that he had helpfully prepared. He then refused to serve the customer who reported him to the police. So far so good. A co

Eid 2013: Somali rape gang

It may seem odd to begin a blog named after Chelsey Wright, with a story about an apparently unrelated, albeit similar attack, in another part of the country, but this was the one that first alerted me to the depth of our decline as a law abiding nation. There are many disturbing aspects of this case : The reaction of the defendants The reaction of the defendant's families  The religious context The media coverage The prosecution It was this last point that really bothered me, and still does, because the case was widely reported as a young girl who went willingly to meet a man she did not know, and then 'accompanied' him to meet a larger group of men she also did not know, in a hotel where she otherwise had no business to be.  The circumstances were set and the 'victim' seemed anything but an innocent party to the events that followed.  But after their conviction, the girl released a statement detailing how she had been corralled by the men and fo