Michigan: Sheriff’s Dept. responds to Muslim’s attempt to enforce sharia during criminal bookings

via Oceana Co. responds to hijab removal lawsuit | WOODTV.com.

Dakroub (right) sitting in front of her family

Dakroub (right) sitting in front of her family (look into the eyes of the hijabis)

HART, Mich. (WOOD) — The Oceana County Sheriff’s Department says it didn’t violate a Muslim woman’s rights when they forced her to remove her hijab at the county jail following an arrest in May.

Fatme Dakroub, who is a U.S. citizen currently living in the United Arab Emirates, filed the federal lawsuit, claiming Oceana County Sheriff’s Department deputies forced her to remove her hijab despite her objections.

She claims she was in Oceana County visiting family on May 15, 2015 and rented a Jeep at the dunes. She says she was stopped for speeding by an Oceana County Sheriff’s deputy and arrested.

Dakroub says she wears a hijab in accordance with her religious beliefs that are based on the understanding of the Quran. Her religious beliefs also require her to be covered in front of men who are not family.

In a response filed to the federal lawsuit, the county admits that deputies required Dakroub to remove her head scarf for her mug shot, and would not let her put it back on in the cell.

The county says the photograph was like Dakroub’s driver’s license photo, in which she is not wearing a head covering either.

As for the head scarf, the county considers lengthy scarfs to be security concerns, and instead allowed her to wear a hooded sweatshirt while in the cell.

The county claims the policy is in place for the safety of the jail and those inside, and is not discriminatory.

A similar lawsuit in eastern Michigan was recently settled, with the jail agreeing to change its policy and allow Muslims to wear head coverings as part of their religious beliefs.

Muslims living in America – apparently she left – want to enforce sharia on everyone. Her lawyers suggests the same:

…if a police department does not have a female on duty, then officers should consider using gloves and limiting the Muslim woman’s exposure to other men. He argued that after a thorough inspection, an arrested Muslim woman should have a right to put her scarf back on.

In Dakroub’s case, she was placed in a holding cell without her scarf despite her requests to put it back on.  Other inmates subjected her to verbal harassment for at least four hours.

“It’s not necessary for the individual to be victimized in this fashion,” Ayad added. “She was subjected to humiliation, isolation and harassment.”

He also said that for hours male inmates tried making passes at Dakroub.

“You can only suspect the embarrassment and humiliation this individual had to go through,” he said. “It’s bad enough to be falsely arrested, but then to have her first amendment rights violated is a flagrant disrespect and is an abuse of power with law enforcement.”

ACRL Field Director Samia Hamid said that police officers should receive proper training in interacting with multi-cultural communities, especially in an area such as Oceana County, a popular tourist destination.

No – the policies should be uniform and those who choose to live in or visit America should abide by the laws here. Just as Americans do when they foolishly visit Muslim countries.

We are asking for more sensitivity, more education and more awareness for all their officers,” Hamid said.

I.e., sharia training and then submission.

On Thursday, the ACRL sent a federal complaint to the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Michigan. The complaint asks for a federal judge to rule that the Oceana County Sherriff’s Department’s practices be deemed unconstitutional under the first amendment.

“We are asking a federal judge today to take action and to stop this continuous harassment and intimidation and set some policy across the line as to how to deal with individuals with their first amendment rights,” Ayad added.

There is more than a policy – they are called laws. Abide by them.

Dakroub was released from the Oceana County Jail on $150 bail. She is asking for compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at a trail.

Seattle: 9th Circuit Court Enforces Sharia, Bans Anti-Terrorist Bus Ad

via Seattle Counter-Terror Ad Banned by 9th U.S. Circuit Court.

by Pamela Geller

This all started back in 2013, when the FBI was running a terrorism awareness campaign featuring bus ads depicting photos of sixteen of the world’s Most Wanted Terrorists.

This was a publicity campaign sponsored by the Joint Terrorism Task Force for the State Department’s Rewards for Justice (RFJ) program. The ad featured the world’s leading global terrorists. As it happened, all but one were Muslim. Islamic supremacists and their leftist lapdogs demanded the want ad come down, claiming it was insulting to Muslims. The FBI caved and pulled the Seattle-area bus ads featuring the “Faces of Global Terrorism” after receiving complaints “that the ads stereotype Muslims.”

My organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), believed that this public awareness message was critical to national security and should run. We are constantly being clubbed with the claim that “moderate Muslims” abhor and reject the acts of terrorism that are constantly committed in the name of their religion, so why would they object to a wanted poster featuring Islamic terrorists who supposedly have twisted and hijacked their peaceful religion? Why would “moderate Muslims” provide cover for jihad terror? Why, indeed.

AFDI submitted a virtual copy of the FBI ad to run on Seattle transit. The cowards at Seattle King Metro refused to run the ad, claiming that it was disparaging to Muslims. Reality is disparaging to Muslims?

We sued Seattle King Metro. Predictably, the liberal fascists in Seattle sided with the supremacists. We appealed to the clowns on the notorious 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And now they, as expected, ruled in favor of sharia and supremacism.

Of all the free speech legal battles I am embroiled in, this one is the most absurd. It illustrates the crippling submission and capitulation of government authorities to Islamic supremacist demands. In this ruling, Judge Susan Graber presented the facts in a ridiculously skewed manner: “The FBI is not offering a reward up to $25 million for the capture of one of the pictured terrorists,” she claimed in her ruling. “The FBI is not offering rewards at all, and the State Department offers a reward of at most $5 million, not $25 million, for the capture of one of the pictured terrorists.” She went on to claim that we had not refuted “those basic facts,” which she claimed was “beside the point.” She asserted that it was “indisputable that Plaintiffs’ proposed ad is plainly inaccurate as a simple matter of fact.”

Everything Graber says here is absurd. Yet AP said in the same vein: “The FBI is not offering rewards at all, and the State Department offers a reward of at most $5 million, not $25 million, for the capture of one of the pictured terrorists.” It added that “the judges said Metro’s rejection ‘likely was reasonable.’ ‘Nothing in the record suggests either that Metro would have accepted the ad with the same inaccuracy if only the ad had expressed a different viewpoint or that Metro has accepted other ads containing false statements,’ the ruling said.”

The truth, however, is that we simply ran the FBI ad, with no substantive changes. Seattle Metro accepted the FBI ad and then rejected ours after the FBI caved to Muslim demands to take the ad down. The AFDI ad is exactly the same as the FBI ad that was taken down, except for the attribution and the background color. We didn’t change the amount of the reward for capture of the terrorists, or the source of that reward: our information came straight from the FBI ad, and any assertion to the contrary is a product of Graber’s febrile imagination.

Continue reading

Obama admin sides with Palestinian terrorists in trial won by American victims of Islamic terror

via U.S. Requests Lower Bond for Palestinian Appeal of Terror Case – The New York Times.

The Obama administration, citing the potential for economic and political harm to the Palestinian Authority and the broader peace process, asked a judge on Monday to “carefully consider” the size of the bond he requires for the authority to appeal a huge damages award for its role in six terrorist attacks in Israel that killed and injured Americans.

The Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization were found liable in the attacks after a lengthy civil trial in Manhattan that ended in February. The antiterrorism law under which the case was brought provided for the tripling of the jury’s award of $218.5 million, leading to a total of $655.5 million.

The plaintiffs included 10 families, comprising about three dozen members, eight of whom suffered physical injuries in the attacks, which occurred from 2002 to 2004.

The filing also included a declaration by Antony J. Blinken, the deputy secretary of state, elaborating on the government’s concerns about the impact of requiring a high bond. Depriving the Palestinian Authority of “a significant portion of its revenues would likely severely compromise the P.A.’s ability to operate as a governmental authority,” he wrote.

“A P.A. insolvency and collapse would harm current and future U.S.-led efforts to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” he added.

The State Department had argued that the Palestinian Authority, which has faced financial problems for years, could not afford to pay the bond without jeopardizing vital government services. And as a diplomatic matter, the United States has seen a viable Palestinian Authority as essential to maintaining stability in the region.

More: Terror victims’ families blast feds for intervening in court case

Attorneys for 11 American families who won a potential billion-dollar judgment against the Palestinian leadership, which a federal jury blamed for a string of deadly terror attacks, say the U.S. government took the side of terrorists when it weighed in on the case Monday.

The State and Justice departments filed a “statement of interest” in the case known as Sokolow v. PLO, urging U.S. District Judge George Daniels not to force the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian Liberation Organization to post bond of up to $30 million per month while it appeals the jury’s February decision. Daniels had previously said he may require the bond as “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”

“The State Department should stand on the side of the American terror victims and not on the side of the Palestinian suicide bombers,” attorney Nitsana Darshan Leitner told FoxNews.com Tuesday.

The families’ legal team bitterly cites the fact that the Palestinian government continues to pay imprisoned terrorists and the families of suicide bombers as evidence it has money to meet its legal obligations.

“The State Department ignores the fact that the Palestinians continue to pay monthly payments to imprisoned terrorists and to the families of the suicide bombers, who devastated the lives of the victims in this case,” Darshan Leitner said. “If the Palestinians have the funds to continue making these payments, they certainly have the funds to post a bond.”


Hussein Obama has a penchant for putting Muslim terrorists ahead of American taxpayer’s:

obamacair

Minnesota: Lawyers for Muslim terror suspects argue ISIS not terrorist group

bizarroworld

via Lawyers for Minnesota terror suspects argue ISIL not terrorist organization – StarTribune.com.

Defense attorneys for seven suspects charged with supporting terrorism are arguing that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is not a terrorist organization because it operates a government and regulates services for citizens living under its control in Syria.

In one of several motions filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis, the attorneys argued that despite its reputation for brutality, ISIL carries many characteristics of a government that tends to day-to-day business and that therefore criminal charges against the defendants are too broad.

“While the group has adopted harshly violent and repressive tactics, and engages in military and insurgency attacks against the Syrian and Iraqi armies, it has also embarked on a systematic process of civilian governance over the eight to 10 million people with the territory it controls,” attorneys said.

The statutes under which the defendants are charged prohibit providing support under the direction or control of a terrorist group. The attorneys argue that when a terrorist group controls an entire territory, simply being in that country would effectively become, under the current charges, support to the terrorist group. But when services are provided, it’s no longer possible to describe that territory as being part of a terrorist state.

“Mere travel to Syria, or willingness to ‘join’ ISIL, cannot constitutionally be equated with material support. Accordingly, the material support statute is void,” the attorneys argued.

In April, six of the seven defendants in the case were arrested by FBI agents following a 10-month investigation. No trial date has been set. A hearing on motions is scheduled Sept. 2 in front of U.S. District Judge Michael Davis.

Other motions included a request to dial back a heavy security presence at the trial because the attorneys said it could negatively influence a jury. Current hearings have a large contingent of police and Homeland Security officers, and at least one bomb-sniffing dog.

“If allowed, this extraordinary display of security would be present from the moment jurors arrive at the courthouse until after they leave, serving as a constant reminder, not just of the fact that Defendants are accused of a crime, but of the fact that they are accused of a crime related to terrorism,” the motion stated. “ … The security appears not to be designed to protect against potential danger posed by the accused but, rather, perceived danger from members of the Somali community who are not accused of any crime.”

Abercrombie & Fitch forced to pay $25,000 to Muslim litigation jihadist

She’s a culture jihadist too…as many Muslims are, working to change American culture to be more Islamic. via Abercrombie & Fitch pays $25,000 to settle headscarf lawsuit 

Clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch has agreed to pay approximately $25,000 to a woman who was denied a job because she wore a Muslim headscarf during her interview.

The settlement follows a June Supreme Court ruling saying that the popular clothing chain was required to offer an accommodation to employees who wear headscarves for religious reasons, regardless of whether or not they ask specifically in advance.

Abercrombie defended its “look policy” during oral arguments, saying that questioning an applicant about religious beliefs was overly personal and the burden of seeking a religious accommodation under Title VII on the 1964 Civil Rights Act should have fallen on the applicant.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the 8-1 decision, said that “an applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision” for it to be unlawful.

“An employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions,” Scalia added.

Reuters reported that on Monday the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, pursuant with the Supreme Court’s decision, dismissed the retailer’s appeal.

Abercrombie & Fitch amended its “look policy” before the court’s decision to allow employees to wear headscarves.

 

Michigan: Court Again Tells CAIR to Pay Legal Fees For Harrassing Citizens Who Opposed Mosque

via Victory Against “Civilization Jihad” – Court Slams CAIR One More Time: Pay AFLC’s Legal Fees! | American Freedom Law Center.

On June 1, a Michigan federal judge once again held that the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), must pay legal fees and costs after the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) successfully “quashed” harassing and burdensome subpoenas issued by CAIR to Ms. Zaba Davis, a private citizen who received the subpoenas because she publicly expressed her opposition to the construction of an Islamic center in her neighborhood.  This was the third ruling by the court upholding what it termed a “sanction” for CAIR’s reckless violation of federal law.

“Apparently, hell hath no fury like a Muslim Brotherhood ‘civil rights’ organization scorned,” remarked David Yerushalmi, Co-Founder and Senior Counsel of AFLC.  “This was CAIR’s third bite at objecting to the sanction.  You’d think they’d concede this one rather than continue to run up our legal fees with each new frivolous objection they file.”

Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “Private citizens have a fundamental First Amendment right to express to their elected officials their personal views on matters of public concern.  CAIR’s ruthless attacks demonstrate that its objectives are dangerously at odds with the Constitution.  Consequently, this reaffirmation by the court sanctioning CAIR’s lawless behavior was important not only for our clients, but for all private citizens who want to speak out against CAIR.”

“CAIR employs egregious lawfare tactics to frighten honest citizens so as to prevent them from exercising their constitutional rights,” Yerushalmi explained.  “Our clients opposed the new mosque construction, like many neighborhoods oppose new construction of any type, not because it was Muslim, but because it would wreak havoc on their neighborhood with un-remediated traffic and noise.”

Yerushalmi continued,  “CAIR’s abuse of federal subpoena power is analogous to Sharia-adherent jihadists threatening violence against anyone who, in their perverse view, insults their religion or Mohammed.  When you threaten people with enough violence or litigation, the media and the self-anointed talking heads on cable TV and radio begin to lecture us about ‘civility’ and ‘provocation’ not because criticisms of some fundamental aspects of Islam are wrong or in and of themselves uncivil or objectively provocative, but because these pundits are frightened themselves of standing up to these bullies—whether they be violent jihadists or lawfare jihadists like CAIR.”

In 2012, the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor (MCA) requested that Pittsfield Township, Michigan, rezone a parcel of land to build an Islamic School and community center.  The Township denied the request, citing infrastructure and traffic concerns.  Nevertheless, CAIR, which bills itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization” but is widely known in government circles as a Muslim Brotherhood front group, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Township on behalf of the MCA, alleging that township officials denied the MCA’s rezoning application out of discrimination against Muslims.

The MCA’s rezoning request was opposed by a group of Township residents who live in the neighborhood of the proposed development.  The residents expressed concerns about the traffic congestion that the new construction would cause in their neighborhood.  Pursuant to their rights protected by the First Amendment, these private citizens circulated and submitted to their elected Township officials a petition expressing their opposition to the rezoning and several of them spoke out at public hearings held by the Township to discuss the matter.

As a result of the citizens’ involvement, CAIR served harassing subpoenas on a number of these citizens, demanding that they produce private emails and other documents, and in some cases, appear for a deposition.  In one instance, Township resident Zaba Davis and her husband came home to find several papers jammed in the crack of the front door of their home.  The papers included subpoenas demanding the production of personal emails and other documents and a subpoena commanding Ms. Davis to appear at a deposition.

In response to CAIR’s abusive discovery requests, AFLC, a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, which is representing seven of the targeted private citizens, filed a motion to “quash” and for a protective order against CAIR.  The court granted the motion, ruling that the subpoenas violated the First Amendment and caused undue burden.

CAIR files lawsuit to prevent ICE from asking Muslims entering US about jihad-related activities, relatives

 If these allegations are true, it’s about time. Now ICE must start preventing Muslims from entering the U.S. via Muslims Asked About Martyrdom, Religion By US Border Officials At Entry Ports. h/t D

U.S. border officials are using a questionnaire about religion to harass Muslim travelers, a Muslim advocacy group charges. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement questionnaire was released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a lawsuit by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Intercept reports.

The questions that were revealed — the document was heavily redacted — include “Have you participated in any formal religious training or schooling?” “What house of worship do you attend?” and “Do you have any relatives or friends who have been martyred fighting in the defense of your beliefs?” Derek Benner, deputy executive associate director of homeland security investigations for ICE, said the document’s purpose is “to provide guidance to special agents who are called upon to conduct a certain type of investigatory review of persons.”

CAIR’s lawsuit argues that customs and border officials have unconstitutionally engaged in religious profiling, and that the questions contribute to a larger harassment of Muslim travelers. The suit was filed in 2012 on behalf of four Americans who say they were detained for their religious beliefs while crossing the U.S.-Canada border.

“There is very obviously a concerted effort to question and intimidate Muslim-Americans based on their religious beliefs,” Gadeir Abbas, one of the attorneys representing the plaintiffs, told the Intercept. “The types of questions specifically asked of Muslim travelers at borders across the country are far too consistent for there to not be some type of overarching framework and direction being used to target them.”

The questionnaire was revealed during a legal battle between CAIR and ICE over the information’s release. While CAIR says the documents surrounding the instructions given to border officials are critical to the case and evaluating institutional profiling, ICE asserts that the release constitutes a security risk.

“Asking Muslim-Americans questions about ‘martyrs’ in their family when they’re crossing the border doesn’t serve any constructive purpose, especially when there’s not even a clear definition of what the word means,” Dawud Walid of CAIR told the Intercept.


Muslims must be banned period. Future generations will thank you.

It is the only logical conclusion. Those who adhere to an ideology that requires them to fight and kill until there are only those who worship allah remaining on this earth – must not be permitted into the U.S. if the U.S. is to remain a non-Muslim nation.

Meanwhile, another CAIR leader has been caught up to no good, but following Mohammad’s example:  Florida: CAIR Official – former President of Muslim Student Assc. – Arrested in Pedophile Sting.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45,770 other followers

%d bloggers like this: