Brit Hijabi Suing Kit Kat Makers For Waferless Candy Bar

Some Brit Hijabi is suing the makers of Kit Kat because she bought a package that did not include the wafers. She wants a lifetime supply for her pain and suffering, or as she put it:

"The loss I have suffered is of monetary and emotional significance.."

The Muslim 20-year-old law student, Saima Ahmad, sent a letter to Nestle company demanding the following:

The truth of the matter is; manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers.
‘The specific duty you owe in consistency in your manufacturing process. The failure to take due care in the manufacturing process resulted in a product being defective.
‘As a result I feel as though I have been misled to part with my money and purchase a product that is clearly different from what has been marketed by Nestle.
‘The loss I have suffered is of monetary and emotional significance.
‘I would like a full refund of the defective pack of KitKat I purchased. I have also lost my faith in Nestle.
‘Clearly, if I wanted to purchase a confectionery item that is purely chocolate, I would have purchased a bar of Galaxy.
‘I would therefore like to request a life-long supply of KitKat so that I can act as a means of quality control – it appears you need me more than I need you

Saima is using an old 1930s law to back up her demands.

More here.

This has got to be a joke, but one never knows. There are a plethora of frivolous law suits that wind up in courts.

Muslim Refuses To Touch Pork and Alcohol, Sues Costco For Reassigning Him

A devout Muslim is suing Costco for religious discrimination after the cashier's assistant refused to touch pork or alcohol. They moved him outside to fetch carts, but Jean Camara refused to do that, demanding they assign him to the electronics department. Costco said no.

Camara said:

“Just because you have a different belief, that doesn’t give anybody the right to treat you different."

"We all share different beliefs so we all should be treated equally no matter what belief we have."

Uh, right, Jean.  Why should you be treated differently?  Anyone else refusing to do their job would have been fired, not re-assigned. Why should they make concessions for you. Get a job at Best Buy if you don't want to handle certain food items.

According to Camara, his superiors at the Brooklyn Costco never told him why he was reassigned — [snip]

He said he asked his bosses if he could work in the electronics department but his request was denied.

Camara filed a human rights complaint against the company and was fired 16 days later for “insubordinate conduct,” according to ABC 7.

Another case of Muslim entitlement.

More info and a video interview of Camara on BizPac Review.

Muslim Woman Sues Planet Fitness Gym Over Hijab

Another frivolous lawsuit involving an American Muslim.

Planet Fitness has a dress code it asks its members to adhere to: “no jeans, work boots, bandannas, skull caps or revealing apparel" but 37-year-old Tarainia McDaniel feels she should be able to wear a head covering to the gym.  Apparently she transferred from one New Mexico gym that allowed her to wear one, to one that did not.  Back in 2011 she showed up at the new location, and she was told she was not allowed to work out as long as she wore the head covering. So, almost three years later, she has suddenly decided to sue the company for a violation of the Human Rights and Unfair Practices Acts, claiming that they denied her entrance because she was either Muslim or black.

According to McDaniels, when she arrived at the gym on October 3, 2011 wearing a head scarf, she was told she could not work out at that facility because she did not meet Planet Fitness dress code. She says that even after she told them she was a Muslim and wore the 'informal head covering' for religious purposes, and that she'd be happy to wear the more formal 'hijab', she was told no.

According to Planet Fitness:

 "..they didn't know the head covering was for religious purposes," and that “.... our policy is, and has always been, that members are allowed to wear head scarves for religious reasons in our clubs." 

Planet Fitness claims it did not violate any of McDaniel's rights, but there is no reason given as to why she was not allowed access even though they say they allow religious head coverings.

What I want to know is why did she wait this long to file suit?

Source: Al Arabiya

Gender Neutral Person Sues Company $518,682 Over Use Of Pronouns

And another one for the frivolous law suit file, this time from Portland, Oregon.

Valeria Jones- a person who does not identify as either male or female- wants $518,682 in damages from the catering company she worked for because co-workers kept using female nouns and pronouns to address her. She's suing Bon Appétit Management $500,000.00 for "pronoun pain and humiliation", and $18,682.00 for lost wages and benefits. There is no mention in the lawsuit what she actually wanted to be called other than the very vague "gender neutral pronouns." Apparently she looked like a woman, and Valeria sounds like a female name to me, but she took umbrage with being called "lady" and "miss." Would she have preferred "hey you" or "it." And if she truly has no connection with either gender, perhaps she should have dressed in a gender neutral manner, and changed her name to a gender neutral one. How about Beverly, Jordan, Jean?

Jones eventually quit after starting her job in March 2013.

More on Daily Caller.

Inmate Who Killed Parents Can Sue For Kosher Meals- Per Appeals Court

Although Bruce Rich had no feelings of compunction when he murdered his parents- Irving and Blanche- in 1995 so he could collect the insurance money, Bruce (an Orthodox Jew) is so religious he is suing to get his Kosher meals at Florida's Union Correctional Institution. Actually, he won an appeal.

Rich, who was sentenced in 1999 and will spend the rest of his life in jail, sued Florida's Department of Correction back in 2010. He believes denying him Kosher food is violating his rights as per the the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Ironic, since he violated his parents right to life by murdering them and staging it as a murder suicide.  It always amazes me that these prisoners who profess to be so religious obviously had no problem committing  heinous crimes.

Prison systems have been battling these lawsuits from vegetarians, Muslims and Jews for a long while. In some cases special meals were provided, but then dispensed with. The Florida prison system claims it's just too costly, and a security risk to boot:

... because it could lead to retaliation against inmates getting kosher meals if other inmates believed the kosher food was of higher quality.

However, the appeals court couldn't care less because cold-blooded murderers need to have their special dietary restrictions catered to.

Rich appealed that ruling to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which on Tuesday overruled the summary judgment and sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings.

A three judge panel of the appeals court said that the state hadn't shown it had either a compelling interest in denying Rich and other prisoners the diet, or that denying the diet was the least restrictive means of serving whatever that compelling interest might be.

"While safety and cost can be compelling governmental interests, the defendants have not carried their burden to show that Florida?s policy in fact furthered these two interests," U.S. Circuit Judge Beverly B. Martin wrote in the panel's opinion.

Oddly enough, Union Correctional Institution did re-institute the kosher meal plan at the facility last month. The appeals court believes this was done to "manipulate" the case.

"There is nothing to suggest that Florida will not simply end the new kosher meal program at some point in the future, just as it did in 2007."

And it's not just prison inmates suing, the Feds are getting into the action too.

What a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

Idaho Prisoners Blame Alcohol Companies For Their Crimes- Sue for $1 Billion

In the 'I refuse to take responsibility for my actions' category of the blame game, comes this Idaho prison inmate lawsuit.

Five criminals at the Idaho Kuna jail are filing suit against eight alcohol manufacturers including Anheuser-Busch, Miller Brewing Company, Ernest and Julio Gallo Winery and Jim Beam Whiskey's American Brands because they claim the wine and beer were responsible for their crimes. They want a collective $1 billion because the companies failed to warn consumers of how addictive alcohol is. According to Keith Allen Brown, 52, who is serving 15 years for shooting and killing a man in Priest Lake, Idaho, five years ago:

... his problems started long before that, when he was just a boy and tasted alcohol for the first time.

He should sue his parents for either letting him drink at such a young age, or for failing to get him help.

Brown and the others who are suing- Cory Alan Baugh, Woodrow John Grant, Steven Todd Thompson and Jeremy Joseph Brown- have no lawyers, so they filed their own lawsuit with statements indicating how alcohol has adversely affected their lives.

Brown, who pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter in Bonner County in 2010 after fleeing to Florida, said he’s spent nearly 30 years in prison.

“I have spent a great deal of that time in prison because of situations that have arose because of people being drunk, or because of situations in which alcohol played a major role,” Brown wrote. “At no time in my life, prior to me becoming an alcoholic, was I ever informed that alcohol was habit forming and addictive.”

As for the others:

Jeremy Brown, 34, is serving a 20- to 30-year sentence for a 2001 shooting in Latah County that seriously injured a man. He said that he was drunk at the time and that if he’d not been an alcoholic, “the shooting would never happened.”

He said he never would have started drinking if he knew it was habit forming.

“I honestly do not think that anyone who is young and who is planning a future, if they knew that alcohol was addictive and habit-forming, would ever drink alcohol beverages,” Brown wrote. “Not one day goes by that I do not crave alcohol. I dream about drinking alcohol, I sit around and crave alcohol.”

Baugh, 34, is serving a 3- to 7-year sentence for grand theft and drug convictions in Ada and Benewah counties. Thompson, 44, has about three more years to serve for drug and grand theft convictions in Twin Falls County. Grant, 27, is serving 1 to 7 years for drug and aggravated battery convictions in Bannock County. Their stories are similar.

“I fear the day I am released from prison,” Grant said. “I do not know if I can be a productive member of society and still control the desires and craving to use alcohol.”

This isn't the first time alcoholic beverage companies have been sued. The Oglala Sioux Indians in South Dakota sued several companies along with a local store for:

contributing to rampant alcoholism on the reservation by disregarding the tribe’s no-alcohol policy.

The case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge John Gerrard.

The companies named in the inmate lawsuit have not responded yet.

Muslim Ex-Employee Imane Boudlal Sues DIsney Over Her Hijab

She's baaack. Imane Boudlal, the restaurant hostess who filed suit against Disney in 2010 for not allowing her to wear her hijab to work has filed another law suit.  I actually thought I was reading old news on Al Arabiya, so I googled her name, and sure enough this  Moroccan-American woman has decided to once again sue Disney. Back in 2010, Boudlal decided that after two and a half years of working at the California Disneyland Storyteller  Café  in the Grand Hotel she would start wearing her hijab to work.

Anyone who knows anything at all about Disneyland knows that they have a squeaky clean image to uphold and a very strict dress code. Every single aspect of Disneyland or Disney World is designed to be Disney-esque- from the rides and shops to the uniforms everyone must wear. This is not a place that you can come dressed as you please. And although Disney generously offered her another job where she would not be serving customers, this young 26-year-old (at the time) Moroccan woman decided to take offense instead, and chose to sue the company.

"Their offer to put me in the back is humiliating," she said in a statement. "They're saying because I'm Arab, because I'm Moroccan, because I'm Muslim, they don't want to see me in the front."

Humiliating, in what way? And no, they were not saying it was because she's a Moroccan, Arab Muslim, it's because they have STRICT DRESS CODES.  Disney hires have extensive paperwork to sign when they are employed which includes information regarding the dress code. Crosses, Stars Of Davids and any other religious items are to be worn UNDER the costume. Men can't sport beards and must wear their hair a certain, conservative length. She was obviously very aware of the rules and simply chose to buck the system either to make some money by suing, or to make some kind of religious, political statement. People have the right to fire or hire whom they choose and she's lucky they didn't immediately give her the pink slip. She deserved it.  If she had problems NOT wearing her hijab, then she should have gone elsewhere for employment. Like Target. I often see cashiers and saleswomen wearing head scarves there, she would have fit right in.

According to Boudlal, she discovered she had the "right" to wear her hijab while studying for her U.S. citizenship; she then:

asked her employers at Disneyland's Grand Californian Hotel [snip] whether they would permit her to wear a headcovering while working as a hostess, a spokeswoman for a worker's union said.

But when no reply was forthcoming, she decided to don the headscarf anyway, timing her decision with the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, Leigh Shelton, a spokesman for the UNITE HERE Local 11 union said.

Disney bent over backwards to accommodate her by offering a 'backstage' job or go home, and each time she opted to go home.

Disneyland spokeswoman Suzi Brown said Disney has a policy not to discriminate. The resort offered Boudlal a chance to work with the head covering away from customers while Disneyland tries to find a compromise that would allow Boudlal to cover her head in a way that fits with her hostess uniform, Brown said.

"Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn't wear something like that, that's not part of the costume," Brown said. "We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those and to go home."

They even offered her a specially made bow-tie bonnet to wear over her hijab, but the ingrate refused, saying,

 "The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me. It's unacceptable. They don't want me to look Muslim."

Disney sees itself as a performance theme park. Uniforms are called "costumes". "On-stage" are the areas that employees can be seen. "Back stage" is, as it implies, away from the public. It's a little like a theatre production, where designers create the whole 'look' of a particular project. As an actress, I wear the costumes that have been designed for me, I can't suddenly show up wearing something that wasn't part of the design concept. If I was performing in a Shakespeare play and I happened to be Muslim and Ramadan came along, I'd be fired (and rightfully so) if I decided to wear a hijab as part of my costume.

Of course, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)  stepped into the fray as they often do, demanding that they allow Boudlal to wear her scarf.

"There is no justification for Disney's refusal to allow Ms Boudlal to wear her headscarf at work," said Ameena Mirza Qazi, deputy executive director and staff attorney at the group.

"To say that her headscarf would somehow impact guests is not only insulting to her, but is deeply offensive to the thousands of Muslims who open up their pocket-books at Disney parks and resorts every year," Qazi added in a statement.

Yes, there is justification since a strict dress code is part of the hiring process. It's shameful, how people have to bring in the race or religion card when oftentimes it has absolutely nothing to do with either.

After about a month, Disney eventually suspended her after refusing to wear the bonnet, and refusing on various occasions to work 'backstage'. So now, two years later, represented by the restaurant union Local 11, her law suit filed by the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has finally been approved by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The latest Al Arabiya article titled "If you're a Muslim Disneyland isn't the happiest place on earth" -a quote from one of her lawyers- claims Boudlal was also harassed by fellow co-workers who called her "camel" and "terrorist", which is more than likely embellishment to sweeten the deal.  The ACLU is asking, in addition to damages,  that all Disney employees receive training to prevent harassment and discrimination.

Even though another young Muslim intern- Noor Abdullah, who had a similar dispute in 2010- was perfectly happy with her specially made blue beret to wear over her hijab, Boudlal has decided to make a major issue of it. Come hell or high water, she's going to either get her way or make a bundle with her lawsuit.

The Feds Sue The Florida Prison System For Not Serving Kosher Meals

Back in 2007, the Florida Department of Corrections decided that it needed to tighten
its belt and stopped serving special meals to its Jewish and Muslim population. That's right, no kosher or halal meals for the inmates. Prior to that decision both Muslims and Jews ate kosher meals. But those meals cost more than double the amount that regular prisoner food costs, so it made sense to stop providing them that option. However, the FDC must have buckled at some point in time after that initial decision, because one correctional facility in South Florida has been offering kosher meals since 2010 to about 12 or so who qualified for a pilot program:

Only prisoners who are at least 59 years old or eligible for assignment to a work squad and have religious reasons for keeping kosher are eligible for the program.

And even though the inmates have  plenty of vegan and vegetarian options, which would preclude the need for kosher meals, they are still complaining and now the federal government has stepped in. Yes, the feds have actually sued the FDC for not making kosher meals available to all inmates. Apparently, the feds believe that this "forces hundreds of its prisoners to violate their core religious beliefs on a daily basis." Excuse me, but if they were that religious- and that goes for anyone who follows a strict "religious" diet- how did they wind up in the slammer to begin with? Surely someone who is that religious would have the moral rectitude to stay out of trouble.

According to FDC spokesman Jo Ellyn Rackleff Kosher meals cost around $4.70 a day as opposed to $1.54 a day.

The vegetarians lucked out with all their food options, but that's because soy products are cheaper than meat. However, one pedophile inmate- Eric Harris- at Lake correctional facility in Florida sued the Florida prison system last year because he felt that being forced to consume soy by-products in up to 70% of his meals was "cruel and unusual" punishment. I guess he should have thought about that before he started molesting young kids.

Criminals of any religious persuasion do not deserve any special treatment. If you want to be able to follow your religious and dietary laws then stay out of prison.

Don't the feds have anything better to do?!

Egyptian Actor Fined For Insulting Islam

Egypt has its own version of frivolous lawsuits but over there you can get jail time. In a suit that would immediately have been thrown out of court in the West, the Arab world's most famous comic film star, 71-year-old Adel Imam, has been fined 1,000 Egyptian pounds (approximately $170.00). In addition to the fine, he has also been sentenced to 3 months in jail (in absentia) for insulting Islam. 

The case was brought by Asran Mansour, a lawyer with ties to Islamist groups, and had languished in court for months, judicial sources said.

Mansour accused the actor of offending Islam and its symbols, including beards and the Jilbab, a loose-fitting garment worn by some Muslims, the Egyptian news portal Ahramonline reported.

Among films and plays targeted by the lawyer were the movie “Morgan Ahmed Morgan” and the play “Al-Zaeem” (“The Leader”), the report said.

Another of his criticized works was a production back in 1994 called "The Terrorist" (al-Irhabi), but according to Imam

“All the works in which I have starred went through the censors. Had they been found to be defamatory, the censors would have banned them.”

Apparently this isn't the first time that someone in the entertainment industry has been sued for allegedly disrespecting Islam, it happens all the time to artist/intellectual types. But this case is different because Imam is a celebrity, the case sat around for a long while and was only resurrected since Islamists have come to power. 

Our prisons would be full if this happened in the U.S. There are so many films and plays that people find offensive, but thank God we live in a democracy where you might be black-balled for a while, or criticized but never fined or jailed.

"Cruel and unusual punishment": Florida Pedophile Inmate Suing Prison For Serving Soy Products In Meals

Florida seems to rank high in the frivolous lawsuit category, but this one takes the cake.

A 32-year-old pedophile, Eric Harris, who was sentenced to life in prison, isn't happy with his food options so he's filed a law suit against the Florida state prison system for cruel and unusual punishment. Apparently in 2009, Lake Correctional decided to start serving soy-based products in prison meals. Prisoners receive soy by-products in up to 70% of their meals and many are unhappy. They claim that the soy is causing all sorts of health issues.


Serving soy products saves the Department of Corrections (and hence the taxpayers) a lot of money. According to spokeswoman Joellen Rackleff, they have a budget of $47 million for food, if they were to serve 100 percent meat, it would cost twice as much. .

But after a lot bitching and moaning to an anti-vegetarian, anti-soy organization, The Weston A. Price Foundation  is suing on behalf of Harris, pro-bono, and plans on filing a class action suit on behalf of others, including taxpayers. Hello, serving soy products is saving the tax payer money, why sue on their behalf? And thanks to the foundation's  frivolous law suit, more taxpayer's money will be wasted on a totally unworthy cause.

Inmates get 3 square meals a day- they're lucky they're not getting bread and water. If they don't want to eat the soy foods, don't eat it. Prison isn't the Ritz Carlton, you don't get choices when you commit crimes.

.. including chronic constipation followed with debilitating diarrhea and vomiting, passing out, heart palpitations, and rashes.

Complaint Filed Against Catholic University Alleges Violation Of Muslim Students' Rights

The latest asinine, Muslim-instigated frivolous law suit (and no, not initiated by CAIR  believe it or not) is a complaint (60 pages no less) leveled against Washington DC based Catholic University of America.  George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf (who apparently has nothing better to do), has filed a complaint with the Office of  Human Rights in Washington DC alleging that Muslim students' human rights are being violated because the poor things have to pray in a room with Jesus Christ looking down on them and

“... surrounded by symbols of Catholicism – e.g., a wooden crucifix, paintings of Jesus, pictures of priests and theologians which many Muslim students find inappropriate.”

Well, duh, what part of Catholic don't they understand?  Private Catholic Universities will, obviously, promote Catholicism and if some of the Muslims (or others for that matter) are offended by it as Banzhaf claims they are, then they need to find another college to attend.  Preferably a public, non-religious affiliated school. Or if they prefer a Muslim education and like-minded students, then there are lots of them in the Middle East.

Human rights being violated? Please!

Banzhaf told Fox News that

“It shouldn’t be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus."

Why should they care who or what is looking down upon them?  If you are a faithful believer of any religion you should be able to pray anywhere, heck Muslims pray out on the streets of Paris in droves, and who knows who or what is looking down upon them there.

And no-one else seems to have any complaints.  Victor Nakas, from the public affairs office of the University said

“Our faithfulness to our Catholic tradition has also made us a welcome home to students of other religions. No students have registered complaints about the exercise of their religions on our campus.”

That's because most other religions are not demanding, as Islam has increasingly become. And it's not that the Muslim students are being prevented from praying. A university spokesman told NPR in an interview in 2010 that

“We make classrooms available, or our chapels are places where they can pray. We don’t offer Halal meat, although there are always meals that conform to Halal regulations, that allow students to do what they want.”

 No Muslim University would make any concessions for students of other religions- if they are even allowed to attend.

The Office of Human Rights has said the investigation could take up to 6 months to complete. What a waste of energy.

Photo Source: The Tower

Muslim Family In Spain Denounces Teacher For Offending Son- Or, Talking About Ham Is A No-No

For various reasons, there are many of us who choose not to eat pig, in its many different culinary manifestations. I'm a vegetarian, so any form of animal flesh is out- besides, after seeing the film "Babe", who could ever eat bacon again? Others stay away from ham and pork for health reasons- you can still get trichinosis from eating undercooked pork, and who wants to share their intestines with a bunch of nasty worms. Still others stay away from piggy products because of religious dietary laws. Judaism and Islam forbid eating pork, and it's even a no-no for the Seventh-day Adventists, although there are some who don't abide by those particular laws. But even though I choose to 'just say no' to eating pork products (along with some Jews and Seventh-day Adventists, we have no problems if someone else eats them, and we certainly are not offended by the mere mention or a picture of a piglet. Some Muslims, on the other hand, consider it almost a capital offense to even talk about the "P" word, and people around the world are suffering the consequences of that aversion.

Ask a high school teacher at the Menéndez Tolosa institute in Spain who was reported to the National Police by the family of a student of his, for having offended the boy. His major crime? Mentioning 'ham', which the Spaniards happen to love.

According to Spanish language El Diario de Cádiz , a professor was teaching a class in geography and talking about the different climates on our planet. As an example of a cold, dry climate he mentioned Trevélez, which happens to be a major ham-producing village in Granada, Spain. Apparently, that kind of climate is perfect for curing ham and the professor used that fact as an anecdote. Now, the professor wasn't forcing the students to eat, or touch said 'cured ham', he simply mentioned the fact that the weather there was ideal. Well, the mere mention of the "H" word ticked the student off, and he told the teacher to stop talking about ham because it offended him as a Muslim. The teacher responded, and rightfully so, that it was simply an example and that he did not take into account the religion of his students. And rather than broach the subject with the teacher first, the family raced off to the police to file a complaint- the teacher is now accused of labour abuse, with a little racism and xenophobia for added effect.

Students and teachers alike are furious considering he is a well-liked professor with a stellar record, who has dedicated well over 20 years to teaching. The National Police is keeping the investigation open pending the outcome in court.

Now, I know not all Muslims would go so far as to file a criminal complaint against someone for mentioning pork, ham bacon or any other pig-related word, but good grief, the fact that even a few do happen to file frivolous complaints is a few too many. This should not be happening in the Western world. We should not have to censor ourselves for fear that we might offend someone, or worse yet, that we might get sued for said offenses.

I think the good professor should file a counter-complaint (on behalf of the poor maligned pig) against the student and his family for porkophobia. This insanity has got to stop!

Other Sources: Diario De Jerez, Larazon.es

H/T Tea and Politics

Conservative Canadian Bloggers Need Our Help Against Frivolous Law Suits

Canadian bloggers (and Canadians by extension) are in deep doo-doo when it comes to their freedom of speech. And not just from Islamist ne-er-do-wells who have hides as thin as rice paper who will sue for the lamest of reasons, but they are also being targeted with frivolous law suits by fellow Canucks, aided and abetted by the infamous thought police- the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). If you hang around any of the conservative Canadian blogs like Blazing Cat Fur's, you will be familiar with the name of one Richard Warman, who used to work for the CHRC. Apparently this litigious wacko has nothing better to do than sue anyone who happens to offend him, or who has criticized him in the past and supposedly has about 60 ongoing SLAPP suits according to another blogger. Why the Canadian court system suffers the likes of Warman is beyond me, but it just proves the country is in dire straits.

Blazing Cat Fur was sued by Warman 18 months ago for simply linking, get this, to Mark Steyn's website, and for also linking to a website that lists a bunch of allegations against Warman himself (who apparently posted anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist diatribes on Nazi websites). BCF has already spent $10,000 on his defense against a $500,000.00 law suit by Warman. He now needs some help, so if you can give a little something, go to his website and click on the Feed The Kitty paypal link, you never know when we might also need help.

This country isn't that far behind our Canadian brothers in terms of thought police and censorship. We must fight to maintain our right to free speech, even if it means defending ourselves from frivolous law suits.

Freedom of Speech Canuck-Style- Blue Host Shuts Down Blogger At Behest of Canadian Immigrant Dr. Asad Raza

There are some who obviously have no clue about the concept of 'freedom of speech', or 'public domain', 'fair use' or what the definitions of slander, defamation and libel are. Perhaps it's because freedom, let alone free speech, doesn't exist in the countries they emigrated from, but it's something most Westerners cleave to, like a baby to its mother's breast. It's something we cherish deeply and will defend at any cost. We might disagree with what an individual says or does, but we almost always agree that they have the right to say or do it. That is, as long as it harms no-one physically.

Many non-Western immigrants who move to the West are grateful for their new opportunities and new-found freedom. Many others have a challenging time adapting to certain aspects of Western society including the fact that we are all entitled to criticize anyone or anything we choose, right or wrong. And whether they like it or not it's one of our inalienable rights, at least in the U.S. At least for now. I'm not so sure about Canada, as it seems our poor cousins up north are going the way of the UK, and their freedom of speech is being challenged left and right. Using the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) as a weapon, bloggers are being sued by these people for alleged 'hate crimes' for something that is nothing more than criticism. My Canadian blogger buddy Blazing Catfur has written extensively about the problem there. We haven't quite reached that point in this country, yet, but I'm sure we're not too far behind. Thankfully, we can still blast someone here, including our President, without being thrown in jail or killed, like in Egypt or Pakistan or Iran. And suing is something that is becoming very common with many of these entitled immigrants when they feel they are being criticized or their demands are not met. And with the help of the CHRC in Canada, and organizations like CAIR (Council on American and Islamic Relations) in the U.S., they often win. As a result, all they have to do is threaten to sue and people cave in to their demands.

This is what happened to a Canadian blogger, Marginalized Action Dinosaur (MAD), who wrote a post about one Dr. Asad Raza, founder of a website that no longer seems to exist called notcanada.com . Essentially a site dedicated to griping about being an immigrant in Canada, Dr. Raza wrote a list of top 8 things he hated about his adopted country including the health care crisis, high taxes and cost of living, no jobs, no culture and the bad weather. (U.S. Obamacare proponents take note!) An ingrate, sure, however all that criticism was absolutely within his rights in a free country; although I'm assuming no-one put a gun to his head and forced him to emigrate to Canada. MAD then chose to respond with a post of his own, referencing Raza's gripe-fest and commenting on each gripe made. Absolutely within MAD's rights too, in a free country. No slander, no defamation, no libel. Raza has since left Canada and has been working in the U.S. on an H-1B Visa, though I'm not sure what his legal status is since he was querying about it on online immigration forum just seven months ago.

The bizarre thing is, MAD's post was written back in 2007, but for some reason Raza stumbled upon it, got a bug up his you know what and decided that MAD's criticism was slanderous and defamatory and demanded that he remove it. Hmmm. Lets see. What's the dictionary definition of slander:

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

Since all MAD happened to do was re-post something Raza actually wrote, with a link and attribution along with a few side commentaries (none of which were defamatory, as you can see for yourself), there is quite obviously no slander involved. Had he called him an incompetent, psychopathic pedophile axe murder, that's a totally different story; yes that would be defamation of character and slanderous. But being critical of someone for something they said or did is not defamation of character, nor slander if it's based on unequivocal truth. Gossip maybe, but not slander. And in this case, these were Raza's own words. But when the doc didn't get his way, like a spoiled child, he turned to MAD's ISP BlueHost.Com, which in turn threatened MAD and eventually shut him down. It was re-instated, several days later, but not before causing MAD much grief. He was threatened for publishing

....so called personal and private information from the dear doctors website.

Excuse me, but none of the information MAD published was personal or private. The Internet is a public forum, as was Raza's website notcanada.com, and if you don't want people to access that information then stay away from the world wide web. If you're stupid enough to think that anything you write won't be accessible (forever!) through google's cache, and that you won't eventually be tracked down if you post your email address and deep 'private' thoughts on some public forum, then you deserve what you get. People have been fired because they have posted something critical about their work place or bosses on some forum or social networking site or via email, and their bosses happened to discover it. People have not been hired for the same reason. Word to the wise, nothing is private on the WWW. If you don't want the world to know it, don't write it.

So, as a result of the initial shut-down of MAD's blog by Blue Host, fellow freedom-loving Canuck bloggers became naturally outraged, banded together and took to their respective blog platforms to rally against this obvious attack on freedom of speech. This has sent the already angry doc into paroxysms of rage, and now he's on a rampage threatening to sue everyone for defamation. Good luck with that one.

Message to Asad Raza if you happen to google your name and come across this post:

The West is very different, doc. Please adapt. Get to know our laws. And had you understood the concept of 'freedom of speech', and the notion that if you can criticize so can others, and that this post was three years old, and had you left well enough alone and not forced an ISP to shut down a blogger, none of these people would be writing about you on their blogs, and you wouldn't be threatening to sue them if they refuse to remove their posts about your foolish actions. Don't even think about suing me, because this is a free country and your legal status here is questionable. And yes, I am giving you permission to criticize me for my commentary- you have as much right to criticize me as I have to criticize you, so go ahead, I'm a big girl, I can take it. But please just move on with your life. It's not worth it. You made this non-issue into a huge one by challenging those who embrace freedom with as fierce a will as a lion mama protecting her cub. Just know that we will continue to fight for your right to criticize Canada (and wherever, whatever and whomever else you choose) along with our right to criticize you.

Physician, go in peace. You'll have a much better life.

Free Speech Takes a Dive In Canada- Richard Warman Sues Conservative Bloggers

Major trouble is brewing for our conservative, Canadian brother and sister bloggers to the north. For those of you who might not be aware, one twisted Richard Warman is on the war path. Formerly employed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), he has turned into a one-man vigilante force bent on depriving people of their rights to free speech. To date he has filed at least 26 complaints against various respondents, utilizing the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) Section 13.

The Commission has a unique role in combatting hate on the Internet. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act empowers the Commission to deal with complaints regarding the use of the Internet to transmit hate messages.

What was initially a quest to silence the neo-nazi voice in Canada, has turned into an attack on the conservative blogosphere, as a whole, and anyone that Warman (and his CHRC cronies) happen to disagree with. Warman has been instrumental in the demise of many bloggers who did not have the resources to fight back.

Since the introduction of CHRA, Section 13, those critical of Islam have been targeted as well, including conservative Mark Steyn. Publisher Ezra Levant, was also targeted for publishing the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Whether one agrees, or not, with the message that certain individuals put forth in their blogs, (and personally I find the neo-nazi agenda abhorrent) UNLESS it directly encourages violence against others, it is NOT a hate crime. And, frankly, if people choose to consider mere words as hate crimes, should not those calling for death to those who insult Islam be liable, as well?


The conservative blogosphere has been highly critical of Warman and the CHRC's less than ethical behaviour and, as a result, Warman has added another suit to his long list of complaints. This time he filed a mammoth Libel Suit against some of the most prominent Canadian bloggers, plus a Canadian newspaper:

Ezra Levant, Connie & Mark Fournier of Freedominion, Kathy Shaidle of FivefeetofFury, Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals, and Jonathan Kay and The National Post.

Unlike others, who have fallen prey to Warman's warped, litigious nature and given up, these people intend to fight back, in the name of freedom of speech. They have various defense funds you can donate to via paypal on their various blogs. If you have a few spare dollars, donate to their funds, or blog about this.

The Canuck conservative blogosphere is in a fight for its very existence, battling both Warman and the CHRC's thought police.

Are we headed down that same road if Hillary or Obama are elected? Remember the attempt to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, by the liberal Democrats?

Freedom of speech is worth fighting for, wherever it's threatened.

Also blogging:
Michelle Malkin
The Nose On Your Face


Via Blazing Cat Fur

Faith-based drug rehab sparks frivolous law suit

Here we go again, another monumental waste of taxpayers money to further the God-less agenda.

The N.Y. based Council for Secular Humanism (CSH), and 2 of its Florida members, has decided to sue the State of Florida. Why? They don't seem to like the fact that the Leon County Department of Corrections is providing financial support to 2 faith-based drug rehab and housing programmes: the non-profit 'Prisoners of Christ' and the 'Lamb of God Ministries'. You know, the whole separation of church and state babble, though, don't get me wrong, I firmly believe in separation.

The Florida Department of Corrections has contracts with over 20 faith-based substance abuse and transitional housing programmes (FBTH), but I've no idea why the above 2 were singled out. The success rates for all these programmes varies, but any success is better than no success.

CSH has cited Florida State's mandate prohibiting the spending of 'State' monies that "directly or indirectly... aid..any church, sect or religious denomination or .. aid.. any sectarian institution."

I could understand taking offense if people were forced to participate in faith-based programmes against their wills, but, all programmes are strictly voluntary. The contract with Lamb of God Ministries stipulates that "all enrolled program participants shall be required to participate in program activities and abide by program rules," which seems only fair. According to FDOC spokesman, Robby Cunningham, these programmes were created for the "sole purpose of furthering the secular goals of criminal rehabilitation, the successful reintegration of offenders into the community, and the reduction of recidivism." And these groups are specifically not permitted to convert participants to any particular faith, nor are they allowed to prohibit an inmate from entering the programme based on their beliefs. Which also seems fair. A person should not be forced to convert to any religion in order to avail him/herself of social services.

Most successful drug and alcohol rehab treatment programmes, in addition to medical, emotional and psychological help, utilize some form of moral and spiritual counseling to help overcome addictive behaviour. Even Alcoholics Anonymous' 12 Step Programme is God-centered. And if religious organizations have the resources and inclination to help a population that no-one wants to or can deal with, then why shouldn't they get some funding from the Department of Corrections to help offset their costs? I assure you they are not wholly State funded.

The irony of it all, is that in their attempt to stop taxpayers from funding programmes that can and have helped inmates get their lives back on track, they're wasting taxpayers money by forcing the state to defend itself. I'd rather have my taxes pay for programmes that might potentially help someone leave behind a life of crime, regardless of religious affiliation, than pay for the defense of another frivolous lawsuit.

Another ass-inine, frivolous A.C.L.U. lawsuit

The A.C.L.U. (American Civil Liberties Union) idiots have taken it upon themselves to file a lawsuit against Dixie County, Florida because a statue of the Ten Commandments (donated by a local businessman), standing in front of a building that houses the Courthouse and several other public offices in Cross City is: "in effect, thumbing its nose at the Constitution." Note, that this lawsuit was NOT filed by an individual plaintiff (because they couldn't find any local residents willing to sue!), so the A.C.L.U. decided it was their duty to take on the task of trying to force the the County to remove the monument. They believe the words "LOVE GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS" might be offensive and intimidating to those who have religious beliefs that are not based on Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Don't these people have anything better to do with their time or money!!?? Not to mention wasting tax payers' dollars, by forcing the County to defend their right to keep the statue intact.