Christian fined $12,000 for not removing his shoes.

[taxme]

John Alabi, is a Christian man who immigrated to Canada 22 years ago from Nigeria. John followed Canadian law and worked hard. He worked two jobs to try to feed his family. But John got himself into a bit of a pickle with the Ontario kangaroo court otherwise known as the Ontario Human Rights Commission over an incident where John was accused of not taking his shoes off when he was showing the bedroom off of an Arab muslim couple too potential new occupants. The muslim found this out and ran to the HRC and complained about the shoe incident and after a kangaroo court trial, John was fined and given a sharia ticket for $12,000 which he now has to pay to this muslim fool for his religion being offended. 

Is this still Canada? A man gets fined for $12,000 for not taking his shoes off in a muslims bedroom? What the hell is going on here in Canada where this kind of bs can exist? And who are these idiots in the HRC that would dare to do such a ridiculous thing to a man who now has too fork out all this money and try to keep his family housed and fed. I am outraged over this.

Is it time to abolish this draconian outfit called the HRC for good? How dare these morons on the HRC be allowed to get away with this injustice. This HRC is an un-elected appointed outfit full of buffoons that are allowed to bypass the criminal code of Canada, and make up it's own rules and laws. Anyone outraged as I am over this? Any comments? 

Source: The Rebel

Edited July 6, 2017 by taxme

[hot enough]

The Rebel is not a source. It's a wacko right wing wing of the Tea Party. 

[scribblet]

The Rebel is correct, although there is no Tea Party in Canada but because you don't like what they say, you shoot the messenger.  Lots of sources for what happened out there.  They had only been there a short time and he did give them the required 24 hour notice, they didn't need more time, they were just dicking him around.  According to the landlord they did not request him to remove his shoes until there was a disagreement which tells me that their request was not religiously motivated until they thought it would give them more ammunition.  ( it did )  Even if the tribunal ruled that he violated their religious rights, fining him $12,000 was a over the top.   The couple knew what they were doing, they don't have to pay for a lawyer in that kangaroo court  plus they make a bundle of money.  

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by scribblet

[dialamah]

The couple asked for an extra hours notice so they wouldn't have their prayer time interrupted, and they asked the landlord and prospective tenants to remove their shoes when viewing the unit.   

Who doesn't remove their shoes when entering someone's home, unless specifically invited not to?  And if someone would prefer not to be interrupted during a private time, whether it's prayer time, bath time or something more intimate, why should that be a problem?  If this landlord really was a Christian, why wouldn't he treat the couple and their home with respect?   Claiming that this couple was trying to impose their way of life on him, in the privacy of their own home in which he is a visitor is ludicrous, even if he was an invited visitor.

I would say the HR was absolutely correct in their assessment, though $12,000 does seem like a lot and I doubt it will dent this guy's stupidity.

[DogOnPorch]

HRCs fit in with the Islamic concept of forcing money out of the Infidel. As The Quran tells its followers.......

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah* with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

https://quran.com/9/29

* Jizya = Infidel Tax

[dialamah]

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

HRCs fit in with the Islamic concept of forcing money out of the Infidel. As The Quran tells its followers.......

Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah* with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

https://quran.com/9/29

* Jizya = Infidel Tax

That has nothing to do with a landlord refusing to respect his tenant's reasonable requests within their own home. 

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, dialamah said:

That has nothing to do with a landlord refusing to respect his tenant's reasonable requests within their own home. 

So sez Islam's greatest defender here at MLW.

[Omni]

14 minutes ago, dialamah said:

That has nothing to do with a landlord refusing to respect his tenant's reasonable requests within their own home. 

Were you expecting anything relevant from source, especially on this type of (religion) issue?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Omni said:

Were you expecting anything relevant from source, especially on this type of (religion) issue?

 

I know...I take the mailman to the HRC when he doesn't close the gate.

Edited July 6, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[Omni]

5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I know...I take the mailman to the HRC when he doesn't close the gate.

Thanks for making my point.

[DogOnPorch]

Just now, Omni said:

Thanks for making my point.

 

HRCs remind me of those sorts that go for damages pay-outs when you just KNOW nobody has been "damaged".

"I slipped on my Slurpee...now I'm suing 7-11"

No wonder Islam's followers use them. Infidels forking-over their cash for perceived damages? Beautiful.

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, Omni said:

Were you expecting anything relevant from source, especially on this type of (religion) issue?

Not really, just throwing the dog a bone. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

The couple asked for an extra hours notice so they wouldn't have their prayer time interrupted, and they asked the landlord and prospective tenants to remove their shoes when viewing the unit.   

Who doesn't remove their shoes when entering someone's home, unless specifically invited not to?  And if someone would prefer not to be interrupted during a private time, whether it's prayer time, bath time or something more intimate, why should that be a problem?  If this landlord really was a Christian, why wouldn't he treat the couple and their home with respect?   Claiming that this couple was trying to impose their way of life on him, in the privacy of their own home in which he is a visitor is ludicrous, even if he was an invited visitor.

I would say the HR was absolutely correct in their assessment, though $12,000 does seem like a lot and I doubt it will dent this guy's stupidity.

I would say that bad manners should not be covered by the law in any way.  I'm against this ruling because being a bit of a jerk ought not to be against any laws. 

On HRCs in general, I would definitely have them all shut down.

[DogOnPorch]

36 minutes ago, dialamah said:

Not really, just throwing the dog a bone. 

 

I fully expect that you'd support the use of kangaroo courts to silence Islam's detractors.

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would say that bad manners should not be covered by the law in any way.  I'm against this ruling because being a bit of a jerk ought not to be against any laws. 

On HRCs in general, I would definitely have them all shut down.

 

Wrong thread

Edited July 6, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[dialamah]

32 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I would say that bad manners should not be covered by the law in any way.  I'm against this ruling because being a bit of a jerk ought not to be against any laws. 

On HRCs in general, I would definitely have them all shut down.

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?   I didn't read the Rebel account for obvious reasons, but this landlord was beyond just a jerk: he behaved this way because they were Muslims.

Quote

Alabi told the tribunal he felt Madkour and Ismail were imposing their way of life on him, a claim flatly rejected in Pickel’s decision.

 

Do you suppose he would have. objected to a non-Muslim asking him to remove his shoes or to give an extra hours notice for showing the suite for some other reason not related to prayer?

And its easy to consider the HRC useless if you are unlikely to have need of it.  

 

P.S. Quote is from National Post, sorry couldn't get the link to work.

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by dialamah

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?   I didn't read the Rebel account for obvious reasons, but this landlord was beyond just a jerk: he behaved this way because they were Muslims.

Alabi told the tribunal he felt Madkour and Ismail were imposing their way of life on him, a claim flatly rejected in Pickel’s decision.[/quote]

Do you suppose he would have. objected to a non-Muslim asking him to remove his shoes or to give an extra hours notice for showing the suite for some other reason not related to prayer?

And its easy to consider the HRC useless if you are unlikely to have need of it.  

 

P.S. Quote is from National Post, sorry couldn't get the link to work.

 

I'm unlikely to have any need of the courts but I don't find them useless.

[dialamah]

33 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 

On HRCs in general, I would definitely have them all shut down.

These ones in particular.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

 

And its easy to consider the HRC useless if you are unlikely to have need of it.  

 

 

No doubt. Some folks simply refuse to stoop to such a level of using kangaroo courts.

But yeah...a system that provides free legal prosecution with resulting huge cash pay-outs would NEVER be an abuse of justice. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

Did you read the reasons for the judgement?   I didn't read the Rebel account for obvious reasons, but this landlord was beyond just a jerk: he behaved this way because they were Muslims.

 

Missed this earlier.  Why does that matter?  Why should he be allowed to be rude without a fine in some cases, and not in others? 

Why are they not being fined for asking him to take his shoes off?

That's what I mean about HRCs.  Arbitrary decisions based a politically correct capriciousness.  Really, they should not exist.

Edited July 6, 2017 by bcsapper

[dialamah]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Missed this earlier.  Why does that matter?  Why should he be allowed to be rude without a fine in some cases, and not in others? 

Why are they not being fined for asking him to take his shoes off?

That's what I mean about HRCs.  Arbitrary decisions based a politically correct capriciousness.  Really, they should not exist.

I disagree. He objected to removing his shoes and respecting their request for an hour's notice because their request was related to their religion.   It is not political capriciousness to make it clear that in Canada we do not accept treating people differently due to their religion.  

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I disagree. He objected to removing his shoes and respecting their request for an hour's notice because their request was related to their religion.   It is not political capriciousness to make it clear that in Canada we do not accept treating people differently due to their religion.  

Why not?  There's a difference between discriminating against someone in law and treating people differently.  You come to my door, I'll chat.  Not if you're a Jdub though.

He was rude.  If that was because of their religion, too bad.  It's still just rude.  He was fined $12000 for offending them.  Think about that for a minute.  He offended them, and an officially sanctioned government organisation made him give them money.  Wrong, imo.

 

Edited July 6, 2017 by bcsapper

[DogOnPorch]

16 minutes ago, dialamah said:

I disagree. He objected to removing his shoes and respecting their request for an hour's notice because their request was related to their religion.   It is not political capriciousness to make it clear that in Canada we do not accept treating people differently due to their religion.  

 

Muslims pray five times a day if faithful. Up to five "wait for an hour-s" a day...not too shabby. I once worked for a Chinese Property Management company (no names) whose methods for dealing with such defiance by a tenant would have astounded you. Cruel might come to mind. They never saw the inside of an HRC...oddly enough. 

Edited July 6, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Why not?  There's a difference between dicriminating against someone in law and treating people differently.  You come to my door, I'll chat.  Not if you're a Jdub though.

He was rude.  If that was because of their religion, too bad.  It's still just rude.  He was fined $12000 for offending them.  Think about that for a minute.  He offended them, and an officially sanctioned government organisation made him give them money.  Wrong, imo.

 

 

We know little of the actual case that brought him to the door for a 24 hour warning visit. But, if a landlord has to post one, chances are something is not right in Rome with the tenants themselves. Not paying rent? Who knows...do we know?

Edited July 6, 2017 by DogOnPorch

[capricorn]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

On HRCs in general, I would definitely have them all shut down.

No can do. HRCs are the closest we have to Sharia Law, for now.