A Muslim inmate has won $2,000 for bacon insult

[capricorn]

These victories for prisoners' rights are incremental, regardless of their ethnicity. Muslim prisoners have now won the right to a substitute for anything 'pork'. Given Muslims' aversion to pork, the next step will be a complaint against the smell of pork or bacon coming from the plates of other inmates or from prison kitchens/cafeterias.

[ScottSA]

It's already being abused in American prisons. Inmates are claiming to be Jewish because the much costlier Kosher meal is better than standard prison meals.

I don't think either Jews or Muslims should be coddled. Nor, for that matter, should Catholics be fed fish on Friday. If their religion was so important to them they wouldn't be there in the first place. Except Muslims of course, whose religion tells them to do all manner of nasty things.

But there's a distinction...I think Jews should be here in Canada; I don't think Muslims should be. I'd be quite happy to deport the lot of them.

[Peter F]

We know, ScottSA, the muslims are going to ruin the white redoubt. Just look at this muslims behaviour; He writes a greivance to the prison complaining that his religious rights are being infringed upon. Prison disagrees. The thug then submits a written complaint to the federal court. Federal court agrees with him.

One thing this country cannot stand is people using the judicial process in good faith.

There should be a law...

The little brown folks can't win; When they refuse to accept western ways they're scum. When they accept western ways they're still scum.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Peter F

[jefferiah]

Federal court agrees with him.

ok now explain to me why this is worth 2000 bucks?

[betsy]

I still contend that this is a bad precedent that will be abused, and people of any religion who get themselves incarcerated have chosen risky behaviour over their religion and can not now make demands of the prison system.

I agree with you Sharkman.

[betsy]

So let the outrage against Jewish prisoners' demands for kosher food begin! After all, as you yourself pointed out, they "aren't in bleeding hotel!"

No, you go ahead and vent your outrage against Jewish demands for Kosher...after all that incident happened in your own country!

So why should I be outraged over that?

Right now my outrage is over this incident that Scott had brought up that happened in my own country.... this blasted Muslim and the moronic judge who had just started a precedent here it seems. So this means we'll probably be pandering to every religious demands from every inmates!

Edited September 24, 2007 by betsy

[Peter F]

ok now explain to me why this is worth 2000 bucks?

according to the judge making the decision:

"There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. Counsel for Mr. David submitted that costs in the range of $2,000.00 to $2,500.00 would be reasonable. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that reasonable costs would be in the range of $1,500.00 to $2,000.00. On the base of these submissions, costs are fixed in the amount of $2,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and GST."

Federal Court - David vs. Canada

Costs. He didn't win a damn thing except have his expenses covered.

Now somebody explain how this is Muslim thuggery...

Edited September 24, 2007 by Peter F

[Guest American Woman]

No, you go ahead and vent your outrage against Jewish demands for Kosher...after all that incident happened in your own country!

So why should I be outraged over that?

Right now my outrage is over this incident that Scott had brought up that happened in my own country.... this blasted Muslim and the moronic judge who had just started a precedent here it seems. So this means we'll probably be pandering to every religious demands from every inmates!

So this is your final story and you're sticking to it, eh?

I'm glad to hear you aren't outraged over incidents that happen in the United States. I'll remember that and be sure to remind you should you ever slip and show any outrage/concern over what happens in America.

[jefferiah]

So this is your final story and you're sticking to it, eh?

I'm glad to hear you aren't outraged over incidents that happen in the United States. I'll remember that and be sure to remind you should you ever slip and show any outrage/concern over what happens in America.

I am with Betsy on this one AW. You are bringing up another topic which has nothing to do with this one. She was right to dismiss it. If it happened in the States it has nothing to do with the Canadian judicial system. That's not an insult or an affront to you personally. It just is. Like if you said well they give Jews kosher meals in Zimbabwe how would that have a bearing on whether it is fair or not to demand it here. You can't say it would be inconsistent to deny a Muslim a replacement for a few strips of bacon here because in the US Jewish prisoners demanded kosher food. That has nothing to do with Canada.

The point is look. This guy was served a plate complete with eggs, toast, breakfast cereal, etc. Three pieces of bacon were included. Thats hardly one corner of the plate. You know if you don't like the cole slaw that comes with your take-out you just don't eat it right? It's a frivolous lawsuit. I mean if they served pork roast morning noon and evening every day of the week, that would be different. In this situation it was three pieces of bacon. All he had to do was say hold the bacon, give me another egg. Courts should have no time for trifles like this. It's completely ridiculous.

Edited September 24, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

A Federal Court of Canada hearing was told the breakfast included three pieces of bacon, two eggs, three slices of toast, jam, ketchup, milk, coffee, juice and cereal.

Without the bacon that is still more than anyone in my family eats for breakfast.

[jbg]

I wonder why the Jews have been suffering through these indignities in prison for a couple hundred years. I'm beginning to think Muslims are nothing but whiney thugs.

A Muslim inmate has won $2,000 and a partial human rights victory over a Correctional Service of Canada policy not to replace bacon with a halal diet for Islam-worshipping cons.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Canada/2007...514133-sun.html

Unless under persecution, Jews are rarely in prisons. Maybe that's part of it.

[ScottSA]

A Federal Court of Canada hearing was told the breakfast included three pieces of bacon, two eggs, three slices of toast, jam, ketchup, milk, coffee, juice and cereal.

Without the bacon that is still more than anyone in my family eats for breakfast.

A pail of raw maggoty beef garnished with chicken feathers is halal I bet.

[Visionseeker]

Unless under persecution, Jews are rarely in prisons. Maybe that's part of it.

LOL!

[FTA Lawyer]

according to the judge making the decision:

"There is no reason why costs should not follow the event. Counsel for Mr. David submitted that costs in the range of $2,000.00 to $2,500.00 would be reasonable. Counsel for the Attorney General submitted that reasonable costs would be in the range of $1,500.00 to $2,000.00. On the base of these submissions, costs are fixed in the amount of $2,000.00 inclusive of disbursements and GST."

Federal Court - David vs. Canada

Costs. He didn't win a damn thing except have his expenses covered.

Now somebody explain how this is Muslim thuggery...

Thank you for finding the link...what reading the judgment leads to is another rebuke of the media and their constant willingness to incite without much care for facts or truth.

The inmate didn't "win" anything but the right to a new hearing by a fresh investigator...mostly because the report submitted to justify denying him a meat substitute left out the parts where the Human Rights Commission and the CSC had already established policies which say that denying a meat substitute for people on a halal diet is discriminatory...

Gee, maybe public officials acting in good faith ought not hide material evidence that doesn't help their position?

Maybe people here will have to retract their comments about "Liberal Judges" ruining the country...this judge did nothing of the sort...she compensated a litigant for $2,000.00 of his expenses in calling the Federal government to task for 1) Not following their own policies and 2) Trying to hide that fact.

All of a sudden I am really beginning to like what this inmate did here.

FTA

[Guest American Woman]

The inmate didn't "win" anything but the right to a new hearing by a fresh investigator...mostly because the report submitted to justify denying him a meat substitute left out the parts where the Human Rights Commission and the CSC had already established policies which say that denying a meat substitute for people on a halal diet is discriminatory...

Correctional Services of Canada has established General Guidelines for Religious Diets: Link

[jennie]

Citizens whose behaviour has gotten them pulled out of society and placed into the big house should not be permitted to make demands about what food they eat, so long as it meets federal government guidelines for proper nutrition. They lost that right when society had to protect itself from them by throwing them into the slammer. That's why they call it incarceration. I do not care what religion they are, and neither should the judges. IF they had followed their religion more closely, they would not have found themselves in prison in the first place.

That a prisoner has won 2000 bucks in Canada sounds about right. Our justice system is so pathetic, the prisoner wins $2000 when he wasn't even asking for money! This is simply Madame Justice Eleanor Dawson's way of setting another ridiculous precedent so that the whole prison system has to now come up with the funds to serve upteen different religious diets for prisoners, who no doubt will now convert to whatever religion and then demand to be fed whatever diet this religion calls for just to stick it to THE MAN, knowing that judges will back them up.

Prisons accommodate a lot of special diets ... diabetics, vegetarians (probably not too well for vegans), milk allergies, maybe not nut allergies ... peanut butter is a staple. And religious diets as well as possible, but usually it's the two of this instead approach.

Edited September 24, 2007 by jennie

[Guest American Woman]

I am with Betsy on this one AW. You are bringing up another topic which has nothing to do with this one. She was right to dismiss it. If it happened in the States it has nothing to do with the Canadian judicial system.

Seems to me the subject of the thread is "Muslims are thugs" for wanting their religious diet adhered to in prison, and suing to get that right, so that is the 'issue' I was responding to. As I already cited, Canada also has guidelines for the diets of Jewish inmates too.

So it wasn't about the "Canadian judicial system," it was about "whiney Muslims." So yes, my "topic" had everything to do with this one.

[betsy]

Seems to me the subject of the thread is "Muslims are thugs" for wanting their religious diet adhered to in prison, and suing to get that right, so that is the 'issue' I was responding to. As I already cited, Canada also has guidelines for the diets of Jewish inmates too.

So it wasn't about the "Canadian judicial system," it was about "whiney Muslims." So yes, my "topic" had everything to do with this one.

Well at least we cleared that part. We were responding from different angles.

I was responding to the real issue I see with this incident.

I didn't latch onto the thuggery-muslim-whiney part, understanding other possible likely factors that went with that obvious expression of outrage.

To me, the expression of that outrage was not the real issue.

Some may comment or question its utterance, but focusing on it would simply be just quite petty.

In fact, dwelling on it would detract from the real issue - that something is wrong with our system.

If someone cried "OUCH!".... my response would be to go for the cause of that ouch....and not waste too much time criticizing, or going ballistic or agonizing over how it was uttered.

Edited September 24, 2007 by betsy

[kuzadd]

Repeating: Jews have sued over prisons not offering kosher food.

Not one comment about that. Is it only a bad thing when Muslims complain?

Aaah, now you are getting it!

yes, it is only bad when muslims complain.

It's called that old double standard and is rampant here.

[Guest American Woman]

Aaah, now you are getting it!

yes, it is only bad when muslims complain.

It's called that old double standard and is rampant here.

I have to say, it's surprising to me just how rampant it is here. I'm sure if this had been a Jew complaining about his rights to Kosher food, it would never have made it to this board. That's all too obvious by the responses in this thread.

[sharkman]

You two seem to be ignoring my position which others stated they agreed with, that NO religious diets should be allowed. Btw, why is it that those of your ilk, when responding to a conservative position on an issue, either bring up the Jews or Hitler? GET SOME NEW MATERIAL!!

[sharkman]

Unless under persecution, Jews are rarely in prisons. Maybe that's part of it.

A truly classic Jbg comment: concise, to the piont and disarming opposing views in one easy shot.

[Black Dog]

A truly classic Jbg comment: concise, to the piont and disarming opposing views in one easy shot.

And totally lacking any citation. Classic indeed.

[Guest American Woman]

And totally lacking in factual content too, since I cited several links regarding Jews suing for the right to have kosher food in prison.

Edited September 25, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

And totally lacking any citation. Classic indeed.

Are you accusing Jews of being crooks?