Katherine Kersten has another must-read article on the Flying Imam Circus. The important part is this:
But the most alarming aspect of the imams’ suit is buried in paragraph 21 of their complaint. It describes “John Doe” defendants whose identity the imams’ attorneys are still investigating. It reads: “Defendants ‘John Does’ were passengers … who contacted U.S. Airways to report the alleged ‘suspicious’ behavior of Plaintiffs’ performing their prayer at the airport terminal.”
Paragraph 22 adds: “Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege true names, capacities, and circumstances supporting [these defendants’] liability … at such time as Plaintiffs ascertain the same.”
In plain English, the imams plan to sue the “John Does,” too.
Who are these unnamed culprits? The complaint describes them as “an older couple who was sitting [near the imams] and purposely turn[ed] around to watch” as they prayed. “The gentleman (’John Doe’ ) in the couple … picked up his cellular phone and made a phone call while watching the Plaintiffs pray,” then “moved to a corner” and “kept talking into his cellular phone.”
In retribution for this action, the unnamed couple probably will be dragged into court soon and face the prospect of hiring a lawyer, enduring hostile questioning and paying huge legal bills. The same fate could await other as-yet-unnamed passengers on the US Airways flight who came forward as witnesses.
The imams’ attempt to bully ordinary passengers marks an alarming new front in the war on airline security.
So, our lying, litigious men of Allah (PBUH) want to make it illegal to notify authorities to perceived danger?
The Best CAIR in the air.
Victimams: must cite Protein Wisdom
Everybody get your checkbooks out.
These people may be in need of legal help fairly soon, and in a fairly big way.
Although I find it hard to imagine the feds dragging someone thru the legal minefield for calling the cops, they’ve done worse in the past.
I wonder if they’ll try to bend this thing into some sort of “hate crime”?
Now THAT was a rhetorical question, Rick.
Bring it on!!!
One wonders if this is all a ploy to get a settlement out of the Airline and intimidate future whistle blowers. The facts of the imans’ actions (more importedly what transpired on the plane as opposed to the praying in the terminal) would hold that the airline was perfectly justified in their actions by federal guidelines.
Here’s hoping that everyone toughs it out and that this case gets dismissed.
Islam should change its name from “Religon of Peace” to “Religon of Perpetual outrage and groundless litigation”
That “old couple” deserve a medal.
I don’t see anybody suing all the concerned citizens who shut down Boston a few weeks back.
Had I been the the concerned couple, after I called the authorities, I would’ve danced in a circle around their improvised shrine singing “Gimme that old time religion”…..
Perhaps not. I wouldn’t want to participate in hate speech.
Quite. And the couple who reported the provocative behaviour were also perfectly justified. I would like to think that there are enough lawyers in the US to take this on pro bono.
tw I don’t want to get involved19
This is a very effective ploy, I think. The “old couple” obscure how devastating a background check that might reveal difficulties getting along with “the other” could be to younger people. Having aggrieved Muslims and whatnot suing you, however frivolously, would definitely close some doors.
Imamartyrs – Sueymams – Litigimams – Rugflyers: must cite Protein Wisdom
Imambulance-chasers? Planetiffs? Bombicide suers?
alficide bombers?
***shrug***
Could I see something in a leopardskin pillbox hat?
*groan*
Brilliant, but groanworthy.
In other recent Star Tribune news, there was a big dustup this week regarding a cashier at Target who didn’t want to touch somebody’s bacon. Said customer was so put out by having to drag her bacon across the scanner and into her bag that she felt compelled to write the newspaper about it.
I’ve had this happen to me exactly once (I don’t normally buy groceries at Target) a couple of years ago, and I though it was kind of cute, really. The young woman was bashful and apologetic as she asked the wife and me, “Would you mind?”
Now, judging from the uproar at the newspaper website, you’d think the cashiers were threatening to disembowel the unbelievers in the express lane.
It’s largely (IMHO) blowback from the airport cabbies’ recent refusal to transport people carrying liquor. This imam lawsuit isn’t going to help matters any, either.
It just seems a shame that the daughters must bear the brunt of their fathers’ misguided crusades. They’re nice kids trying to earn some money the same as any high-schoolers. Plus, their Target Red headscarves are friggin’ adorable.
Tongs.
soccermams
I just mentioned this news to a muslim friend of mine. He thought it was pretty stupid because, according to him, the koran forbids “benefitting” from anything involving pigs. So the fact that she’s working at a place that sells pig parts means she has already disobeyed the koran.
Selective interpretation you might call it.
Squid: People not willing to handle groceries should not work as grocery handlers.
Plus, Islam does not prohibit touching plastic bags containing bacon.
(For that matter, everything I can find on the subject suggests that the Koran prohibits only eating pigs, not touching pig products.
Perhaps these cashiers need a refresher in their own religion, much as some Christians need in theirs?
[Like thinking the Bible prohibits masturbation; it does not, though the Catholics at least quite reasonably suggest refraining as it leads to lustful thoughts, themselves sinful if encouraged.])
Baconbigots – Piggyphobes – Oinkists ….
Pigs be upon him.
– If it happened in the WalMart checkout, they might be called – WalMartyrs …Ok, I’m done now….
A bit of perspective:
As regular Lileks readers probably already know, an ordinary Target carries tens of thousands of items, of which only a handful are groceries, of which only a handful are bacon. This is far from a common problem.
To be sure, our local Muslim community doesn’t generally work in supermarkets, I assume for just this reason.
Whether or not the cashier is correct in her beliefs, I think the situation is harmless, and serves as an excellent example of the small compromises that make tolerance work. Hell, if she were just some vegan Goth chick, I still wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Lest the slippery slopers get after me: I think that the cabbie crusade and the imam lawsuit are well over the line, and are proving counterproductive in that they so sensitize the citizenry to creeping Islamification that they make little compromises like this Target thing impossible.
Which is only going to make life in the Twin Cities a lot less pleasant for everyone, because once we refuse to tolerate one neighbor, it’s easier for people to tell me to fuck off when I play my guitar too loud or too late. And that would suck.
If this kid–the cashier–were in, say, Gaza, her father would be pressuring her to be a suicide bomber.
The old bastards are putting their kids out their on the line. Dad and the evil imams have convinced her to do this in order to make trouble. Poor kid.
This has nothing to do with Islam itself and everything to do with the slice-at-a-time introduction of Shari’a.
As somebody said, who’d fight to prevent losing a dinky little slice? And then when there’s only the string left, what’s the point of fighting for a piece of string?
Squid – The “hey, pipe down with the fucking jet-engine loud guitar riffs” pleats started long before the modern ara jihad. I finally moved to cowland. I await with nervous anticipation, angry missives from the environfascists, accussing me of disturbing the sleeping habits of the pink breasted swamp grouse, or some such. Intolorance – its everywhere you want to be.
Richard, these are my neighbors in the middle of St. Paul. Most of them are trying to forget the lives they lived under Shari’a; not re-create them. These are girls who are surrounded by everything America has to offer, and by and large they dig what they see. So what if they misunderstand their scriptures? This wasn’t even an issue until their elders started pushing our buttons.
Short skirts do not lead to rape. Drivers exceeding the speed limit do not lead to anarchy. Scanning bacon does not lead to Shari’a.
More squidness would be a good thing. There is supposed to be a cool Kurdish restaurant in St. Paul – tried to go at Christmas but got sick.
Then they shouldn’t refuse to scan it.
Seriously, if your religion says you can’t do the job, don’t take the job.
Robert, don’t be gratuitously cantankerous. I think squid has a great attitude.
“gratuitously cantankerous”
– The pre-coffee state of human existance in the morning.
Ain’t nothin’ gratuitous about that state, BBH. more like an unholy state of mind…
– Next Hollywood offering?…
“Sheikhs on a plane”
…coming to an airport near you…..
“Sheikhs on a planeâ€Â
Ha!
Thank you, happyfeet, though I must confess that I’m often gratuitously cantankerous myself.
As to Robert’s opinion, I obviously disagree. I feel that having a problem with one item out of 50,000 sold in a store should not automatically disqualify a person for the job, especially when said problem causes inconvenience so trivial as to be negligible. If this means I’m to be exiled for insufficient purity of thought, so be it.
To tell the truth, I don’t mind the argument at all. If it wer practical, I’d happily buy a pitcher of beer for me and Robert to split while we argued some more.
Provided my wife53 doesn’t mind if I get home late.
Why can’t Muslims handle bacon?
According to his quotes Sheikh Mohhammed has no trouble embracing Michael Moore…
Said customer was so put out by having to drag her bacon across the scanner……………….
There’s a double meaning in that.
And Roast Pork TV Dinners.
And footballs.
So, three.
now who would have guessed that reporting suspicious and possibly criminal activity to authorities might land you in court.
I can’t believe the people here that are suggesting an employee has the right to dictate to the employer what parts of the job s/he will and will not do. Implicit in the employer / employee contract is the idea that employees will perform the job required by the employer in exchange for agreed upon wages as long as the employer is not demanding an illegal act be performed.
So should a cashier at Target unwilling to scan all the items in a shopper’s cart be paid less? After all, the supposed solution is to have the customer do it or have someone “rush over” and do it. So they’re doing less than the full job.
Target’s solution is to move these people who refuse to handle pork products to other areas in the store where they won’t come into contact with them. That is a lot more sensible solution than expecting the customer to do the work or having them wait while some other employee comes over.
Cabbies who won’t transport alcohol; cashiers who won’t scan pork … what’s the next dictate of the RoPMA concerning work they won’t do, but for which they expect full pay?