Imans strike back

[N965VJ]

<SNIP> IANAL and I did not read all the posts to this thread. I was stunned at the, to me, overt bigotry and racism displayed on this thread. We really aren't that far removed from barbarians.

That’s a good one, coming from someone who’s been flinging poo from their monkey cage.

This whole deal was a planned media circus from the get-go.

You do realize that, right?

 

[hp_fa]

What if we use the legal concept of "I was afraid for my life"

It doesn't matter if my life was in danger I just have to convince a jury that I feared for my life and shot you because I'm "Afraid for my life".

The legal concept that the jury, if it gets that far, will end up deciding is whether the actions of the Defendant (US Airways, by and through its employees) were reasonable under the circumstances. The circumstances would include the post 9/11 environment, the national interests in a safe and reliable air transportaion business and what actually occurred at MSP in the hours before the passengers were removed from the flight and detained by law enforcement officials. The judge and the attorneys, if the case survives and potential motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment, will have many arguments about what evidence will be put in front of the jury but the actual question that any jury would need to answer is were the actions taken reasonable.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

What if we use the legal concept of "I was afraid for my life"

It doesn't matter if my life was in danger I just have to convince a jury that I feared for my life and shot you because I'm "Afraid for my life".

If the flight crew has reason to believe they were in jeopardy based on their "Feelings" it would seem to me that the flight crew was certainly within their rights and authority to act as they did.

And to add to what hp_fa stated, it isn't what the actual flight crew involved believed when removing the Imams. It is objective... meaning the flight crew's actual 'beliefs' or 'feelings' are not determinative.

For example, a flight crew may actually believe that someone poses a serious risk... but that belief may be irrational, particularly if it was capricious or arbitrary (based solely upon being Muslim).

 

[N965VJ]

Well, whadaya know -

Link

The real target of the 6 imams' 'discrimination' suit

By Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune
Last update: March 14, 2007

The "flying imams' " federal lawsuit, filed this week in Minneapolis, has made headlines around the country. The imams are demanding unspecified damages from US Airways and the Metropolitan Airports Commission, both with deep pockets. But their suit includes other defendants, as yet unnamed. These people, unaffiliated with the airline industry or government, are among the imams' most vulnerable targets.

<<SNIP>>

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. Average folks, "John Does" like you and me, initially observed and reported the imams' suspicious behavior on Nov. 20. Such people are our "first responders" against terrorism. But the imams' suit may frighten such individuals into silence, as they seek to avoid the nightmare of being labeled bigots and named as defendants.

<<SNIP>>

 

[Bear96]

The legal concept that the jury, if it gets that far, will end up deciding is whether the actions of the Defendant (US Airways, by and through its employees) were reasonable under the circumstances.

Why do you keep analyzing this under a negligence / common law tort law theory? Are the plaintiffs alleging LCC was negligent? I would have thought they were alleging some sort of statutory public accommodation violation. (However, I haven't read their complaint, so I don't know for sure.)

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Well, whadaya know -

Link

He must have been praying into the Cell Phone to the "Cellphone god"

"Dear Nextell god, forgive me that I must turn you off in flight, for thee doesn't know what the world could do without thee. These peasants, make these foolish rules, so that we can not be together in communication. Upon thy body uniting with thee earth, I shall turn thee on. Please refrain me from all whom roam, so thank you, my beloved one, dear Nextell god."

 

[aafsc]

Islam is a religion of Peace 😀 😛

Yeah, A piece of me over there, another piece of me over here.

Face facts and pull your Bush hating, anti semitc heads out and realize that a percentage of Islam has come to killl us.

Has the western world done things to provoke that reaction? Yes. But in many ways this is a typical struggle between the Haves (western Culture) and the have nots, funded by oil money from the haves which includes Saudi Arabia who IMO redefine treachery.

PineyBob, I agree with most of your post except for the part where "the western world has done things to provoke them." Islam attacked the west first. Islam's goal is for worldwide domination. It started in Saudi Arabia and eventually engulfed the entire middle east and made it into Asia, Africa, and Europe. The Europeans were finally able to beat them back (although now Europe is being subjected to massive muslim immigration). As far as the the United States' first contact with Islam, one would have to go back to around 1783. US merchant ships were attacked by Muslim pirates along what was known as the barbary coast of north Africa (present day Tunisa, Libya, Morrocco, etc.). the American sailors would either have their throats slit, be beheaded, forced to work as slaves, or held for ransom. When American ammbassadors Thomas Jefferson and John Adams asked the Muslim ambassador why our ships were attacked and our sailors treated in such a barbaric manner when the US did absolutely NOTHING to provoke them, his reply was basically that their koran instructed them to do so. For a time, the US paid ransom and tribute to the muslims. Jefferson did not want to pay tribute and the US sent the Navy and Marines in to put an end to the muslim bulls##t. You might want to research "barbary coast" and "barbary wars".

Islam has not changed one bit since it's beginning. Today, it blames the "oil hungry west" and Israel for the problems between itself and the west; even though oil powered internal combustion machines and Israel did not exist in 1783.

 

[700UW]

Guess you all forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition?

 

[aafsc]

Guess you all forgot about the Crusades and the Inquisition?

The goal of the crusades was to recapture the holy land from the muslims and I do not agree with what happened at the inquisition. However, my main point dealt with the history between the United States and Islam. The crusades and the inquisition did not happen in the United States.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Why do you keep analyzing this under a negligence / common law tort law theory? Are the plaintiffs alleging LCC was negligent? I would have thought they were alleging some sort of statutory public accommodation violation. (However, I haven't read their complaint, so I don't know for sure.)

Well... it is actually two standards you are dealing with.

First, you have the Imams standard for proving discrimination. Although I am not certain, this will most likely be based upon the 'Contract of carriage' (COC) language used in the typical 1981 discrimination statute. In other words, the Imams will say that they have the right to make and enforce contracts like 'white people' can (actual statutory language). They will say that when the crew dismissed them from the flight, they were prevented from enforcing the contract like a white person... because they are muslim.

This will be balanced with the discretion of the airline to remove passengers purportedly for safety reasons. In this standard their decision must have a rational basis for safety, and must not be capricious or arbitrary. This standard is very lenient.

You are right about the negligence comment... If the airline was merely negligent in deciding that a passenger might be 'inimical to safety,' then it will not be liable.

 

[singh4us]

News Releases

CAIR

Council on American-Islamic Relations


Tuesday, March 13, 2007


In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

IMAMS FILE CIVIL RIGHTS SUIT AGAINST US AIRWAYS

Muslim leaders says removal from flight was based on race, religion


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 3/13/07) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis last November have filed a lawsuit against the airline and Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission alleging that their civil rights were violated.

The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, claims US Airways' alleged discriminatory actions were based on the imams' "perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin." It goes on to state: "Because of Defendants' discriminatory acts, Plaintiffs were denied the right to make and enforce a contract, subjected to unlawful discrimination by a recipient of federal financial assistance, denied equal treatment in a place of public accommodation, and falsely arrested and detained by law enforcement officers."

CAIR said the imams' legal complaint, which cites federal statutes, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also alleges: "Defendants, with the intent to cause harm to Plaintiffs' reputation, maliciously, recklessly and without regard to their privacy and integrity, defamed and made false reports against Plaintiffs to justify their illegal action."

In documents filed with the court by the Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, the six imams refute many of the allegations repeated in the media about the incident

For example, in response to claims the imams made political statements before boarding the plane, the complaint states: "At no time did Plaintiffs discuss politics or refer to Saddam Hussein or President Bush."

According to the complaint: "This civil rights lawsuit is brought to ensure that the promise of equal treatment embodied in federal and state anti-discrimination laws does not become a meaningless guarantee for persons perceived to be Muslim and/or Arab and/or Middle Eastern."

The imams are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and a legal injunction to prevent future unlawful discrimination by US Airways.

To read the full complaint, go to:

http://www.cair.com/pdf/usairwayscomplaint.pdf

"The decades-long movement to advance civil rights in this nation must not be sent into retreat because of post-9/11 fear and stereotyping," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "When anyone's rights are diminished, the rights of all Americans are threatened."

CAIR, America's largest Islamic civil liberties group, has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.


http://cair.com/default.asp?Page=articleVi...&theType=NR


- END -


CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Rabiah Ahmed, 202-488-8787 or 202-439-1441, E-Mail: rahmed@cair.com; CAIR Communications Coordinator Amina Rubin, 202-488-8787, E-Mail: arubin@cair.com

-----

CAIR
Council on American-Islamic Relations
453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: 202-488-8787, 202-744-7726
Fax: 202-488-0833
E-mail: info@cair.com
URL: http://www.cair.com

-----

To reach the list moderator, send a message to: info@cair.com

To SUBSCRIBE to or UNSUBSCRIBE from this list, go to: http://cair.biglist.com/cair-net/


.....

FIQH COUNCIL OF NORTH AMERICA CONDEMNS MISTREATMENT OF IMAMS

11-26-06 12:47

ISNA

Last weekend, a conference of American Imams was held in Minneapolis. While waiting for their flights back to their home cities, six of the Imams performed their prayers in the airport terminal. On the basis of a claim by a passenger that the behavior of these Imams [their prayers] was suspicious, the airlines along with airport security removed the Imams from the flight in the view of other passengers. They were detained, questioned for several hours and denied boarding on later flights of the same airline. This unfortunate incident exemplifies the following:


The general atmosphere of fear-mongering and Islamophobia which is being perpetuated through irresponsible statements by some politicians and by spin in news reporting by certain mass media outlets and by certain news commentators.

An epidemic of ignorance among a major segment of the public about the true message of Islam and the devotional practices of Muslims, which would lead some to perceive a peaceful act of worship as “suspicious behaviorâ€￾ or a threat to security. Combined with the worsening Islamophobia, this is resulting in constant racial and religious profiling, making it worrisome if not risky to “travel while being a Muslim.â€￾

Since this type of incident is a recurring phenomenon, and not an isolated event, it only exemplifies the various forms of harassment that American Muslims and others face while traveling even after going through all security screening measures.

The Fiqh Council of North America calls on the American Muslim community as well as the American public at large to speak out against this and all unjust, discriminatory, un-American and potentially unconstitutional acts against minorities. All truly patriotic Americans would like to see themselves as leading proponents of justice, human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Americans should therefore demand that individuals, institutions and governments exemplify the core ideals of our country. These ideals are also compatible with the normative teachings of Islam.

An investigation of this serious incident against freedom of worship and freedom of expression is called for and at the highest levels with the view toward ending all forms of policies and certain post 9-11 legislation which encroach on basic human and civil liberties in the name of security. The balance between legitimate security concerns and the inviolable human and civil rights is currently heavily tilted against liberties in such a way that it is a threat to both. The concerted efforts of all Americans are urgently needed to restore both.

Links:

Fiqh Council Website: www.fiqhcouncil.org

http://isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPI...amp;tt_news=795

.....

 

[aafsc]

What a bunch of crap! A muslim organization lecturing Americans on democracy and freedom of speech when these are not even allowed in muslim countries. To them, it seems only they can say what they want because when someone dares to question Islam or the life of their "prophet" in rational discourse, they call for their beheading; or they riot over something insignificant such as a cartoon drawing. They talk about muslims being harassed while traveling by air, I got news for them, non-muslims have to put up with the same crap (even moreso so TSA can't be accused of profiling). As far as being removed from an aircraft, it happens to non-muslims all the time. In fact, on one of my flights, a non-muslim woman was in the wrong seat, refused to take her correct seat and became very belligerent. The Captain ordered her off the plane. The police came, ordered her to deplane, and she still refused to vacate the seat. After refusing police requests, the cop grabbed her, pulled her out of the seat, handcuffed her, brought her down the stairs of the jetbridge, and put her in his squad car. The bottom line, sit in your assigned seat, keep your mouth shut, and follow crew member instructions. I read where some of these imams left their assigned seats and moved to seats near the aircraft doors, this would definately be a cause for concern among the crew. In my view, USAirways and the crew acted professionally and appropriately. If these imams had remained in their assigned seats with their mouths shut and had not needlessly requested seat belt extensions, the flight would have proceeded normally.

These muslim organizations complain about how their treated (which is the same or better than non-muslims receive) while traveling by air, but I still have not yet heard ONE muslim organization complain about the "treatment" the passengers, crew, and ground people received on 9/11/01 at the hands of their own.

 

[hp_fa]

Why do you keep analyzing this under a negligence / common law tort law theory? Are the plaintiffs alleging LCC was negligent? I would have thought they were alleging some sort of statutory public accommodation violation. (However, I haven't read their complaint, so I don't know for sure.)

Because in the end it will all come down to reasonable under the circumstances by a proponderance of the evidence.

 

[StuckHere]

Someone's already posted the link to the story.

Now these guys are going after the passengers that reported them as suspicious. Not endearing themselves to any jury. This move makes them look antagonistic, money hungry, and bullyish.

Sounds like those guys in bars that want to start fights become someone "looked at them" the wrong way. Give me a break!

This move may get US Airways off the hook, if it ever gets to a jury. JMO

 

[Bear96]

That and you're assessment is correct.

OK Bob, if hp f/a's assessment is correct, please explain the elements necessary to establish a statutory public accommodation claim, and the defenses that can be asserted against such a claim.

A case cite showing "reasonable under the circumstances" is a valid defense to such a claim would be most helpful. Maybe it is -- I don't know -- that's why I'm asking the question.