Sunday, June 03, 2007

Taxpayer-Funded Dhimmitude

I’ll be blogging eventually about the JFK terror plot, especially since it appears to involve my old pal from Trinidad, Sheikh Yasin Abu Bakr. But that’s not the most important jihad story of the day.

If the JFK plotters had carried out their plan, the result would have been spectacular and deadly, another abomination brought to you by the Religion of Peace. This kind of attack is the bread-and-circuses act for Al Qaeda and its affiliates. They’ve got to attempt it; the masses of the faithful within the Ummah expect it of them. The thirst for infidel blood must be quenched.

Yet the real action — the ongoing destruction of our culture and our way of life — is proceeding quietly and continuously behind the scenes. The erosion of our institutions doesn’t garner many headlines, but all the while our attention is focused on all the blood and carnage on CNN, our society is being eroded from within. It impacts all of us every day, and, to make matters worse, the process is aided and abetted by our own government.

Consider this successful EEOC lawsuit against Alamo Rent A Car on behalf of Ms. Bilan Nur:

the EEOCA federal jury has ordered Alamo Rent A Car to pay a Muslim woman $287,640 for firing her because she refused to remove a head scarf she was wearing during the holy month of Ramadan.

The firing of Bilan Nur, then 22, came just four months after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the company for what it termed a “post 9/11 backlash,” alleging that she was fired because of her religious beliefs in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ruled last year that the government had proven religious discrimination and Alamo had shown no proof that it had taken reasonable steps to allow Nur to follow her beliefs before firing her.

That left the jury in the trial that ended Friday with only the question of how much damages to award, said Mary Jo O’Neill, the regional attorney for the EEOC.

The jury in the three-day trial awarded Nur $21,640 in back wages, $16,000 in compensatory damages and $250,000 in punitive damages.

Nur, a Somali who fled the war-ravaged country and came to the U.S. in 1998, was hired by Alamo as a rental agent at its Phoenix office in November, 1999. Her job performance was described as “fine,” until the events leading to her firing, Judge Silver wrote in her ruling.

But that changed in 2001, when Nur asked her bosses at Alamo for permission to wear a head scarf during Ramadan, which began November 16. She was told that she could wear a scarf while in the back office, but must remove it when she came to the counter to help customers.

The company’s dress code did not specifically ban scarves but contained a provision barring any “garments or item of clothing not specifically mentioned in the policy.”

Nur showed up for work wearing a head scarf anyway, and was sent home and issued a written warning. The next day, she again arrived at work wearing a scarf and was written up and sent home, then suspended and fired.

The company argued in its court papers that Nur’s religious beliefs did not conflict with her job requirements because her “personal practice” did not require that she always wear a head scarf during Ramadan, Silver wrote. They noted that the year before, management had ordered her not to wear a scarf and she complied. She also worked for several days after Ramadan began in 2001 without raising the issue, suggesting to the company that her religious beliefs were not that strong.

Silver rejected that argument, writing that Nur’s words and actions — consistently telling supervisors she needed to wear a head covering and continuing to wear one — was consistent with a sincere religious belief. She also said there was no testimony showing Nur hadn’t worn a scarf all through the holy period.

Alamo spokesman Charles L. Pulley said Saturday the company would have no comment on the verdict. Alamo is owned by Tulsa, Okla.-based Vanguard Car Rental Group Inc., which also owns National Car Rental.

O’Neill said Alamo continued to deny it had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act during the nearly six years since the case was filed, and the judge’s ruling and Friday’s jury award showed they were wrong.

“Title VII protects people of all religious beliefs,” O’Neill said. “No one should have to sacrifice their religious beliefs in order to keep a job.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as we all know, is the one of the many tentacles that the federal government extends into our private affairs with the mission of enforcing diversity, to ensure that no one is discriminated against because of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, species, or planet of origin. The EEOC is the National Racial Bean Counting Agency, and it makes sure that you., Mr. Joe Citizen, are never discriminated against or harassed for any federally-protected reason.

If you visit the EEOC website, you’ll see the highly organized and lengthy requirements for compliance. The “EEOC en Español” at the top of the page tells you something in itself — requiring the use of English is a racist act, and we will not tolerate it.

Now consider the implications of Ms. Nur’s victory against Alamo Rent A Car:

  • Forget any dress codes for employees. They don’t exist. Even if employers put the policy in writing, and you sign off on it before you take the job, it doesn’t matter. If your religion requires you to shave one side of your head and wear a tutu on Goibniu’s Feast Day, your boss has to let you do it. If your appearance where you stand behind the counter is so alarming that the customers stay away in droves — well, that’s just too bad.
  • Employers do not have any control over their places of business. The federal government, especially the organs concerned with “diversity”, have the final say.
  • One way or another, diversity is expensive. Whether an employer is required to hire the incompetent, or cater to the special needs of protected groups, or contract with consultants to make sure he is in compliance with federal regulations, or pay off expensive lawsuits — the consumer foots the bill.
  • Last, but not least, the Islamic pressure groups have found the Achilles heel of our culture of tolerance. They’ve learned how to game the system. Ms. Nur’s little windfall is just one of thousands of operations that are underway simultaneously across the entire Western world. Add to the petrodollars the litigation bonanza — or the fear of it — and the Wahhabists have won a clear victory.

In researching this post, I ran across a PowerPoint presentation entitled “EEOC Legal Update”. It was given by Mary Jo O’Neill last year at the 24th Annual Industry Liaison Group National Conference in Phoenix.
- - - - - - - - - -
In her slide presentation, Ms. O’Neill mentioned Ms. Nur’s case:

EEOC v. Alamo Rent A Car
(D.Az. 2006)
  • Employer would not let Bilan Nur, a Muslim woman, wear her head covering while working the counter?
  • QUERE: Is this policy violate Title VII?
  • HELD: The EEOC won summary judgment on liability; this refusal to accommodate Ms. Nur’s religious practice and belief violated Title VII.

There are many other examples put forward to illustrate the potential issues facing employers and government agencies. Here are two taken at random:

Maldonado v. City of Altus
433 F.3rd 1294 (10th Cir.2006)
  • Spanish speaking employees challenged English only rules under disparate treatment and disparate impact theories.
  • QUERE: Can this be a claim under Title VII?
  • HELD: Yes.

El-Hakem v. BJY Inc.
415 F3rd 1068 (9th Cir. 2005)
  • Employer repeatedly called plaintiff by a westernized version of his name.
  • QUERE: Could this be national origin and/ or racial harassment?
  • HELD: Yes. The frequency and pervasiveness of the conduct rose to the level, although it was not severe.

Once again, it’s clear that any requirement to use the English language is racist and discriminatory. As for the last example — what egregious “westernized” name did the employer use to harass his employee? The boss called “Mamdouh El-Hakem ‘Manny’ and ‘Hank’ despite El-Hakem’s strenuous objections over a period of almost a year.”

I won’t deny that the CEO of BJY Inc. was a boor, and maybe even an asshole. But why does the federal government have to get involved?

Note yet again that it is a Muslim who has gamed the system.

The Phoenix conference was organized to keep Human Resources executives abreast of the latest trends and laws, to help them avoid the pitfalls (and the expense) of federally mandated and funded legal action. Here are some of the other workshop topics:

  • The Mantel-Haenszel and Breslow-Day defined: Combining adverse impact analyses across multiple events
  • The Seven Keys to Unlocking the Passion for Diversity
  • Using Your AAP as a Management Tool for Issue Spotting and Prevention of Litigation
  • How to Establish Defensible Basic Qualifications (BQs) under the new OFCCP Internet Applicant Regulations
  • Collaboration as a Tool for Diversity
  • How to Build an AAP [Affirmative Action Program]
  • Basic Laws — Executive Order 11246 and Title VII
  • Functional Affirmative Action Programs
  • Topic: Recordkeeeping: What’s Required? Why is it Important?
  • Are the New Compensation Guidelines Significant at the .05 Level?

The Ranting ManAll these mind-numbing and sleep-inducing sessions are necessary because the federal government regulates the affairs of private organizations in minute detail. Your employer pays your plane fare, the exorbitant room rate at the conference center, picks up the tab for your meals and your bar bill, and all because he wants to make sure that the U.S. government will find his business “in compliance”.

And it’s not just the EEOC. The federal government is riddled through with this kind of claptrap like a metastasized cancer. It has spread to state and local governments, and also to the larger private corporations, which can’t wait to line up, bend over, and do it just the way Uncle Sugar wants them to.

OFCCPIf any part of your business contracts with the federal government — and federal spending is so massive and widespread that this covers a lot of companies — the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs is there to make sure you count your black, Hispanic, female, disabled, and lesbian beans correctly. Check out their website and see what the friendly folks at OFCCP are doing with your tax dollars.

All of this would be an amusing —albeit expensive — parlor game except for the fact that the Great Islamic Jihad is not only at our doorstep, it’s inside the house and rummaging around in our cupboards. The mujahideen have found our soft underbelly in all these diversity scams, and they’re going to milk the “religion” clauses for all they’re worth.

That’s how sharia will find its way into American jurisprudence — through the fair and tolerant programs of the EEOC and similar agencies, and all at taxpayer expense. You are paying through the nose for the rope which will hang you.

Call it a down-payment on the jizyah.

By the way — there was no mention in the literature for the Phoenix conference of a separate room for Muslim women, or of a licensed ASL person to sign for the hearing-impaired in among the attendees.

Obviously they are amateurs.

17 comments:

Francis W. Porretto said...

This is precisely what will get Muslims ejected from the United States -- possibly after a series of incidents of this sort. And the omnipotent federal government won't be able to do a thing about it.

Stephen Renico said...

Is Alamo going to appeal, or submit to the decision of this lower court? I have a feeling that this verdict might change at the SCOTUS level.

gun-totin-wacko said...

I'm not sure about this one. On the one hand, the woman was okay with the policy the year before. On the other hand, why was she so adamant *after* 9-11?

I just don't see why they wouldn't let her wear the friggin' scarf. I can see it might worry people given the time frame, but why not before?

I wonder what their policy says about crosses, star of David, etc. That's got to have some relevance here, I would think.

Always On Watch Two said...

Cultural and legal jihad--undermining Western civilization, in the name of multiculturalism and freedom of religion.

Walid Shoebat discusses those types of jihad in his book.

Ultimately, such subtle forms of jihad are more dangerous.

These forms of jihad have intensified in the past three years. Take a look around at various news stories.

Uncle Pavian said...

I dunno about this one. Legally, the situation of a Muslim who wants to wear a headscarf during Ramadan is indistinguishable from a Catholic who wants to come to work with ashes on his forehead during Lent. It's that pesky "free exercise" clause and the statutory scheme that's been put in place to enforce it, that leaves us open to this kind of behavior.

xlbrl said...

If her religion requires it, then of course she should wear the scarf.
We might wish to show our tolerance and understanding through emulating her religion and, say, merely tax her 20% for not being of the dominant religion in the land in which she actually resides.
Come to think of it, is she actually permitted to work in her culture, much less without a male relative present? And who put up the dough for this lawsuit?

Indigo Red said...

It is those pesky little details in our Constitution that are being used to bring down America. But, that is not what those clauses are for. They were intended to ensure a peaceful society, an orderly society unlike the intolerant, beastly societies of Europe that would burn at the stake any kind of heretic at the drop of a hat.

The pesky clauses were never (until recently) meant to defend every religious lunacy to come down the pike, either. Animal sacrifice is common in many religions, but it's still illegal (until recently when Muslims are allowed to slaughter animals in the hilal manner though it's still animal sacrifice.)

We have been convinced that religious freedom extends beyond the relationship between citizen and government to include citizen to citizen behavior; it simply does not. We have injunctions against physically harming people of other faiths, but the Constitution does not bar any employer from establishing any kind of behavioral code they please. The doctrine we've been force fed is the illegal doing of the Supreme Court overstepping their bounds and later backed by liberal legislation. Our Constitution, I'm sorry to say, no longer applies. To all intents and purposes it is a dead document signifying nothing.

Prepare yourselves, good folk, for "Remember the Alamo Part II". Unless America remembers that freedom of and from "X" has its limits, there will be blood in the streets of America. Maybe then, Americans will begin to defend the precious little we have left to us. I hope it doesn't go that far.

ln said...

Here is charming little everydaylife story from Sweden.

In Sweden there is an 'Office of the Ombudsman against Ethnic Discrimination' and this 'Discrimination Ombudsman' called DO is appointed by the government (since 2005 it is a finnish female lawyer named Katri Linna, who arrived in Sweden 18 years old). The DO works in order to prevent and to intercept all kinds of (1) ethnic and (2) religious discrimination in the society. DO describes discrimination shortly as 'different treatment of equal cases'. Discrimination happens when a person is treated poorer than another in a comparable situation. All people ("except ethnic Swedes") has an ethnic property. With ethnic property are meant (1) skin colour, race, appearence etc. and (2) other national or ethnic origins than that of the autochthnous population.

Look at this picture - these two gentlemen - they are not ethnical swedes, perhaps they are so called second generation Swedes -- they certainly do not have a typical swedish appearence, you could even say, if you dare, that they are looking a bit like upper class mafiosi -- and this distinctive feature they are using. Generally they are known in Sweden as the "law students" because they have studied the law and they have found out how to game the system and how to milk restaurang- and bar owners to the brink of bankruptcy.

In Sweden due to spirits-restrictions during the last centuary there never was any 'chucker-ins' only 'chucker-outs' or door-men (the situation today is unaltered) outside every restaurang or bar with self-esteem to sift off the chaft from the weat. Quite often customers in spe are refused admittance due to intoxication, provocative manners etc, ... and even looks or clothing. Being a "svartskalle" (blackhead), that is a person of foreign looks, dark hair and ditto complexion etc can somtimes be sufficient to get the "cold hand" from the doorman.
Back to our two law students, one of whom has finished studies and is now working at the Swedish Cabinet Office. With the help of a pal with a cellphone camera an incident with a doorman was filmed and pronto the evidence was secured and our two law students were ready to visit the Discriminations Ombudsman - who became their free of charge lawyer, paid by taxpayers. After having summonsed a dozen restaurants for ethnic discrimination the claims for damage now amounts to more than SEK 1000000. However our two cuties have at last by media etc been accused for not having been serious but having found the' profitable business concept. Obviously they had and many, many more are walking in their footsteps, though the "law students" were up to now the most refined.
(source: http://tinyurl.com/yo7cj3)

FluffResponse said...

testing...

FluffResponse said...

A firm has an obligation to make "reasonable" accommodation to religious observance. This idea is not new.

What is new is that a religion has arrived that is incompatible with the founding principles of the republic.

What ought to happen is a Supreme Court decision that the special, first amendment clauses that pertain to religion, as well as the civil rights laws that pertain to religion, apply only to belief systems that have certain characteristics and not others.

"Moderate Islam" is non-existent, and "moderate Muslims" are primarily those who don't take Islam all too seriously, who perceive that chunks of it are crap but who want to maintain a social conservatism and family tradition. Further, though, some moderate Muslims take it quite seriously indeed, but contextualize even violent Koranic statements that are clear and are supported by reliable hadiths.

Is the GatesOfVienna position that accommodation to the private, religious traditions of Islam is wrong because Islam is a special case, alin to the Ku Klux Klan and far from any other religion?

Baron Bodissey said...

Fluff --

I'm glad you asked. Gates of Vienna's (or at least Baron Bodissey's) position on this has two parts:

1. The government has no business meddling with a dress code applied by a private business owner to his employees, as long as the code is well-described in advance, and does not violate any local laws.

2. The government has no business sponsoring, promoting, organizing, and funding lawsuits about these issues. It's bad enough that people bring these lawsuits; the fact that my tax money is used to encourage them is an abomination.

Some of our commenters seem not to realize my point, which is that the actions of the government are ludicrously extra-constitutional. Indigo Red is right: in practice, our Constitution no longer exists.

FluffResponse said...

The situation would be that during work hours, a firm can require an employee to hide religious jewelry; and Orthodox Jews (like other employees) can be required to take off head coverings. (Again, this is in contradiction to long-standing law, which is that a company has to make "reasonable accommodations" to private religious practice.)

Could a company make a differential acceptance of certain religious practices and not others, based on content? Could a Cross be valid but a Star of David not?

Are we throwing out the Enlightenment baby with the Islamic backwater?

gun-totin-wacko said...

I understand the argument that government should stay out of such things, and even agree to some extent. However, I just don't see why an employer would have such a rule. It just seems pointless.

But again, the issue as I see it (and there seem to be several commenters who agree), is whether or not employees are allowed to wear religious items. If all are forbidden, then the woman is wrong, and was fired properly. If crosses, yamukas (sp?), etc. are allowed, then she was discriminated against.

Once that question is resolved, we can happily debate whether the government should get involved.

FluffResponse said...

or we can debate whether Islam should be accepted as a religion; or, better perhaps, how to define what is and is not included in the legal category, "religion."

the idea of the enlightenment was that there was personal choice in matters of ultimate faith. government stays out, and (per later rulings, which restricted bigoted practices in private companies) we enjoy a broadly tolerant, civil society.

Someone -- perhaps Porretto (the first commenter in this thread) -- put it this way, to the tune of a song in the Sound of Music: "How do you solve a problem like Sharia?" At some level, the answer is to de-legitimize it as a religion, to strip it of special protections.

How can that be done?

Alien Anthropologist said...

"However, I just don't see why an employer would have such a rule."

Would you buy things in a store where all the staff wore ski masks without any valid work-related reason to do so? If not, at what point from plain face and hair to head scarf to ski mask do you think companies should decide to call the line?

The First Amendment relates solely to laws created by government, other than to the extent that the First Amendment has been considered to prohibit this kind of restriction of freedom of association by government. So at best it's irrelevant, at worst it makes the law itself unconstitutional.

You can't claim to live in a free country if companies are forced to hire people they don't want to hire and can't sack people they want to sack. People accept conditions of employment when they take a job, and if they don't like it they can find another job.

rickl said...

This is why Barry Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act back in 1964. He correctly saw that it would be used to violate private property rights.

It's one thing for the government and the legal system to discriminate for or against different members of society based on arbitrary criteria such as skin color or religion. We are all supposed to be treated equally by law.

But a private business owner should be free to operate his business as he sees fit. He should not be required to hire or serve people he doesn't want to, and the government has no business dictating to him.

The latest incarnation of this government interference is government dictating no-smoking policies on private property.

ln said...

After having read the Fluff-Baron-GTWacko-AllenAnthropologist-Discussion I realize that I perhaps was not detailed enough in my description of the specific Swedish situation - which according to DO is that "discrimination shall cost" and from the 'customer's' side that "discrimination is a very good business concept".
Any infringement that can be linked to (1) ethnic or (2) religious discrimination is worth money. In common cases, a person that is sueing somebody for damages must be able to prove that an infringement or similar has occurred. This, however, is not the case with the "law of discrimination" since the plaintiffs enjoye evidence relief -- and free legal assistance. The infringed person needs thereby only to point out 'circumstances' that give reason to assume that a discrimination has come about.
For example, a recent case that the DO is examining, is about a muslim women of somalian origin who was taking part in a 'selfdefence' course at a training center in Gothenburg. At the fourth training occasion she was urged to take off her veil otherwise she would not be allowed to go on with the course. The women refused and reported the incident to the DO; in the end, it will probabely lead to the training center having to pay the somalian lady damages of some SEK 20000 to 50000. Taxfree income.
A good business concept would be, at least for a woman, to convert to islam and start getting discriminated.