Saturday, May 08, 2010

Muslim Law Firm Will Sue the Swedish State

Our Swedish correspondent Freedom Fighter has translated an article published yesterday in the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet about an ongoing legal controversy in Sweden. The issue concerns an Egyptian Christian who is seeking asylum in Sweden and was assigned a Muslim lawyer. The man, alarmed at being represented by a traditionalist Muslim, found it very difficult to be granted the right to change counsel. The interesting thing is how deeply resistant the Swedish legal system was to the merits of the man’s appeal.

The translator includes this comment:

While it may be discrimination, it is quite understandable that a Christian seeking asylum because of persecution by Muslims finds it hard to have confidence in a religious Muslim lawyer.

Another Swedish contact writes:

The Muslim lawyer in question is a hardcore Islamist who supports the death penalty for sexual offenses. She was roundly criticized in the Swedish media. There’s a post about her at the Swedish blog Politiskt Inkorrekt.

And the translated article:

Swedish State sued after the ruling on veils

In a ruling by the Migration Court of Appeals, a veiled female lawyer has been dismissed from serving as counsel for an asylum seeker because she is Muslim.

The lawyer’s employer is very critical of the decision.

“It is pure discrimination. We will sue the State for damages of SEK 100,000 for the violation,” says Ismo Salmi, at the law firm Salmi & Partners, where she is employed.

The firm is also asking the Administrative Court for a review of the ruling.

The Migration Board appointed the lawyer last fall as attorney for an Egyptian man seeking asylum in Sweden. He is a Christian, and as grounds for asylum has said that he and his family were persecuted by Muslims in their homeland.

When he realized that the counsel appointed for him was a Muslim asked for a change of counsel.

The Migration Board rejected his request on the grounds that the lawyer’s religion was not sufficient reason for the change. The man appealed to the Immigration Court and argued that the lawyer was a Muslim and wore a veil and that he lacked confidence in her. The Court reached the same conclusion as the Migration Board, and refused the man the right to change counsel.
- - - - - - - - -
The man appealed again, now to the Migration Court of Appeal, and on Thursday came the decision which gives him the right to change counsel.

“He may be deemed to have indicated such asylum grounds and have such experiences that his situation is understandable,” writes the court in its decision.

“It is amazing that a decision such as this can be made by a court of law in Sweden. It is incredibly offensive,” says Ismo Salmi.

“If this ruling stands, I see a danger that other law firms will hesitate to hire lawyers who have a veil, if it leads to an inability to obtain legal assignments from the Immigration Service,” he says.

See The Local for a similar article in English on the incident.

6 comments:

S said...

Aren't muslim women supposed to never be without their guardian while they are out and about anyway?

How can she sit alone in a room and discuss a case with a man?

Steen said...

Well, another fine mess they have gotten themselves into there.

Its not hard to understand the christian egyptian. I remeber her from Halal-TV, she is hardcore. Her picture from the law firm is here:

http://www.abergsalmi.se/awad.html

Common sense tells me she should be off the case. I dont know about the law.

Zenster said...

In a ruling by the Migration Court of Appeals, a veiled female lawyer has been dismissed from serving as counsel for an asylum seeker because she is Muslim.

The lawyer’s employer is very critical of the decision.

“It is pure discrimination. We will sue the State for damages of SEK 100,000 for the violation,” says Ismo Salmi, at the law firm Salmi & Partners, where she is employed.


Salmi & Partners are absolutely correct about the case, "It is pure discrimination."

Who better to make such a discriminating decision than a Christian from the MENA (Middle East North Africa) region whose right to competent counsel could easily be compromised by an attorney with divided loyalties whose lifetime creed demands the subjugation of all non-Muslims?

This issue goes directly to the heart of taqiyya and the supremacist nature of Islamic doctrine.

Was there any reasonable expectation that alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, would adhere to his Oath of Allegiance and "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to The United States, thereby foreswearing his servitude to Islam?

Similarly, is there any reasonable expectation that attorney Ismo Salmi would refrain from abrogating Sweden's Code of Conduct for lawyers that cites as a "conflict of interest", having:

● Previously been instructed by another party in the same case.

● Any reason why [s]he cannot act purely in the client's best interests.


It is obvious that a deep personal commitment to Islamic beliefs could easily represent instruction by another party and prevent her from acting "purely in the client's best interests". Furthermore, for Ismo Salmi to act in her Christian client's best interests, she would probably have to commit the equivalent of blasphemy or some form of apostasic behavior.

Whether it is the Oath of Allegiance required to be a citizen or a Code of Conduct for attorneys, Islam clearly demands that Muslims submit to it, and it alone, above and before all other agreements or laws.

How then is it "discrimination" to reject the representation of an attorney whose most profound and abiding personal beliefs absolutely demand that their actions should be to the detriment of a client who is supposed to enjoy the best efforts their assigned counsel?

This is but one more example of how Muslims must be taken at their word when they proclaim Allah and Islam to be supreme.

Fine then, all of you Muslims. So be it, just do not expect to participate in any group, organization, enterprise or partnership where your undivided commitment and lack of mental reservation is a prerequisite.

This would include an oath of office, military service, citizenship, the Hippocratic Oath, being sworn to give evidence in a court of law plus any canon of ethics, code of conduct or other terms of service or agreement that could be abridged by the unalloyed fealty that Islam demands of its practitioners.

Finally, such a concept is not exclusionary. It only arises because Muslims self-exclude themselves from all situations that might pose the least conflict with the absolutist mandates of Islam. That is certainly their right but only within those countries where Islam is recognized as the highest authority. Elsewhere, Islam prevails in no such fashion and must be regarded as the treacherous and deceitful totalitarian ideology that it always has been.

Anonymous said...

Any bets on whether Muslim lawyers are targeting immigration cases specifically to prevent infidels from leaving Muslim-controlled countries by rendering ineffective counsel?

Anonymous said...

Why the heck does Sweden give asylum anyway? Problem solved.

Zenster, great comment.

ANTI-ISLAMIST said...

Sister Cherin, mahoundian lawyer