CAIR Amends Law Suit
From this source, dated March 31, 2007:
------------------------------------------------
List of pro bono attorneys who stand against CAIR
A group of imams suing US Airways for discrimination amended their lawsuit this week to target only the "John Doe" passengers who they say are racist and falsely accused them of behaving suspiciously.
The six imams were removed from a flight in Minneapolis in November for disruptive behavior reported by passengers and members of the flight crew.
------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed earlier this month targeted "passengers who contacted US Airways to report the alleged 'suspicious' behavior of plaintiffs performing their prayer at the airport terminal."See? Defying CAIR can have positive results! Don't be intimidated by the threat of litigation by CAIR.
The amended lawsuit identifies possible John Does as individuals who "may have made false reports against plaintiffs solely with the intent to discriminate against them on the basis of their race, religion, ethnicity and national origin."
"The only individuals against whom suit may be raised in this litigation are those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them," Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said in a letter this week to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public interest law firm. The Becket Fund had publicly condemned CAIR for supporting the case.
"The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the 'suspicious' behavior included the imams' constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation," Mr. Nihad said. "When a person makes a false report with the intent to discriminate, he or she is not acting in good faith."
The imams are being represented by New York lawyer Omar Mohammedi in the lawsuit, which has triggered an outcry among lawyers who say they will defend the "John Does" for free.
Becket Fund Chairman Kevin Hasson criticized the amended changes in a letter to CAIR on Thursday.
"There is no way Mr. Mohammedi can possibly determine whether the John Does 'knowingly made false reports' against his clients 'with the intent to discriminate against them' without taking their testimony under oath, at least during pretrial discovery," Mr. Hasson said.
"That prospect alone, of being dragged into court proceedings, will certainly provide a great disincentive for other citizens to come forward with their own suspicions," he said.
The case prompted House Republicans on Tuesday to insert a shield law for "John Does" into a rail safety bill. The legislation would protect passengers against lawsuits for reporting suspicious behavior that foreshadows a terrorist attack.
It is "unconscionable" that those who report suspicious activity could be "terrorized in our own court system in our own country," said Rep. Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, who introduced the measure.
"Religious liberty is not absolute," Mr. Hasson said. "It must yield before the government's legitimately compelling interests. And the prevention of terrorism aboard airlines is certainly such an interest."
The Becket Fund labeled the case "legal terrorism," which Mr. Awad said "only adds to the empty and sensationalistic rhetoric of those who seek to disparage and demonize a segment of our society."
"It was not meant as an insult," Mr. Hasson said. "I think the public outcry over the targeting of the John Does proves the point I was trying to make. That legal tactic is self-defeating."
List of pro bono attorneys who stand against CAIR
posted by Always On Watch at 6:56 AM
3 Comments:
There has been no amendments to the lawsuit, you can find it on PACER, with the original complaint filed and unamended. The "John Doe" listed as defendant, along with the airline employees, are not being sued to reporting suspicious activity, (which everyone should do, but base it on facts) - they are being sued for violating several federal laws in lying in their reports of suspicious activity, as evidenced in the official reports from the police and FBI investigation. People who legitimately report suspicious activity using facts are protected, people who lie to make false reports are not protected, they are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
Jim,
If the law suit hasn't been amended, then a retraction of the story in the Washington Times should have been retracted. Was such a retraction issued?
If the facts in the case bear out what the passengers reported to the airline, CAIR will come off looking the fool--or worse.
IMO, some of what is termed "suspicious activity" is in the eye of the beholder. After all, suspicion is often subjective.
A few weeks ago, I happened to catch on TV an interview with a CAIR rep who was backpedaling as to the intent of the law suit. I believe that he said the law suit had been amended. Perhaps that's the source of the info in the Washington Times.
From this source:
[Jasser] believes that a Muslim voice is critical in response to the imams’ charges, which include one that they were discriminated against for praying in the airport gate area. “Americans are so worried about offending religious sensibilities,” he says. “We as Muslims must step forward and say, ‘This is not about prayer, it’s about airline security.’ ”
The context in which faith is displayed is important, according to Jasser. “I pray five times a day; for example, I pray publicly in the park with my family when we are on a picnic,” he says. “But the issue is one of prudence. After 9/11, the airport gate is the most anxiety-laden area for Americans. It is supreme naivete for these individuals to feel the way to exercise their religious freedom is embodied by their ability to pray as a group at an airport gate.”
The imams could have prayed quietly in their seats on the plane or after they arrived home, says Jasser, as several of them did. This is what “less rigid but equally devout Muslims” would have done, he adds. “Prayer is not about demonstrating your piety to the world. It’s about a personal appointment with God.”
Unfortunately, the imams’ prayers at the gate only created resentment, not the understanding and acceptance of Islam they claim to seek from others, says Jasser. “Muslims’ freedoms and rights are guaranteed in the Constitution,” he explains. “But even more important to our freedom is the tenor of our relationship with the majority of Americans.”
At home in the Phoenix area, the imams often mix prayer with politics, according to Jasser. He cites the Tempe Islamic Community Center, where Ahmed Shqeirat, one of the detained men, is imam, and where Jasser often used to attend prayers. Shortly after the Iraq war began, Jasser says, Shqeirat displayed during Friday services an inflammatory picture of an American soldier making sport of an Iraqi child. When Jassser objected, saying that he had come for spiritual nourishment, not politics, Shqeirat accused him of being “secular” and causing division, he says.
In response, Shqueirat says that he displayed the picture only to demonstrate that American soldiers need more multicultural education. Jasser’s views on separation of religion and state are extreme, Shqueirat adds.
Jasser also cites the imams’ refusal to participate in a rally called “Standing with Muslims against Terrorism,” which he organized in Phoenix in April 2004. The Arizona Republic newspaper in Phoenix endorsed the rally, and praised Jasser as “one of the most vigorous and articulate spokesmen in America denouncing indiscriminate violence in the name of Islam.”
But Jasser says the imams backed out after they learned that the rally would focus only on Islam’s prohibitions against the targeting of innocents, and not on potential justifications for terrorism such as American foreign policy and Israel.
Shqeirat responds that they did not attend because Jasser insisted on approving their speeches and signs in advance. Jasser, he says, is seeking attention because he aspires to political office (a claim Jasser denies), and is not authorized to speak for any Muslim community.
Further information:
Here is some information from The Becket Fund.
Neil Cavuto interviews Dr. Jasser
Article by Dr. Jasser
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home