The Ontario Human Right Commission has found another opportunity to stab Canada in the back. Barbara Hall’s kangaroos have accepted a case that may expand immensely the “rights” of Muslims to infringe on the property right of the rest of us (h/t SassyWire via BCF). The case claims discrimination and involves an argument over a parking ticket between two Muslims and the City of Mississauga, Ontario:
 The applicants identify themselves as Muslim and state that they attend Friday prayers at the ISNA Canada Centre (“ISNA”) located at 2200 South Sheridan Way in Mississauga. Salman Khalid received a parking ticket when he parked on nearby Finfar Court rather than the ISNA parking lot, which the applicants state can be difficult to get in and out of when it is busy. There is no dispute that parking is prohibited on Finfar Court between 12:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. The applicants assert that this prohibition discriminates against Muslims. The respondent states that the prohibition is necessary to address traffic congestion and safety concerns created when visitors to the ISNA park on Finfar Court to attend Friday prayers and denies that it is discriminatory.
So the two guys claim that they have hard time using ISNA’s parking (which is huge by the way) and a private parking is supposed to accommodate them, because they decided to go to the mosque. It looks like a frivolous case, which should be thrown away and the claimants chastised for wasting the court’s time. However, this is not a real court and in the OHRC world no Muslim claim is ever frivolous or capricious.
The proof for that attitude is that in the same decision the adjudicator even agreed to let a major Muslim organization intervene on behalf of the two Muslim plaintiffs. The entity previously known as CAIR-Canada and now renamed National Council of Canadian Muslims became the third side:
…. NCCM submits that it wishes to address the issue of remedy only to the extent of the public interest component. NCCM states that it is a national, non-partisan, independent, broad-based organization built from within the Muslim community that has a significant interest in these Applications and will provide assistance to the Tribunal regarding the issues involved. NCCM submits that it has become aware that parking restrictions can create barriers for participation in religious activities at mosques. NCCM submits that municipalities should consider how the regulation of parking can impact on protected religious activity and should consult with the affected individuals.
So the parking by-laws supposedly stop Muslims from attending a mosque and apparently they should be quashed to accommodate them.
After reading the legalese above, an ordinary person may scratch his head: why all that fuss over a parking ticket?! I will tell you why, but we will need to go through the players one by one: OHRC, ISNA, CAIR-CAN/NCCM, and a few supporting characters.
However, before that, I need to introduce you to a term coined by the British lawyer Gavin Boby – “parking jihad.” Boby is known for his efforts to keep fanatical Muslims from taking over neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom. Parking jihad is one of the elements of the takeover, where Muslims start to park on lawns and private property with consistency and aggressiveness, which eventually leave the owners powerless. The property values drop and eventually owners leave. This OHRC case shows that the Canadian Muslims are much more advanced than their UK brethren – instead of gradual takeover, they go for the jugular by changing the parking laws.
That part of Boby’s message obviously rings true, because it has been the target of numerous attacks. When he was invited to give a few talks in Canada, CAIR-CAN did everything to scare his venue hosts into cancelling his appearances. The Jew-hating blog Muslim Perspectives has preserved documents of the campaign (some of which were deleted from CAIR-CAN’s site), including lists of people to be contacted in order to smear Gavin Boby.
Jewish extremists invite mosquebuster to Toronto: With his wide eyed talk of “Parking Jihad” and Muslims using “Aggressive Parking” to dominate neighbourhoods, Boby is doing an excellent job of exposing his abhorrent views and is playing an important role in exposing the ugly role of the Canadian Zionists in importing hate from other countries. Any Canadian listening to the interview will actually be scared of this lunatic living in their neighbourhood and will condemn the efforts by the Jewish extremists to import hate to Canada.
Nevertheless, the parking jihad is very real. Let’s get back to the players.
The human rights commissions are not hard to figure out. Ezra Levant calls them kangaroo courts and he is right – they are staffed with lawyers, who, because of their sinister bias or simple ignorance, work hard to destroy what little’s left of the traditional Canadian values to accommodate every imaginable special interest group.
I don’t know anything about the two applicants – Muhammad Khalid and Salman Khalid (brothers?) – and their Counsel Kate Sellar. However, it is safe to assume that they are devout Muslims, if they go through all the trouble to sue the City of Mississauga to provide them with free parking.
Why does the ISNA mosque evoke such a strong Muslim passion? ISNA has a long rap sheet of shady deeds.
I have passed by the huge ISNA centre with its even bigger parking many times, but I had the chance to observe it closely during a protest in early 2011.
JDL-Canada was opposing a conference with a few nasty Muslim haters with anti-homosexual and anti-Jewish views… oops, I meant a group of respected Islamic scholars. Their views were so vile that their event in Montreal was cancelled and Sheraton Toronto did the same. However, ISNA had no problem hosting them.
At certain point the ISNA devotees tried to start a fight, but were escorted back inside by the police.
At the time, an investigation by the Toronto Star found out that the leaders of the organization misappropriated over $600,000 of the money donated by its Muslim members.
It was also known that the parent organization in the USA was involved in a terrorist-supporting scheme and the authorities labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in the famous trial of the Holy Land Foundation. ISNA Canada was supposedly clean, but lo and behold, a few months ago it lost its charitable status with Revenue Canada, because it was revealed that the “charity” was funnelling large amount of money to Muslim terrorists in Pakistan. On top of that, ISNA Canada was a major certifier of halal meat – which meant that portion of the money you paid for that meat went into the terrorist fund.
That was the organization, whose mosque services the two guys wanted so badly to attend. Well, if a bunch of priests from my Orthodox Church were trashing Jews; stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and financing terrorists, I would be up in arms to expose them. It looks like Islam operates with completely different values and ethics.
As of NCCM, which wants to intervene on behalf of the two ISNA fans, they have been for many years the Canadian office of CAIR – another American Muslim organization with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood (the latter was recently designated are terrorist group in Egypt). Only recently did they change their name. The group still fiercely denies any ties with CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood.
In a recent reply to a devastating report, which outlined the Muslim extremist threat in Canada, the director of NCCM/CAIR-CAN wrote:
Since 2000, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) has engaged with fellow Canadians, promoting active citizenship and outreach. As a mainstream organization, we have worked tirelessly, educating Canadian Muslims about their rights and responsibilities, building mutual understanding between communities, participating in major public inquiries and appearing before the Supreme Court of Canada.
I have listened to Mr. Gardee and he makes the impression of a clever man, so he may want to explain how forcing the City of Mississauga to provide special treatment for Muslims educates them about their rights and responsibilities. Unless, of course, the goal is to make the Human Rights Commission affirm that Muslims have the right to enjoy more privileges than the rest of us, and the responsibility to fight the laws that treat them at the same level as the unwashed Canadian kaffirs.
But the most interesting figure in the case is Faisal Bhaba (sometimes spelled Faisal Bhabha and once Faisal Bhabsa), the Counsel acting on behalf of NCCM/CAIR-CAN.
He is not just a plain lawyer, but a prominent member of the Muslim legal community and an Osgoode and York University Assistant Professor. He was also a high-positioned officer on the human rights machine of Ontario, which probably increases the chances of NCCM/CAIR-CAN to push successfully its Islamic agenda. His biography speaks for itself:
Faisal Bhabha, Assistant Professor at Osgoode Hall Law School, has researched and published in the areas of constitutional law, human rights, multiculturalism, national security and access to justice. Previously, he sat as Vice-chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. He holds an LLM from Harvard Law School, and has lived and researched in South Africa and the Middle East. His research interests include diversity in legal education; ethics and legal professionalism; constitutional law and human rights; and legal pluralism. He teaches in the areas of law and social change and professional ethics and responsibility. He also directs the mooting program and is active in many of the Law School’s clinical and experiential education programs. Prior to entering academia, Professor Bhabha carried on a varied public and private law practice, appearing before administrative boards and tribunals and at all levels of court, including the Supreme Court of Canada. He also advised or represented numerous public interest organizations and NGOs in matters related to constitutional law and human rights. He has served as a member of the Equity Advisory Group of the Law Society of Upper Canada and has been involved in a number of local and international justice initiatives.
His time at the Human Rights Tribunal was marked by a case with a nationwide notoriety, in which he was an adjudicator. It involved Maxcine Telfer, a black woman from Mississauga, who owned a small employment company. She fired with a cause a Muslim woman, who later filed a discrimination complaint. Telfer didn’t have money for a lawyer and presented herself (unlike the victims, the applicants, even in the most frivolous cases have their expenses covered by the OHRC). Mr. Bhabha ruled against her and imposed a huge fine that she couldn’t pay. In 2011 the Tribunal took steps to sell her house to cover the fine.
At that point her case received nationwide press attention. She had no other choice but to appeal. Soon after that a Judge from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice reviewed the case and overturned Mr. Bhabha’s ruling with a scathing judgment, showing his disregard for the rules of evidence and due process (it is quite long, but worth reading). In the end he wrote a devastating conclusion:
 It is necessary to look at these various issues cumulatively. If taken separately, some might not reach the level of patent unreasonableness required to justify setting aside the entire decision. However, considered cumulatively, I find the decision as a whole is fatally flawed and can only be described as patently unreasonable. In these circumstances, I would set the decision aside and remit the case to the Tribunal for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.
If a person with a real job (like a doctor or engineer) performed that badly, he or she would’ve been fired. However, at York University that is a cause for promotion.
Judging from Mr. Bhabha’s biography, he must be a smart and accomplished legal professional, so the horrible way in which he handled the Telfer case is probably not due to ignorance. Maybe he disagreed with the Canadian laws and wanted to apply something else?
His biography tells us that he is interested in “legal pluralism.” How is this possible? Aren’t we supposed to be ruled by the British common law, which is equally applicable to everybody in Canada?
The answer is hidden in a Muslim movement launched in Ontario in 2005 with the purpose to introduce sharia law in Canada, first in family courts. CAIR-CAN supported the initiative at the time. Eventually, the Premier Dalton McGuinty refused to implement sharia (one of the few good things that the corrupt loser did). Surprisingly, Faisal Bhabha was an enthusiastic supporter of sharia at the time. In an article published in Lawyers Weekly in 2005 he is quoted:
Faisal Bhabha of the newly formed Arab Canadian Lawyers Association says that if Sharia-based family arbitration gets the green light in Ontario, it could stimulate more interest in Islamic law. The Ontario government recently postponed the decision to change the province’s laws to allow voluntary faith-based arbitration for Muslims.
“If there are lawyers who have some familiarity with Ontario and Canadian laws, as well as Islamic law, there could be opportunities for them,” said Bhabha. “It depends on the extent that members of the community use this system of arbitration. We have no sense yet of how much this would actually be used.”
Bhabha said Muslims lawyers don’t necessarily have in-depth knowledge of the Sharia — and many aren’t keen to go through the gruelling process of getting an Islamic legal education as well as a law degree. He said the study of Muslim law requires fluency in Arabic, a language that many Canadian Muslims don’t speak.
However, Bhabha said even if lawyers don’t become experts on the Sharia, having some knowledge of it can be useful.
“On an informal level, Islamic law is used already in Canada,” he said. “Islamic legal principles are used to devise marital agreements, prenuptial agreements and separation agreements. Those terms can be incorporated as long as both parties agree.”
He was more than willing to introduce a misogynist legal system, which controls some of the most barbaric countries in the world, like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan. Applying it to family law opens thousands of women to abuse and mistreatment, because sharia treats women like inferior creatures, who must be represented by a “guardian.” They can also be beaten for “educational purposes.” A Muslim man can divorce his wife by simply stating that he divorces her, while she has to go through a grueling and humiliating process to obtain the same result.
To me it is unthinkable that a person, who is a lawyer, law professor, and human rights “defender” in Canada can support such a vile and barbaric code of laws, but again – Islam and its followers operate in a different dimension.
When somebody supports sharia, the negativity toward the Jews and Israel usually comes in the same package of views. Mr. Bhabha’s case is not different – he is an avid supporter of the BDS movement, which wants to punish the Jews for living in parts of their land that the Muslims arbitrarily have decided to make Jew-free. In August 2012 Mr. Bhabha published an article in the Toronto Star titled “Boycott of Israeli settlement products is both legally and morally just.” In it he calls for boycott of Israeli goods on the murky ground of “human rights”:
The failure of politics has been matched by the failure of international law. Lacking effective enforcement, decades of reports and declarations at the United Nations have been unable to halt land seizure and settlement construction. The world community wrings its hands, and the settlements continue to grow.
So civil society stepped in. Driven by a global moral conscience, and armed with the language of international human rights, a diverse and dynamic group arose. The Palestinian solidarity movement began the call for boycott, divestment and sanctions in 2002 as a rejoinder to the failures of international relations.
A successful boycott of settlement products will not produce a political solution to the conflict. But it will expose a wrong and affirm that international trade should not be done at the expense of human rights.
The market should never reward illegality. Naming and shaming offenders of international law is an eminently Canadian thing to do.
That Israel is an ally makes it even more important that Canada take a principled position. Israeli settlement products should be kept out of the Canadian market.
He doesn’t explain why Israel is singled out for boycott, while the most barbaric and violent Muslim regimes never get that treatment. The answer is simple – the sharia regimes can do no wrong, while in the Arab mind the Jews are the root of all evil. With such type of lawyers in the Law Society of Upper Canada it is no wonder that the Christian lawyers from British Columbia are discriminated against on the basis of their religion.
So this is it, folks, it shows how scary a simple parking ticket case could become when it involves Muslims and their trusty servants from the human rights commissions, dedicated to changing the laws of Canada. As the immortal George Costanza used to say: “This thing is like an onion. The more layers you peel, the more it stinks.”
And in this case we don’t know how many more layers we have to peel…
UPDATE: The post was already published when readers contacted me with more information about one of the players in this human rights farce. That is Kate Sellar, the lawyer acting on behalf of the two Muslims, who plan to trample the private property rights in Mississauga. It turns out she was one of the NDP candidates in the last provincial elections in Ontario.
One of the three most important points about her, featured on the NDP website, is: “Longtime ally of the LGBT community who has succeeded in securing settlements that have had a major impact on human rights policy in the province, including several leading cases involving transgender rights in Ontario.”
So here we have a lawyer, who has built her career on processing money-grabbing “human rights” settlements on behalf of the homosexual community. Now she is working on a case, which will benefit ISNA and its followers. If she bothered to do some research, she would’ve found the facts about the hateful preachers that the organization sponsors and ISNA’s financial support for the Muslim terrorism in Pakistan. And Muslim preachers and Islamic terrorists are some of the most extreme enemies of homosexuality.
It’s beyond me how she can reconcile both. I understand that Ms. Sellar needs to make a living (there are way too many lawyers in North America), but there is that little thing in many people’s heads called “conscience.” It seems that now the odd little thing is in short supply in Ontario – after all, Ontarians just voted into majority power the criminal McGuinty/Wynne gang.
What we see here is the unholy union of two special interest groups – the far left and Islam. They have different goals and ideas, but are temporarily united in their fight to destroy through the human rights commissions the last remains of common sense and decency in the Canadian society.
© 2014 Blogwrath.com