The Attack of the Hijab Hairdresser

This is how a performance of the National Ballet of Canada would probably look in the future after an extensive training in multicultural sensitivity conducted by the Human Rights Commission and whichever Muslim organization handles the sharia compliance. If you don’t believe me, please read on…


Human Rights Commission approved ballet

It’s official! The hijab is the most powerful weapon for wealth redistribution available in Canada.

Few days ago we covered the case of Maxcine Telfer who was fined $36,000 for disagreeing with the weird hijab that one of her Muslim employees wore, even though the employment continued for only 6 weeks. If it wasn’t for the upper court decision on appeal, she would have lost her house to satisfy the “human rights” sadists.  In that post we predicted that the hijab would become a nice tool of money extortion, liberally applied by Muslim fanatics.

That was like a psychic prediction, which almost immediately came true. Now we have a Muslim hairdresser who is going to sue her employer on the ground of the mighty hijab. The ominous parallel to the previous case is that she was employed for 6 weeks before she attacked her hair salon where she worked.

The details of the case in the news piece that announced it are quite sketchy, but anyone who has dealt with the human rights commission horror can form an opinion.

A Muslim woman named Mehwish Ali was dismissed from her job as a hairstylist at a Pickering (Ontario) salon after 6 weeks of work (that was part of a three-month probation period).

According to her story, she was let go because few days before the dismissal she wore a hijab at work for a first time. The company owners, Mylene and Rob Facchini, told her that the scarf wasn’t consistent with the nature of the company, which was supposed to promote hair styling.

According to Ali, she wore her hijab at the interview, but was told not to do it when she starts work (allegedly, she has been wearing it for the last 10 years), so she tried her luck again the day before she was fired.

According to the owners, she didn’t wear the hijab at the interview. The reasons for her dismissal had nothing to do with that ugly piece of cloth. They had to part ways because of her poor performance during the probation period.

Now she is filing a case against the Facchinis with the human rights tribunal.

So, here is a riddle, dear readers, what is your feeling about who is telling the truth?

The answer is: IT DOESN’T MATTER. Once the hijab has entered the picture, from the point of view of Barbara Hall’s human rights death squads, the case has been solved and closed. A business owned by Italian Catholics has no chance against a hijab wearing Muslim woman regardless of who is telling the truth.

The employer’s situation is hopeless. In the Policies and Guidelines of the OHRC (published in the Annotated Ontario Human Rights Code, p.315), which determine their decisions, the Dress Code section states:

“Workplaces, services and facilities frequently have rules about dress. These may take the form of having to wear a particular uniform, having to wear protective gear, or a requirement that no person may wear a head covering. These rules may come into direct conflict with religious dress requirements. When they do, there is a duty to accommodate the person, short of undue hardship.

Example: A school requires its students to wear a particular uniform which prohibits any head covering. A Muslim girl wears a head covering as part of her religious observance. The school authorities have a duty to accommodate such a student and to permit her to wear the head covering.”

There are no ifs and buts, when the rag enters the picture, you must comply or else pay through the nose.

For the record, HRC considers “undue hardship” only excessive cost or health and safety risks. Making a laughing stock out of your hairdressing business doesn’t qualify as hardship.

In the news article, Rob Facchini wonders why he is being pulled back into the case when it is clear she was fired for incompetence. He is such a Human Rights Commission virgin – he has no idea that they’ll pull him in again and again to defend himself by paying tens of thousands of dollars for lawyers. At the same time, the Muslim fanatic who accused him would not spend a penny, getting all possible legal advice for free.

In the end, he will have to liquidate his business to pay all the expenses and fines, leaving many people unemployed, while the greedy Muslim walks away with thousands of dollars of loot.

Isn’t Canada a grand place to live, especially when you want to punish those bastards who make money by running a business?

The hijab scheme works like clockwork when you want to extort money.

As usual, I would ask, where are the voices of the moderate Muslims who condemn such behaviour? O yes, I always forget that on that issue I am a voice in the wilderness.

What’s next for the hijab squads? Here is an extra hijab jihad idea. You know the strip joints, right? They are places that many Muslim men patronize, but the imams (maybe) despise. You can shut them down and make money out of them in the same time.

Suppose a Muslim woman shows up for an interview for a dancer’s position. If she wears a hijab, she will be rejected. If doesn’t have hijab, she can get hired and show up at work in hijab or burka. The owner would have to let her go, if he doesn’t, his clients would mock him for years. It’s a wonderful opportunity to make hundreds of thousands of dollars and bankrupt a satanic business. A true double Muslim bargain!

And if you think that the Human Rights Commission wouldn’t take such a case, think again, they have been destroying people and business even for more ridiculous reasons.

Let’s move on, there is nothing to see here, the destruction of Canada continues in full force…


Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *