London’s mayor had some choice words Friday for Muslims who turn to radicalism, calling them sexually frustrated losers who turn to terrorism out of a deep-seated lack of self-confidence. Johnson further contended that turning to radical Islam was a form of compensation for men with deflated egos and a lack of purpose: “They are just young men in desperate need of self-esteem who do not have a particular mission in life, who feel that they are losers and this thing makes them feel strong — like winners.”
The 50-year-old politician, who reportedly has his eyes on the premiership, went on to criticize elements of the Islamic community for not doing enough to convince young men to turn away from extremism: “I often hear voices from the Muslim intelligentsia who are very quick to accuse people of Islamophobia… But they are not explaining how it can be that this one religion seems to be leading people astray in so many cases.”
“Somebody in a position of responsibility should be making responsible comments,” Mohammed Khaliel, director of the community cohesion organisation Islamix, told the Guardian on Friday. “For somebody allegedly aspiring to be prime minister of the country, is this really the style and level of comments that he should be making?
Charlie Winter from the Quilliam Foundation, an organization set up by ex-Islamists to challenge and counter extremism, called the mayor’s analysis “ludicrous,” stating that many defy the caricature painted by Johnson.
Milan – A husband had allowed his wife to work in the bar, but on the condition that she was limited to help in the kitchen. “Instead she poured wine to customers. But we are Muslims” he said in front of a judge “a woman should not even set foot in the bar. This thing is a disgrace to my family.”
So to make it clear to his wife, Abdel I., a 50 year-old Moroccan, according to the indictment began to insult her and attack her by hitting her in front of their two small children. Abdel was charged with harassment and beatings, and in recent days the judge sentenced him to one year in prison with probation and a fine of 7,500 Euros for compensation in addition to the reimbursement of his ex-wife’s legal fees.
And to think that instead she could have remained quietly at home where she needed to be, said Abdel, “I would come home just after six in the evening and without her I had to feed the kids, then take them to bed, and let them sleep …”. So he started to get nervous, so he surprised his wife at work who was pouring wine for the local customers.
The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled that the Netherlands was liable for the deaths of three Bosnian Muslim men killed in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in a ruling upholding a 2011 decision in an appeals court. The three Bosnian Muslim men had been ordered to leave a UN compound run by Dutch peacekeeping forces when Bosnian Serb forces overran it. They were among thousands taking shelter in the compound. The prosecution argued that the three men should have been protected by the peacekeepers, while the Dutch government had argued that the soldiers were under United Nations’ control.
This final ruling means that relatives of the victims can now claim compensation from the Dutch state.
A Massachusetts teenager and his 24-year-old friend filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Post Wednesday in Boston, accusing the tabloid of falsely portraying them as suspects in the deadly Marathon bombings by plastering their photograph on the front page under the headline, “Bag Men.”
The lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court said the photographs and articles published three days after the bombings made it appear that FBI agents were pursuing Salaheddin Barhoum and Yassine Zaimi, avid runners watching the Marathon. That evening, authorities released photographs of the suspected bombers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
In the complaint, lawyers for Barhoum, a 16-year-old Revere High School student, and Zaimi, a part-time college student from Malden who also works full time, accused the New York Post of libel, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and invasion of privacy. They are seeking damages, including unspecified monetary compensation.
“The front page would lead a reasonable reader to believe that plaintiffs had bombs in their bags, that they were involved in causing the Boston Marathon bombing,” according to the court complaint. The lawsuit asserts the newspaper subjected the friends to “scorn, hatred, ridicule, or contempt in the minds of a considerable and respectable segment of the community.”
A Belgian tribunal has determined that an outlet of the Dutch department store Hema was wrong to fire an employee for wearing a headscarf. The woman had worked for the store, located in the Belgian city of Genk, for two months wearing a headscarf before her employment was terminated on the grounds that she refused to remove it following complaints from customers. The tribunal ordered Hema to pay the 21- year- old woman six months salary in compensation.
Following a ruling that the compulsory attendance of integration classes for Turkish immigrants is illegal, thousands of Turkish nationals in the Netherlands may now seek compensation for the cost of the course. The government established the rules for compulsory integration course in 2006, which have now been deemed illegal under treaties between Turkey and the EU. The Dutch government has already said that those taking the course after August 16 of this year would be refunded, but not others. Lawyer Bilal Coskun has established a foundation to represent those forced to take the courses, representing them with claims for an average of 5,000 Euros per person.
The Hague district court has ruled that the Netherlands can be held responsible for the death of three Bosnian Muslim men in the Srebenica massacre. The deaths occurred when in 1995 Bosnian Serb forces overran the UN ‘safe area’ under the watch of Dutch forces, killing 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys. This case referred to three Bosnian Muslims who had taken shelter in the compound but were forced out by Dutch peacekeepers. While previous courts had ruled that the Dutch state was not responsible for the deaths because the soldiers were operating under a UN mandate, this recent ruling rather held the Dutch responsible, ordering the government to pay compensation to relatives of the deceased men. The verdict came as a surprise and could have implications for similar cases against the Dutch state.
The actions of Canadian spies and apparent indifference to the fate of trucker Ahmad El Maati “likely contributed indirectly” to his torture, writes former Supreme Court of Canada justice Frank Iacobucci.
The comments come in a once-secret supplement to Iacobucci’s 2008 report on the overseas imprisonment and torture of El Maati and two other Arab-Canadian men in cases eerily reminiscent to that of Maher Arar. The supplemental report was released after federal objections to its disclosure were “resolved” following more than a year of legal wrangling about whether national security would be harmed.
The report raises new concerns about how, in the post-9/11 era, Canadian Security Intelligence Service officials chucked aside human rights in their zeal to safeguard national security.
El Maati, who said he was repeatedly questioned on what he says were false confessions induced under torture in Syria, had been transferred to Egypt in January 2002 after a two-month detention in Syria. El Maati says he bears the physical and psychological scars of Egyptian interrogations. CSIS admitted to Iacobucci that it was aware of El Maati’s claims of mistreatment in Syria, and considered the possibility that further Canadian questioning could provoke more trouble for him in Egypt.
Lacobucci says there was a hands-off approach to the issue of torture by the anti-terror agencies. El Maati’s plight and that of the two other men – Abdullah Almalki and Muayyed Nureddin – is remarkably similar to that of Arar. Like Arar, the three men, who deny any involvement in terrorism, were all abused in Syrian prisons. The three men are now suing the Canadian government. The federal Conservative government settled with Arar for $10.5 million in compensation. But it has yet to apologize to the other three.
CAIR today hailed what it called a “victory for justice and civil rights” in the case of the six imams who said their rights were violated in 2006 when they were removed from a US Airways flight in Minnesota and arrested.
According to the terms of the settlement, the six religious leaders will receive an undisclosed amount in compensation for the incident and that the case was resolved to “the satisfaction of all parties.” CAIR has championed the imams’ rights since they were removed from the plane.
The settlement of this case is a clear victory for justice and civil rights over fear and the phenomenon of ‘flying while Muslim’ in the post-9/11 era,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. “We thank all those who supported the imams through the lengthy and difficult legal process.”
In July, a judge in Minnesota sided with the imams on key issues in their lawsuit against those involved in their removal from the plane. U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery cleared the way for a trial by denying several motions to dismiss the case and ruling that a law passed by Congress after the incident does not grant protection from lawsuits to those sued by the imams.
Telegraaf reports that 100 to 150 Dutch Moroccans in Rotterdam received compensation for speaking with mayor Aboutaleb. The payment was compensation for participation in meetings of approximately 2.5 hours during which individuals shared their success stories or problems with the mayor as a part of five “Moroccan tables” (meetings). Recently Antilleans in Rotterdam received the same compensation for similar discussions.
The municipality explains its payment as compensation for the time that individuals give up in order to participate in the meetings, including allowing for childcare and travel expenses. But Telegraaf quotes others, including Ronald Sorensen of Leefbaar Rotterdam, who are against compensating citizens for what should be considered their “moral duty”.