Jarrar with his lucky t-shirt
$240,000 for this? Isn't that a bit excessive? I am going to have to get one of these shirts for my next flight -- Jihad Watch could use the money!
Meanwhile, the ACLU lawyer says: "The outcome of this case is a victory for free speech and a blow to the discriminatory practice of racial profiling." Great. I will be sure to call the ACLU for help to fight attempts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the UN to compel Western governments to criminalize free speech about the ways in which Islamic jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify their actions and make recruits.
Don't you just know that they'll be all over that?
"240,000 dollars awarded to man forced to cover Arab T-shirt," from AFP, January 5 (thanks to all who sent this in):
NEW YORK (AFP) – An airline passenger forced to cover his T-shirt because it displayed Arabic script has been awarded 240,000 dollars in compensation, campaigners said Monday.Raed Jarrar received the pay out on Friday from two US Transportation Security Authority officials and from JetBlue Airways following the August 2006 incident at New York's JFK Airport, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) announced.
"The outcome of this case is a victory for free speech and a blow to the discriminatory practice of racial profiling," said Aden Fine, a lawyer with ACLU.
Jarrar, a US resident, was apprehended as he waited to board a JetBlue flight from New York to Oakland, California, and told to remove his shirt, which had written on it in Arabic: "We will not be silent."
He was told other passengers felt uncomfortable because an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt in an airport was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber,'" the ACLU said.
Jarrar eventually agreed to cover his shirt with another provided by JetBlue. He was allowed aboard but his seat was changed from the front to the back of the aircraft....
The US, as Britain, is being destroyed from within.
What happened to JetBlue's rights as to its Conditions of Carriage? Where was the 'racial'profiling here?
Jarrar is a slimy opportunist. He made his initial killing as a Iraqi blogger and became a celebrity among Lefties and Democrats as result. Later he found American sponsors who got him into the U.S.
And its no wonder the ACLU took his case given his status among the Lefties.
JetBlue is dhimmi corporation. They made a "business" decision: "Settle with the as*hole muslim and be done with this. Our lawyers charge too much per hour to defend us."
"We will not be silent" written in Arabic. But muslims ARE silent in the face of the slaughter of infidels (and other muslims).
The t-shirt slogan made reference to muslims NOT being silent in the face of the infidel striking back against muslim aggression. Yeah...I think that is what the message was on the t-shirt.
$240,000 dollars, for being made to cover a tea shirt.
This insanity has got to stop, it's like we are piling up our own funeral pyre. Words fail me.
Arabic tea shirt sales must be soaring
It is sickening to watch the establishment of Muslims as a protected class.
People, do everything you can to stop this from spreading.
I am going to have to get one of these shirts for my next flight -- Jihad Watch could use the money!
Posted by Robert
But Robert, that would violate the Pact of Umar!
/sarc off
Maybe on my next flight I'll wear a t-shirt that has this: "JihadWatch: WE will not be silent, either!"
He was allowed aboard but his seat was changed from the front to the back of the aircraft....
-from the article
No good deed goes unpunished. They were just trying to give him a better chance of surviving a crash. In the front, he would die.
'He was told other passengers felt uncomfortable because an Arabic-inscribed T-shirt in an airport was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, I am a robber,' the ACLU said.
From the article.
I wonder what ever happened to the person who made this very witty, and self-evident-and-reasonable-sounding-to-anyone-but-the-PC-sotted-Left statement? I also wonder who, specifically, it was at the ACLU who was the lead attorney?
That's a pretty good payday, a good return on a $10 investment...And just think, most people actually have to work for a living...
The ACLU should be sued for Racial profiling, based on them picking and choosing cases.
The ACLU on sues for one religion, one political party, one sexual preferance, one race of people. If you don't meet one of those the ACLU will profile against you.
A picture on my t-shirt is free speech, only depending on what color my skin is, what the message says, what nationality I am, and what political party I am from.
Put it to the test...go wear an offensive t-shirt that is pro-American and get censored for it, and see if the ACLU will represent you. You will find yourself alone without the racial profiling civil liberties union.
Robert, thanks for providing the picture of the t-shirt, too bad it includes his ugly mug.
This case is not surprising. The ACLU defended the "right" of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish community in a Chicago suburb (Skokie, Ill). I am sure they would defend the "right" of a pro-Hamas group to march in the same Jewish neighborhood.
People - this Mohammedan has been awarded $240,000 for being forced to cover his t-shirt on the plane. Remember that?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090106/ts_alt_afp/ustransportairsecuritymuslimsrights_090106002219
Posted by: darcy at January 6, 2009 11:38 AM
I posted this earlier on the "70,000 Iranian students" thread.
Disgusting, isn't it?
CT YANKEE says:
"The ACLU defended the "right" of neo-Nazis to march through a Jewish community in a Chicago suburb (Skokie, Ill"
Don't forget - it wasn't just a JEWISH neighborhood it was an unusual area that had a very high percentage of holocaust survivors. Where they marched was carefully chosen for this cruel, cruel reason. ACLU didn't care.
By the way, your real Muslim terrorist on a plane will be in an Adidas track suit or business suit. The LAST thing they'd wear is a beard, robes etc. Definitely not an Arabic t-shirt.
For all you Brits: U.K. rally for Israel:
London, England
Date: Sunday, January 11, 2009
Time: 10:30am - 12:00pm
Location: TRAFALGAR SQUARE
City/Town: London, United Kingdom
I have made this point many times before over the years on Jihadwatch:
It is essentually the trial lawyers in America that are dictating our behavior in America, and our social constructs towards concerns over high risk situations.
It is the trial lawyers who lock us into multiculturalism, and the political correctness that is strangling our culture and has become a tool that is used against many of our rights such as being able to show our concerns about how one behaves or looks on an airplane.
Our freedom to evaluate someone as a potential threat is being taken away from us by the threat of lawsuits. These kind of lawsuits are outragous and should be construed as dangerous to our American and Homeland security Guidlines.
The judges who allow these outrageous lawsuits to proceed need to clearly understand the implications of how the public may fail to act when it may be prudent and and necessary to do so for fear of being sued.
Maybe on my next flight I'll wear a t-shirt that has this: "JihadWatch: WE will not be silent, either!"
Posted by: Bigshaker at January 6, 2009 4:55 PM
Can you make some of those? I'll buy.
Robert,
In light of our recent exchange, I am all the more angered by this verdict. I have pursued the company you are aware of by barraging them with letters and complaints. I home the Washington Times will take the story as well.
I'll be hanged.
I need to start wearing my
shirt more often in public
and also the one with
Just might hit the legal lottery.
or this one
أحب نيويورك
I love New York... I wear it cutting the grass and taking walks... I wore it to NYC the summer of 2007, but didn't when we went out to the Statue Of Liberty. It might have wrecked the day, but maybe we'd be a half mill richer?
Hmmmm... (light bulb flashing in the depths of the old noggin)
$240K, eh?
Well let's see. I've got a mortgage and car payment.
Yeah, $240K will be more than enough to cover those bills.
Maybe a trip around the world with all the trimmings afterwards?
Hmmmm...
I'm going to wear an ALLAH SUCKS t-shirt on my next flight! If they tell me to take it off, I'll just say Allahu Akbar, I will not be silent!!!
Did this bag of dog excrement ever sue Saddam Hussein for fuxing up his country and murdering hundreds of thousands??
Several things should be done.
First, the airline should appeal. Even if it costs more money to appeal than the amount that has been so nauseatingly "awarded" to Raed Jarrar, it must be appealed, as far as appeals can go, because he was clearly a provocateur, knowing full well that some, perhaps many, of his fellow passengers would be alarmed by this, but he was eager to alarm them, perhaps even eager to have exactly this kind of thing occur so that he could then make trouble, and win a settlement. Everything has fallen perfectly into place. And what this judgement, if it is not appealed does is two things: along with other decisions, and apologies, and so on, it makes passengers wary of bringing things that are disturbing to them to the attention of the plane's crew, and makes the crew wary of acting on their own, or on others' suspicions. There has to be an intelligent recognition by juries, and judges, of the real circumstances in which people fly, and why it is not irrational for them to be alarmed, and why it was hardly irrational to ask Raed Jarrar to simply cover up, with another t-shirt provided the one he was wearing. It was not much to ask. And he complied, but no doubt he knows enough about America to know what he might do later, and what exorbitant, even disgusting sum, he might manage to be awarded. And so will all kinds of others, Arabs or Muslims, who can find a way to turn the suspicion that Muslim behavior alone, and nothing else, is widespread all over the Western world, into a bonanza -- with the right lawyer, and the right kind of jury -- for themselves. This is why the full weight of the airline's lawyers has to be brought to bear: to stop this kind of award from being given.
2) Raed Jarrar is, according to a posting above, an Iraqi who had a blog. He apparently has managed to be allowed into this country. Why? Clearly his behavior is not that of someone trying to recognize, and accommodate, a request that was both understandable, and reasonable. He was not out to accommodate the fears of Infidels, but was, either at the time or later on, determined to squeeze whatever he could out of the situation. Has he obtained American citizenship? Would his doing so be an addition to this country, given what a privilege it is to be allowed to attain it, or would he merely add to a problem that, all over the Bilad al-Kufr, the lands of the Infidels, in Great Britain and France and Italy and Spain, in Belgium and The Netherlands and Denmark and Germany and Norway and Sweden, in Australia and in Canada, and in the United States, is a problem everywhere, no matter what the country, or how much inattetion, or solicitousness, it gives to the Idol of the Age "tolerance" -- Denmark and The Netherlands have elevated easygoing tolerance and generosity to foreigners to practically a state religion, and for their pains have received nothing but anguish, threats of violence and death, and even murders, in the case of The Netherlands, committed against some of their own, prominent, non-Muslim citizens. And note as well that no other group of immigrants, not Chinese nor Hindus, not Vietnamese, not people from Central America nor South America, nor from the Christian or animist parts of black Africa, come to these countries bearing an alien and a hostile creed, as if refugees from the Nazis came, but then started to act as apologists and fifth columnists for the Third Reich, or refugees from Communists came, fleeing the misrule and misery of Soviet Communism, but determined to spread the same ideology here.
Raed Jarrar is not someone who will contribute to this country's wellbeing. He is not a brave John Peter Zenger, standing up for a principle of free speech. No, what he is standing up for is the right to scare fellow, but Infidel, passengers, and not to yield to the perfectly reasonable request to simply cover up a slogan that, while it may be innocuous, is unknown -- and he knows it to be unknown -- to his fellow passengers. The principle he has "stood up for" is the right to upset his fellow passengers, when their susceptibility to being worried is one that they come by perfectly legitimately, as the result of thousands of acts of terror or of violence, carried out or foiled before they were carried out, against Infidels in Muslim lands (Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh, Christians in Pakistan and Sudan and Bangladesh and Egypt and Iraq and Algeria and Saudi Arabia) or against non-Muslims in nations where Muslims are still a minority (Buddhists in southern Thailand) or by Muslim states and groups intent either on destroying an Infidel nation-state (Israel) or on destroying the political and legal institutions of Western countries, within which large numbers of Muslims have been negligently allowed to settle, unless those legal and political institutions are changed so as to accord more with Muslim demands, and are no longer regarded by them as obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam.
There should surely be a way either to diminish or undo that unjust enrichment of Mr. Jarrar, and surely a way to keep him, who has proved himself so eager to make a killing out of the worries of others (why didn't he just cover the t-shirt, take his flight, and not attempt to profit so grotesquely from this?), from the privilege of becoming a citizen. Not the judicial troglodytes, but Holmes and Brandeis would have seen right through the "case" presented by the ACLU and would have laughed it to scorn. And that is what should have happened.
As a licensed attorney myself, I want to second what Mackie wrote in his 5:52 P.M. post. America has become the most litigious society in the history of mankind. This is not a positive for the most part. In fact, far from it. And the ACLU will ruin America if permitted to do so.
Imagine the present ACLU existing during the Civil War, WWI or WWII. The Lincoln, Wilson and Roosevelt Administrations would have been additionally burdened, extraordinarily so, while trying to save the American nation. Not only does the ACLU not allow for leeway and mistakes in the interest of national security, but it actually puts all of America in danger many times by its absurd interpretation of the Constitution, an ad extremis one that defies what the Founders ever had in mind.
The ACLU is also a hypocrite. It is very selective in its defense of Constitutional rights. For instance, it is all for the most expansive interpretation of the First Amendment, as in the case with this Jarrar joker, but when it comes to the Second Amendment, it argues for the most narrow possible judicial interpretation of an American's right to own guns. No American patriot, no admirer of Western Civilization, no cherisher of real freedom should esteem the ACLU. Quite the contrary. Such a person should despise this organization. America as a great, free and noble nation and the agenda of the ACLU are diametrical opposites. Anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong, foolishly so. Oh yeah, almost forgot, Raed Jarrar is a jerk.
America is the Land of Opportunity?
The question should be. Why is Jarrar here?
The answer would be.
Here is where the money is.
His country obviously sucks, so he came here to the land of milk, honey and trial lawyers.
Speaking of trial lawyers, I wonder what John "my baby daddy" Edwards is doing these days.
Changing diapers mayhaps?
Hmmm...interesting. I am a Captain for a Major US Airline.Once while flying from FLL to MCO I had some dirtbag come down the jetway wearing a t-shirt that said in BIG black letters "ASK ME ABOUT MY PENIS" I stopped him and told him he was not getting on my plane(with about 50 5-10 yr.olds going to Disneyworld)with that shirt on. He got mad,but turned it inside out when he figured out I wasn't budging.
I would have done the same thing with this fool regardless of the consequences(my company backed me up on MY t-shirt adventure). Saftey of flight comes before EVERYTHING else on a jet,and I see this attempt as a saftey issue,period.
skydash,
Well said, and I completely agree.
This sort of thing is provocation at the very least.
Ick. Wonder if anyone has ever dared to ASK him about his penis. Sounds like the guy is a real a chick-magnet. Not! Low-life is more like it.
Good that you confronted him, skydash.
skydash
excellent point.
Where are those protestjihad.com t-shirts when you need them?
What do you think, futureisbright?
With leftists, only certain groups have "rights". We have no right to question or wonder or be wary or even afraid anymore. That goes for dads, Moms, Children, Grannies & Grampas. Why? They don't fit the new inverted morality. I shouldn't use that word 'morality' really, because the leftists have none, but whatever they do have it is truly inverted.
When privileges or rights are taken away from the common folk they are always given to someone else, every time. Think about it!
Jihadists will win if this sh*t keeps up.
The ACLU is pure evil. It fights the truth and it furthers hate and everything seditious. It defends the most aberrant behavior, but it does not stand up for the rights of citizens to tell the truth. Where is the ACLU when campus speech codes, which are meaningless in real courts and thus serve only to give universities a seemingly totalitarian atmosphere, are instituted for the sole purpose of suppressing opinions which run contrary to their sicko worldview? The ACLU only defends the most seditious, out-there behavior, but never the rights of ordinary citizens to simply enjoy get out the truth, which is so uncomfortable to them, to protect and arm ourselves, or to actually affect positive change (how nasty a ring that word has been given!)? Isn't that its ostensible purpose?
Why are they defending non-citizens? How many actual, tax-paying Americans whose rights are genuinely being trampled on were denied by the ACLU so that this jackass could extort JetBlue for $250,000? No non-citizen should ever have their case taken up by the ACLU so long as citizens are in line.
I'm with Alaskan1000. There should be a massive class-action suit against the ACLU, unprecedented in scale, charging them with discrimination against non-Muslims, against patriots, against whites, against blacks (Islam hates blacks and the ACLU loooves Muslims), against men, against citizens, against Christians, against Jews, against families, and against gun-owners.
If you have actual rights that need to be defended, the ACLU is the last place you go. Those monsters defend hijabbis' right to creep me out and unnerve me. Soon they'll be pushing for polygamy and the right to "honor"-kill one's daughters. Ugh.
Infidel Islander, I checked out your blog. Very nice. Welcome. I look forward to your input in the future.
Infidel Islander is, like staringattheview, a non-Muslim living in the belly of the beast, in her case the Maldives.
And he was on his way to Oakland? That's ripe for the pickings.
I've had a few stupid T-shirts in my time. For a while I had a T-shirt that said "ARE YOU STONED, OR JUST STUPID?". I had a couple of issues with that shirt.
One day my boss walked up to me at work and said, "Are you stoned, or just stupid?" I almost answered him until I realized he was reading my shirt!
Same shirt:
We were helping Torrie move out of the apartment building and back to her parents home. I was riding with her in her car full of boxes to her folks home and she finally noticed my T-shirt.
"OMG, you HAVE to turn that shirt inside out before we get to my parents house!"
So I sued the bitch and made $100k. Just kidding, she was a sweetie, I turned my shirt inside out.
That shirt turned into a shop rag 20 years ago.
The airline should appeal otherwise this sets a very appealing precedent for wearing inflammatory or inciting t-shirts.
To all of the good folk here who think JetBlue should "appeal" to a higher court the "award" of $240K to Jarrar, I hate to break this news to you: JetBlue "settled" the case BEFORE trial. JetBlue cannot appeal to a higher court their own settlement offer which was accepted by Jarrar. I've read several accounts of this incident on the internet and this is what I was able to gleam from my readings.
JetBlue offered $240K to Jarrar to make him "go away". The $240K was not "awarded" to Jarrar by a judge or a jury. JetBlue was looking to cut their monetary losses. JetBlue's defense attorneys were making big bucks per hour and there would be many more hours to be billed if the matter went to trial. The defense attorneys may have told JetBlue "we might not win this case".
JetBlue made a business decision to settle the case.
Want some more bad news, albeit speculative? I'm betting that JetBlue also agreed to pay all of the ACLU attorney fees. Salt in the wound.
The good guys did not win this case. I'm still hopeful the good guys will beat the Flying Imams out Minneapolis/St. Paul.
I have a suggestion to make to put an end to this kind of outrage once and for all.
All security checkpoints at airports located in Dar al-Harb should have copies of Mein Qurampf placed at mid-shin level for a 5'7-tall individual.
Upon getting to the checkpoint, every passenger should be required to place first their right foot, then their left one on the little stupid book of hate. Those who refused to do so would be denied the right to board a plane, but airport staff would promptly give them directions to the nearest Rent-a-Camel or Rent-a-Canoe agent, where they'd be able to find a means of transportation to get to their final destination without any further hassle.
It would be a win-win situation for all, except those expecting to get rich through a frivolous lawsuit (as the Iraqi ingrate mentioned in the article above.) But, since infidel security officials are under direct orders from Ibrahim Hooper, the ACLU and Bush's Best Friend Forever Saudi King Abdullah, such an inexpensive solution to a serious problem would never be used. What a shame.
"Maybe on my next flight I'll wear a t-shirt that has this: "JihadWatch: WE will not be silent, either!""
Posted by: Bigshaker at January 6, 2009 4:55 PM
LOL If you want to make a few bucks, Bigshaker, have the slogan printed in Arabic, with the translation below, just like this guy.
Just imagine how confused everyone will be, in the end, if you get tossed from your flight for an anti-jihadist sentiment!