| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Anti-dhimmitude in Boston. Update on this story from AP, with thanks to Kemaste:
BOSTON (Dec. 22) - A Saudi Arabian princess accused of breaking U.S. immigration laws by locking up her domestics' passports and forcing them to work for low pay was ordered to be deported, prosecutors said Thursday.Hana F. Al Jader of Winchester was sentenced to two years of probation, the first six months of which must be served in home confinement, after which she'll be deported to Saudi Arabia, prosecutors said.
An after hours call to Samantha Martin, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office, was not returned. It was unclear if the six months' home confinement Al Jader received included time she has already served while on bail in home confinement.
U.S. District Judge Reginald J. Lindsay also sentenced Al Jader, 40, to pay $206,000 in restitution to three of her former domestic servants, pay a $40,000 fine, and perform 100 hours of community service.
In September, Al Jader pleaded guilty to two counts of visa fraud for lying on immigration forms, and two counts of harboring an alien for keeping the two women at her house though she knew their visas had expired.
In a deal with prosecutors, six counts of forced labor were dropped in exchange for guilty pleas on the other charges.
Prosecutors alleged that Al Jader forced two domestic servants from Indonesia to work long hours, while holding their passports in a safe.Al Jader submitted fraudulent forms to the U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia guaranteeing the women would work eight hours daily for $1,500 a month, they charged.
The women were actually paid just $300 per month after arriving in February 2003 to cook, clean and care for Al Jader's disabled husband and their children.
Posted by Robert at December 22, 2006 11:31 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Typical arrogance from this bunch. They have the money and think they can get away with what goes on in the ummah no matter where they are. How many damn princes and princesses do they have? Seems like thousands-breeding like rats I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I'd advocate a Saudi revolution bringing the violence of the Russian Revolution with it except for the fact that the cure would end up being even worse than the disease.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 22, 2006 12:00 PM
They seem to think that all this stuff about 'that which your right hand possesses' in the Koran and other texts applies to the hiring of domestics. After all war is deceit - the idiots may have thought they were signing on as household helps but in fact Saudis seem to see it as, after the war of wits involved in the signing of any contract, the other party has been captured and enslaved. It's the only logic that I can see in the recurring pattern of behaviour by which these Saudis abuse their servants.
Posted by: wallyUK at December 22, 2006 12:10 PM
Next, abdullah will summon the Massachusetts AG to saudi to justify this outrage against the throne. I trust that, unlike the Colorado fiasco, Mitt Romney will tell the king to go screw himself.
Posted by: Infidel33 at December 22, 2006 12:32 PM
Infidel33-
Romney might tell the king to go to hell but Herman Munster and /or Buffalo Head (Kerry and Kennedy) will counter with a fawning trip to Riyadh to smooth it all over. Absolutely disgusting.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 22, 2006 12:37 PM
I hope she remembers that the moment she is off the plane in Saudi Arabia she will have to be escorted by a guardian or she is subject to rape and whippings herself! I hope she is happy to be back in her Islamic paradise.
Posted by: David England at December 22, 2006 12:40 PM
Watch the State Department send their guy round to have a superior court review the judgment and file an amicus curiae
Posted by: Voyager at December 22, 2006 12:46 PM
I have several questions:
Was the princess a student at Harvard or MIT or some other university in Boston? Why was she here to begin with? Why did she get to 'import' her own illegal alien work crew ( Indonesians )?
Why do we allow Saudi Royals to live here?
other questions: Have we began to investigate the domestic arrangements for all Saudi royalty living in the United States? (Seems we may be doing that... colorado & massachusetts)
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 22, 2006 1:18 PM
Hey!!!!
1 down...several more to go
at December 22, 2006 1:27 PM
"Allahu akbar! We are the masters, not the slaves."
Posted by: Abu Allah at December 22, 2006 1:29 PM
Was the princess a student at Harvard or MIT or some other university in Boston? Why was she here to begin with?
Her husband came to Boston for medical treatment following an auto accident - I think he is disabled
Posted by: Voyager at December 22, 2006 2:27 PM
totally off topic but totally outrageous
Following is an excerpt from an interview with Bahraini women’s rights activist Ghada Jamshir , which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on December 21, 2005.
Interviewer: Some people say that Ghada Jamshir is a Sunni, and that this is why she is leading the battle against (mut’ah) marriages, which are authorized by religious law among the Shiites.
Ghada Jamshir: Authorized by religious law?!
Interviewer: Among the Shiites, yes.
Ghada Jamshir: Does the Islamic Shari’a authorize mut’ah marriages? Does the Islamic Shari’a authorize mut’ah according to the following classification: “Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs.” They have: “Pleasure from sexual touching.” “pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts.” “Pleasure from a little girl.” Do you know what “pleasure from a little girl” means? It means that they derive sexual pleasure from a girl aged two, three, or four.
Interviewer: Let’s not go into details…
Ghada Jamshir: Let me tell you what “Pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs” means…
Interviewer: Don’t give me the details…
Ghada Jamshir: This is a violation of children’s rights! This constitutes sexual assault of the girl. What does “pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs” mean? It means deriving sexual pleasure from an infant. How old is an infant? One year, a year and a half, a few months?
Is it conceivable for a grown man to have sex with an infant girl? And you people tell me that the Islamic Sharia authorizes this?
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=978
Posted by: shiva at December 22, 2006 2:37 PM
well more than likely the state Department a.k.a. the Saudi Arabia foreign service, will step inand this so-called princess will his head back to Saudi Arabia with out paying one dime of the find she owes or doing one-hour of community service is not the first time, a member of the band of robbers that is called the Saudi royal family has been involved in slavery in the USA
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at December 22, 2006 2:42 PM
Here we go again, punishing muslims with our 21st century christian/ judeo ethics. it's perfectly ok in 7th century + islam to hold slaves and to treat them any way they want. These people had no problems with other muslims and arabs but no, we had to go in and shove christian/judeo ethics down their throats. I am sure she and her ilk will be much happier in their islam paradise of arabia.
Posted by: desidude at December 22, 2006 2:46 PM
They didn't have to deport her. Rather they should fine her and make her pay the salaries up to standard and retroactive.
But at the end - it's always the women that suffer - rich or poor.
Allat
Posted by: allat at December 22, 2006 3:34 PM
They didn't have to deport her. Rather they should fine her and make her pay the salaries up to standard and retroactive.
But at the end - it's always the women that suffer - rich or poor.
Allat
Are you serious? The only women that should be considered here are the Indonesian indentured servant / sex toys in this case. Come on.
at December 22, 2006 3:49 PM
"......must be served in home confinement"
Isn't that a busmans holiday for women in Saudi?
Posted by: rudekid at December 22, 2006 4:10 PM
The Princess is under American Law not sharia, she needs to suffer & pay up, then send her butt back to her country, and she see if she likes living there, as she had some 'freedoms' here. Why is she here anyway??
Posted by: Donald's at December 22, 2006 4:15 PM
This saudi princess should pay her fines, get booted with her hubby and kids back to the islamic paradise of saudi arabia.
As for community service, she should be the one cleaning floors and washing windows.
Posted by: callmeinfidel at December 22, 2006 5:01 PM
Why do we allow Saudi Royals to live here?
...because the government refuses to ban Muslim immigration.
at December 22, 2006 5:23 PM
"Are you serious? The only women that should be considered here are the Indonesian indentured servant / sex toys in this case. Come on."
Al- open mouth - insert foot!
I stand corrected.
Allat
at December 22, 2006 6:10 PM
Big wow! They deported one. What about all the rest? That's the way these people live or don't we all know that? Just b-e-c-a-u-s-e. I don't care.
Boston, the best rock band of all time!
at December 22, 2006 7:00 PM
Heads will roll for this "culturally" incensitive charge. If a Saudi princess cannot practice the tenets and traditions of her faith without facing harassment from authorites, that's an obvious sign the Dhimmis on the payroll are not performing their tasks to the best of their abilities. Perhaps another couple of hundred Saudi funded Wahabbi mosques would be a good start in correcting these offenses and would continue the fruitful finacial/globalist relationship which we now share.
(Just got a troll translator/decoder pen for Christmas! Been aching to give it a try ;)
at December 22, 2006 7:34 PM
Saudis will be...Saudis. They have never given up slavery and continue to abuse thousands of Asian and African people who come to their disgusting "kingdom" looking for work. The real culprit in this story is the US State Dept. How many times do these stories have to be repeated? The maids are issued visas by our State Dept, who know full well that the treatment the women receive from their slave masters in Saudi Arabia will be continued once they reach American shores. Dr. Rice, as a descendant of slaves, should put a stop to this practice on her list of New Year resolutions.
Posted by: maryrose at December 22, 2006 9:26 PM
Off topic:
A "Not Without My Daughter(s)" in Lebanon
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at December 22, 2006 10:30 PM
Dr. Rice, as a descendant of slaves, should put a stop to this practice on her list of New Year resolutions.
Posted by: maryrose at December 22, 2006 09:26 PM
...... in many ways, White House is the foreign office of Saudi Arabia with dubya as the resident ambassador of Saudi Arabia having sold out Americans to Wahabbis.. As for the US Departmnent of State, in reality it is the US Department of Slaves, with Condi as the Secretary of Slaves, just without the burkha, serving her wahhabbi masters in Riyadh..
Posted by: Alert at December 22, 2006 11:48 PM
I think, chances are we'll see this so called Princess take refuge with her husband in the Saudi Embassy where US law does not apply until King Abdul can arrange a private Saudi flight home for her and her husband were they will be beyond American law we just have to look at the 200 or so American kids being held by the divorced Saudi men that had been married to American women that kidnapped their own children back to Saudi Arabia despite our courts giving the mothers custody, and the way the sharia courts in Saudi Arabia ignore any infidel laws or treaties. I am surprised that this princesse was even allowed to be convicted or even charged without the Saudi Arabian foreign service. Our State Department, not stepping in arranging for her and her husband to flee the country. It would not be the first time, one member of the turkey tribe the ruling tribe. ofSaudi Arabia left our country one step ahead of the law. That's the way they treat their domestics, the way she did, and with only 40 years since slavery was reluctantly allowed in Saudi Arabia and apparently even today, it is still going on under the table while we have their is a seventh century tribal culture with money. That is not joined the 20th century
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at December 23, 2006 5:31 AM
Muslims seem to be fundamentally incapable of understanding that their barbaric customs are not universally accepted. They seem to be incapable of understanding a lot of things.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at December 23, 2006 6:53 AM
More "unjust biggotry" against muslims. Where's c.a.i.r. and its dhimmi lacky the a.c.l.u.to come to the rescue of the poor misunderstood saudi.
Posted by: TINBH at December 23, 2006 7:42 AM
A saudi princess and her domestic (slave).
The princess and the pirate..
The beauty and the beast (only here roles reversed)
A pity that the title princess in the christian world generally imply elegance and beauty whereas these primates (I have seen a few without veil) make a female King Kong look like Kim Basinger compared to them.
BTW, In Saudi Arabia one may encounter little boys in cafes frequented by men. They are not only employed to serve tea or nargilah (water pipes) to the clientele.
But rather are used as sex slaves who, for a few riyals, crawl under the tables to perform a different sort of piping on the customers.
at December 23, 2006 10:11 AM
Previewing your Comment
This is the second case this year of Muslim Arabs imprisoning and exploiting domestic workers in the US. I must admit that I am surprised that a Saudi princess was brought to court and even more surprised at the leniency of the sentence. Witholding most of these servants' wages represents theft and we all know that in Saudi Arabia a thief will lose his or her right hand (unless I imagine they are of the blood royal or very influential). I know for a fact that these two cases of Arabs exploiting servants who have been virtually enslaved is a widespread practice in the favourite Arab playgrounds of Europe. The British Foreign Office (a pro-Arab hotbed if ever there was one) and the dhimmi Home Office know perfectly well that when rich Saudis and other Arabs enter Britain as visitors that they often bring their own domestics with them. It is illegal to bring employees into the UK to do work for you while both parties are in Britain solely as visitors. A special loophole in which 'family companions' can accompany another family seems to have been devised purely to facilitate this practice. British Immigration officers could easily prevent these illegally employed women from entering the UK by applying a simple series of checks - not least spotting that a family have flown in in first class while accompanying females (no doubt from Muslim countries) with virtually no money have flown in in economy. As soon as these unfortunate servants are cleared through Immigration the prince or the princess or the fat satyr or the esurient harridan remove their passports from them and the women are trapped - they don't speak English, they don't really picture where they are, they are friendless, penniless and entirely at the mercy of their masters and mistresses. Occasionally a servant of rich Arabs in London manages to escape. I recall a case a few years ago: a girl kept prisoner by a Saudi princess in a London house. She was frequently beaten, sexually abused, allowed only scraps and food left on plates others had already eaten off, without any privacy as she had no room and slept on the floor, no pay and with her passport locked in a safe. One day her (illegal) employer left a downstairs window unlocked and the girl escaped. She was seemingly very lucky - she couldn't talk English but knew the word 'police'. She stopped a passer-by after running to a busy street and was taken to a police station. When the police heard her story and took steps to investigate her employer had alreay left the country (if I remember correctly). The problem then became what was going to happen to this servant if she was sent back? I have never heard of any crackdown by the Home Office on rich Arabs flouting British laws with regard to bringing in servants even though when Jack Straw was Home Secretary he acknowleged the problem existed. I might add that occasionally Hindus in Britain are also found guilty of ill-treating imported servants.
Posted by at December 23, 2006
Posted by: moris2 at December 23, 2006 4:55 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)