Subscribe to the Glazov Gang’s YouTube Channel.
In this new Jamie Glazov Moment, Jamie focuses on Canada – Sharia Fine For Not Removing Shoes Where Muslims Prayed, unveiling how strict adherence to Sharia has arrived in Canada.
Don’t miss it!
Please donate through our Pay Pal account to help The Glazov Gang keep going. Thank you!
Jerry says
This goes to show, the west is perfectly willing to employ medieval thinking to please muslims. This is a rude awakening to atheists like me who thought this could never happen in the western world. This is the kind of retarded sh*t western culture went through 500 years ago, where people were punished or murdered for the deluded fantasies of some religious cult.
This case was supposed to be a human rights decision—my a$$. The adjudicating body knew nothing about human rights. This was purely a case of islamic supremacy over the secular rights of non-muslim society. The absurdity of this is that the floor has been afforded more dignity than the people involved. A true human rights body considers the rights of all people fairly, it doesn’t place the ineffable and intangible claims of the religious above the secular rights of others. What was it about that lease agreement that automatically renders muslims’ religious beliefs as superior to John’s right to not act religious? Most of us spend at least some time on the property of others–at work, in public, at the homes of others–must we all bow to the religious sensitivities of everyone else wherever we go? What if my boss is a Satanist? Must I bow to Satan when I walk through the front door at work or be fired and fined? These muslims were only leasing, should they have had to cross themselves for Jesus in the presence of that floor’s owner?
This religious sh*t has to end, it’s making fools of us all.
This case did nothing good for human rights. It’s about islamic supremacy and how the left is helping them do it. It’s about moral cowardliness in the face of islam’s fascist threat against humanity. It’s about the left’s complicity in the destruction of our human rights and laws to appease violent islam. And they do this for their own political gain and power over us all. They pretend to care about human rights, but in truth, they care only for themselves and how they stand to profit. That’s why they are willing to return to the Middle Ages, because intellectual and spiritual chaos is where their bigotry and lust for power are most likely to succeed.
This “human rights” tribunal should be dismantled, or they will destroy our human rights. I have nothing but contempt for such stupid c*nts,
mortimer says
Jerry, Muslims hate atheists more than they hate Jews and Christians and Hindus. Wakey-wakey.
Jerry says
Mortimer, this ain’t about me or my atheism, so kiss off with your “wakey wakey.” Don’t talk down to me, I could be smarter than you. This is about John’s–and our–secular rights and how this tribunal made a bigoted decision in favor of islam. My own beliefs are not the point here, it shouldn’t matter if I’m a martian with zebra stripes. My argument is wiser and more valid than that tribunal who pretended to care about human rights. That’s what’s important, that’s the issue. They were wrong and they should pay.
Jerry says
I have to say this again, that human rights tribunal should be sued. There must be some organization out there with the financial chutzpah willing to take them on. It doesn’t matter if that tribunal is called a “human rights” organization, they should be judged by their actions not their name. I could call myself a “Holy saint of God,” but if I act like an ignorant pig then that’s what I am. This adjudicating body acted bigoted and ignorant and should be no less liable for their actions than anyone else. These muslims were not religiously hindered because John wore his shoes, he would have been in that bedroom with or without his shoes, anyway.
In the crudest terms, this tribunal has placed a greater value on religious superstition than our right to proper attire in a secular society. Remember, this wasn’t a case of literally dirtying that carpet, this was all based on those muslims’ claim spiritual offense, a subjective, supernatural claim that is neither provable or quantifiable. I think it’s good that we preserve the right of religious people to live and explore their supernatural delusions, but preserving should not mean “enforcing.” I have a right, as does John, to not acquiesce or bow to the religious fantasies of others. By keeping his shoes on John was doing just that, he was preserving his right to not submit to the muslim religion. If there had been a tangible stain on that floor then sending John a cleaning bill would be fair. But fining John hugely for wearing his shoes during work is a stain on the reputation of the adjudicating body. They have failed in their mission to be impartial in defense of human rights. They instead have embraced supernaturalism as the superior basis for deciding matters of religious difference.
Islamic supremacy, here we come.
Jerry says
Any fair minded person can see that it’s JOHN’S human rights that have been violated here. He’s the one who has been unjustly shamed and financially punished for purely religious reasons. It’s a clear and obvious case of religious bigotry imposed by a body that is supposed to be the epitome of human fairness. Bizarre. That floor will be just fine and so will the muslims that imbued that floor with a false sense of sanctity. It’s John who has been dragged through the mud. The tribunal that made such a foul and hurtful decision should be sued, and I ain’t joking. Ya can’t put a price on human rights, but I’m thinking $billions. Go for it John. God is calling you to do the right thing. Which god? The god I just made up.
Brit says
Not that it makes much difference. I am just curious. Did he refuse to remove his shoes or did he just not know, not care or forget?
Jerry says
I don’t recall, I read the decision, and I don’t think it expressly said why he didn’t remove his shoes, only that he hadn’t. But it shouldn’t matter. Maybe he forgot, or maybe he’s ashamed of his feet, or as someone else noted, maybe he had stinky socks. Or maybe he just doesn’t feel the need to perform an act of obeisance to the muslim god. Everyone knows that muslims have a foot fetish for allah, it’s a religious observance to them. John was perfectly right in not removing his shoes, whatever the reason was. At worst, one could say it’s inconsiderate to not remove ones shoes, and one could maybe say, “You owe me a cleaning bill because of your dirty shoes,” but it’s religious supremacy to fine them 12k because of some intangible, unprovable claim of spiritual offense. Gods are a dime a dozen. Imagine the can of worms this opens. Every where we go now I guess we’re required to make humiliating concessions for the religious delusions of others. That’s where this is headed, right back to 1000A.D., burning “heretics” and hanging “witches.” Only this time it’s going to be cutting off heads and raping the kafir. But in the end, it’s all the same, religious mania masquerading as divine truth.
I’m going to buy a koran and poop all over it. And I do it in support of human rights. Any muslims got a problem with that? Then suck my shoes.
Dan says
Look right now, Islam is THE problem we have to fight.
So please put a sock in your holier than though Atheist rhetoric cause last I saw EVERY SINGLE COMMUNIST COUNTRY, all officially ATHEISTS as the “State Religion,” butchered hundreds of millions of people, even their own, and that was just in the hundred years it’s been around.
Considering it’s short stint in this world, Atheism has some very, very, very bloody hands.
Jerry says
“So please put a sock in your holier than though Atheist rhetoric…”
Listen you, I only spoke historical fact. Go soak yur head if you can’t handle the truth about Christianity’s past. Stop acting like a jihadist for Jesus. I only slightly alluded to Europe’s past. You act like I called Jesus a Jewish terrorist who committed crimes against the Roman state. Oops, did I let that slip?
Stay focused on the issue. Don’t let your own religious hypersensitivity cause you to lose sight of the larger issue. Take some deep breaths, you’ll be fine. 🙂
kv says
islam is a wicked and evil political ideology very cleverly disguised as a religion. as for the human rights commission of ontario, i believe romans 1:22 applies. my opinion.
Andy says
The Death of Canada. Prepare Yourself Accordingly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAZLRwyRJUA&t=404s
Ned kelly says
Muslims are praying in the streets in many countries, so should we now not be able to wear shoes as we cross the rd.?
somehistory says
According to John, the man who was fined, he had been wearing a certain pair of shoes inside the house before this, to make repairs, etc. with a rubber covering over the soles. He says on this particular day, he was told to take them off, so he took off the rubber covering and they still objected.
They hadn’t objected before to his wearing of shoes, so it appears that this was setup from the get go.
But if things continue, it may come to them demanding everyone take off their shoes if there has been *preying* in the street or wherever.
somehistory says
The inhumane commission, supporting the moslums in their quest for world dominance for the evils of ilsum, have shown that they don’t appreciate the rights of John…and by extension all others…Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists, who might rent to moslums, or have interactions with moslums.
John had his reasons for not taking off his shoes. Had he not expressed his religion, the issue, the case, would have been the same. But, Christians are taught not to bow to other ‘gods.’ The God of Christians requires exclusive devotion. If this was his reason not to remove his shoes, and the commission ruled against him, then they are enforcing one religious belief over the religious rights of another.
If John didn’t remove his shoes for any other reason, the commission is enforcing islum’s dictates over ALL others. If he had a hole in his socks, if the carpet appeared dirtier than his shoes, if he thought there might be human waste on the floor…whatever the reason he didn’t wish to remove his shoes…he is now being forced to support the false god of islum by paying a huge fine.
The property belonged to John. Landlords have rights as spelled out in their lease with tenants. This commission…mislabeled as human rights…has overruled those landlord rights in this decision to fine John.
What many leases say is that the landlord has the legal right to enter the residence to show it to potential buyers or renters, to make inspections, to make repairs and usually the only requirement is to give a certain number of hours or days notice.
With this unfair, stupid, ungodly, unholy, *ruling* that will all change. Anyone who rents space to a moslum will be accused of *offending* them and will be subject to fines.
The wild beast from satan has much power. The power over the ability and freedom to “buy and sell.” (Revelation 13)
Bill McKenzie says
Islam vs Christianity:
I have studied both for many years and have come to my own conclusions that I have not even found by other who have done the same thing. I have found Islam to be Satanic at its very core from my own Christian perspective.
For example. According to Islam, the Black Stone was once white but turned black due to sin, and was a star that fell to the Garden of Eden” and found by Ishmael to become the cornerstone of the Kaaba Christianity refers metaphoically to Satan as a “fallen star” that was “cast out of heaven” and “fell like lightning” and in Revelation it is revealed that Satan is “that old serpent” from the garden of Eden. So its easy to deduce, from a Christian perspective, that while the cornerstone of Christianity is Jesus, the cornerstone of Islam is Satan.
Furthermore, I have read articles stating that Allah was an ancient “moon god” but had very few details to support the claim. My own investigation reveals that the “false prophet” in Revelations had “unclean spirits like frogs” coming out of his mouth. The only other reference to “frogs” in the Bible are with regards to the “frog gods” of Egypt before the Exodus. I discovered that according to Islamic History, Ishmael and his mother Hagar settled in “Dier El Hagar” in Egypt (the city of Hagar) which was also the center for the worship of “Thoth” – a lunar deity worshiped as the creator god who “sang” the frog gods into existence. Furthermore Thoth was the god of handwriting and the pen. The Quran says: “Read! In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists), … “Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous, Who has taught (the writing) by the pen Has taught man that which he knew not.” (Quran 96). Another symbol for Thoth was the Ibis bird more commonly known as a Crane. That also is illustrated by the “Satanic Verses” which state “Have you seen al-Lat and al-‘Uzza and Manat, the third, the other? these are the high-flying cranes and their intercession is to be hoped for.”
Jesus harshest criticism was for those who seek to impose religious law as a means of obtaining righteousness. He referred to them as “snakes” and “sons of hell”. He said it was like washing the outside of the pot or whitewashing a tomb, as both leave the filth inside – thus our need for a Redeemer, a Savior.
What many people fail to realize, and its one of the reasons Islam is growing so fast is because it does contain many “good” teachings, ie don’t steal, don’t fornicate, feed the hungry etc. The bottom line is, no counterfeit would fool anyone if did not contain elements of the truth. Islam takes many of its teachings straight from the Bible. Islam is like a glass of pure water, that someone crapped in. It has many good teachings, but all the crap that is mixed in makes it detestable.
When Christians take things like a “no shoe policy” inside ones own house, which millions of non-Muslims all over the world, it makes Christians look like blithering idiots to any rational person. I see that not may rational people post here.
Bill McKenzie says
Islam even makes this claim:
Narrated AbuSa’id al-Khudri: I heard that the people asked the Prophet of Allah (peace_be_upon_him): Water is brought for you from the well of Buda’ah. It is a well in which dead dogs, menstrual clothes and excrement of people are thrown. The Messenger of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) replied: Verily water is pure and is not defiled by anything.
http://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=1&translator=3&start=0&number=0067#0067
gravenimage says
Bill McKenzie wrote:
Islam vs Christianity…
What many people fail to realize, and its one of the reasons Islam is growing so fast is because it does contain many “good” teachings, ie don’t steal, don’t fornicate, feed the hungry etc. The bottom line is, no counterfeit would fool anyone if did not contain elements of the truth.
……….,………………….
Bill, Muslims are only enjoined not to steal *from other Muslims*. Did you know that there is an entire Sura of the Qur’an entitled “Booty”? The “Prophet” Muhammed himself raided caravans, kidnapped for ransom, and took slaves. Robbery is fine as long as the victims are Infidels.
Re fornication, you must realize that while Islam enjoins stoning rape victims to death–since they have “admitted Zina”–it allows Muslims to “marry” girls as young as nine, to marry up to four women, and to rape as many Infidels in Jihad and take as many sex slaves as possible, all while remaining “chaste”.
As for feeding the hungry, there is *very little* of this in Islam. Most charities in the Muslim world are run by Infidels–Christians, Jews, and secularists. Whenever there is a disaster in the Muslim world, it is not Muslims who rush to their aid.
As for it being impossible for Islam to grow if it didn’t contain many “good” teachings, recall that the grounds where Islam has been most successful in the West are in prison among violent felons, where new converts have most of their violent pathologies confirmed by the vicious creed of Islam.
Bill McKenzie says
I have already posted my opinion and answered rebuttals in another article here a JW. In response to this video I will say that this video will serve to support the verdict of the Judge in this case. The video fails to mention that this was a man that had a “no shoes” policy in his house. Millions of non-Muslims in Asia, including Christians in the Philippines and Buddhists in Asia also have no shoes policies in their own homes, This is about a mans home being his castle, having house rules, and a person calling himself a Christian and claiming that its his right to go into another persons home and ignore, repeatedly, a no shoes policy. Anyone who thinks removing their shoes to enter someone else’s home is an act of “worship” is an idiot imo. If there was any question, (and believe the landlord was just being an ass), could have said, “OK, I will remove my shoes but know that I reject your god”.
Jerry says
This is about a mans home being his castle, having house rules, and a person calling himself a Christian and claiming that its his right to go into another persons home and ignore, repeatedly, a no shoes policy.
Well if that’s true, then can Christians or Jews take action against muslims for not doing the same in their domain? Can they also go to some kangaroo court and exact revenge on muslims that don’t cross themselves for Jesus or recite the Torah? Can a Christian store owner create a “kneel for Jesus” policy and then discriminate against muslims when they don’t kneel? Can a Wiccan demand a muslim kiss the athame in respect? Why not, it’s their “castle,” they own the store. If it’s good enough for muslims then the rest can do it too.
Anyone who thinks removing their shoes to enter someone else’s home is an act of “worship” is an idiot imo.
Your sarcastic opinion is not even in line with the prevailing facts of the case, you’re just farting out of your mouth. The accusation was that his shoes were an affront to the muslim form of worship which includes removing ones shoes. It’s an act of worship because the accusing muslims and kangaroo court deemed it so.
If there was any question, (and believe the landlord was just being an ass), could have said, “OK, I will remove my shoes but know that I reject your god”.
Well, if you think it’s perfectly fine for the landlord to verbally reject the muslim god in a muslim home then why would you see his failure to remove his shoes as any worse? You just said it’s perfectly fine for him to declare his dislike or disapproval with words, but his shoes are a humanitarian crime and an affront to their religion? You sound confused, Bill, like someone who doesn’t know their a$$ from their elbow.
I’ve come the realization, Bill, that people like you are not up for the task. Perhaps you’re lonely and come in here for companionship, or maybe you’re sincere but simply too dumb to know better. But whatever the reason, I hope you’re a fast learner cuz your intellect is going to get old real fast.
somehistory says
Well said, Jerry.
In his opinion, I’m one of the idiots, as I view removing shoes under these conditions an act of worship. And he accused me of misquoting him.
He said he would “sue the pants off” someone if they disrespected his wife by walking with shoes against her no shoes rule. After actually writing it twice, he denied it.
He claims that she is Buddhist and also Christian and the no-shoe rule is buddhism and not worship of any ‘god’, but that if someone disobeys her rule, it is a sin against God. And the offender must ask forgiveness for walking on his floors with shoes on.
I agree with you that he has some things to hide.
On the other hand, you have made some very good arguments against this insane decision of the commission. Thanks for that.
Bill McKenzie says
Yes you do twist my words and misrepresent what I said. The scenario involved a man who sinned against my wife repeatedly and was ‘unrepentant’. You then attempted to try to tell me that ‘repentance was only towards God. When I showed you Jesus words REPEATEDLY state that those who sin against us need to repent TO US before being forgiven, and that Christ Himself set the example for us, that there is no forgiveness without repentance, you went off on another tangent.
Now again, you seem to be saying that when a brother sins against me, a Christian, that he has not also sinned against God, (which is what I said) – it is written “By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ” – and again, I suggest you actually read the New Testament before mouthing off against that which you are ignorant.
Bill McKenzie says
Here is another one I did not reference before, Jesus said:
“Therefore if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.”
I’m sure I could find more.
somehistory says
Copied from the other article on this news report
********************
Bill McKenzie says
July 5, 2017 at 3:42 am
If someone came in my home and dis’ed my wife that way, I would not stop at the fine, I’d sue the assholes pants off, which is my right.
Bill McKenzie says
July 5, 2017 at 3:42 am
If someone came in my home and dis’ed my wife that way, I would not stop at the fine, I’d sue the assholes pants off, which is my right.
**********************************************
Now, for the final time, suer, I will have no more discourse with you.
Bill McKenzie says
FYI “sue the pants off” is a common English idiom meaning “take the last penny” like Jesus said in the case of someone who sins against you and refused to repent. Sorry if you don’t like the teachings of Jesus, but I am a Christian. Christians bring law suits all the time to defend their rights, otherwise, we would not have the rights that we do.
gravenimage says
Wait–Bill would take someone’s last penny if they were not repentant about entering his house without taking their shoes off? Doesn’t sound all that Christian to me.
gravenimage says
Bill has already said that he would sue anyone who dared enter his house wearing shoes for the acute distress it would inflict on his wife–no matter if it was the owner of the house, or–one assumes–an EMT or firefighter.
Funny that he has never expressed any hint that he considers the invasion of violent Muslims and their increasing imposition of Shari’ah law a source of distress. *Very* telling.
Jerry says
Funny that he has never expressed any hint that he considers the invasion of violent Muslims and their increasing imposition of Shari’ah law a source of distress. *Very* telling.
Yeah, it’s puzzling, ain’t it? he doesn’t seem at all concerned about the humanitarian crimes of sharia or terrorists for allah, but shoes are a humanitarian crime! I think we got ourselves an islamic snake that’s too colorful to hide. lol
gravenimage says
+1
Bill McKenzie says
I gave an example of an exception to my wife’s “no shoes in the house policy” – that the one entering has “a gun and a warrant” – now implying that I would refuse emergency workers is just another idiotic argument.
With regards to taking off your shoes before coming into my house being “sharia law”, as I stated before, – there are also Islamic laws regarding wiping your ass after taking a crap and then washing your hands – if you think that such acts in and off themselves represent worshiping Allah, then I suggest you do neither going forward.
Jerry says
I think everyone is tired of you already, Bill. Your style of debate is feeble and your intellect ain’t up for the challenge. In short, you just aren’t worth the trouble.
Phil Copson says
For clarity, it would have helped if the account didn’t contradict itself – at 1.19 and 2.56, Glazov says the offence was NOT wearing shoes.
Wearing or not wearing shoes isn’t the point; this is all about “Jihad by Court” and the eagerness of the tribunal to impose Sharia Law, and any excuse would have done.
It is, of course, absolute cobblers anyway – I have been round a mosque in Luton, England, and the muslims taking me round the premises had no problem with shoes while I walked across their carpets, the subject was never even mentioned.
Jerry says
“For all of you that are listening and watching, I’m not seeking…I’m…don’t pity me. I’m a person just like yourself. And one way or another we run into troubles in life, life is full of trouble… and I’m not saying these things out of looking for any pity or anything from anybody. All I’m saying is, this is not acceptable. This is not acceptable.” John Alibi, Landlord
That landlord sounds like a real nice guy, someone you’d like to have as a friend. And he’s humble too, and has a good attitude. We know who’s really wrong in this issue and it ain’t dear John. I hope this turns around for him and he gets the apology and money he deserves for this humiliating injustice.
Thanks go to Kevin J Johnston for this video and the good work he does in defense of freedom. Kevin runs Freedomreport.ca
https://youtu.be/75WwhHMgZ1c
somehistory says
I hope so too.
somehistory says
Thank you for the link. Very interesting report. Everyone who cares about justice should watch it.
somehistory says
After watching the video, link provided by Jerry,
I have to say, this was a *set-up* by the moslums.
First the internet, then the heat, then the noise of washing hands, and the *harassment* of shoveling snow…all to make life difficult for John.
Since the guys who run the board for disputes between landlords and tenants ruled in John’s favor, the issue should have been a closed one.
Making demands of time to prepare, time to pray…and then saying John made no accommodations, shows what liars these moslums are.
Ms pickle should feel herself in one. And the moslums should be *legally* made to pay for John’s troubles.
Jerry says
You make good sense. You understand it completely, it’s an injustice that needs to be corrected.
somehistory says
Thanks, Jerry. Hopefully with the help John is getting, it will be.
UNCLE VLADDI says
So prove he dirtied their rug and if he did, just charge him for the stream-cleaning. The courts were criminally negligent to take this case (and should be charged for it with same) and the muslims who brought it should have been thrown out on their ears.
Any and all judges and legislators who put subjective “hurt feelings” before objective FACTS should be fired and JAILED.