After a landlord rented out part of his house to a family, he was soon told that they were suing him in court, but the landlord’s nightmare was only beginning. Soon, he learned that the judge was forcing him to pay his tenants $12,000 for accidentally offending them with what he wore in his own home.
When John Alabi graciously opened his own home to an Arab Muslim couple, renting them the main floor of his house, he had no idea they’d repay his kindness by suing when he failed to meet their endless religious demands. In addition, he probably never thought that the Canadian courts would side with his entitled tenants, despite him having broken absolutely no law.
In an outrageous turn of events, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario has ordered Alabi to compensate Walid Madkour and his wife, Heba Ismail, $12,000 and take re-education classes for “offenses,” including denying their requests for more than the legally required 24-hour notice for inspections and failing to remove his shoes, in accordance with their religious beliefs, when showing the premises to potential renters.
According to the Toronto Sun, the couple asked Alabi if he’d give them an extra 1-hour notice before entering his Brampton property for inspections and showing the premises because they wanted to make sure Heba was covered head to toe. Although the court found that he always gave the required 24-hour heads up before entering the property, they condemned him for denying what was meant to be a request.
In addition, the court convicted Alabi of violating the couple’s human rights be failing to remove his shoes when entering the bedroom in which they allegedly prayed on the bare floor.
“There was absolutely no evidence that the applicants’ requests for additional notice and for the removal of shoes in this case were an attempt by them to impose their way of life on the respondent or anyone else,” ruled vice chair Jo-Anne Pickel. “(They) were merely making simple requests for the accommodation of their religious practices … their requests easily could have been met without any hardship to the respondent, let alone any undue hardship as that term is used in human rights law.”
Incredibly, Judge Pickel admits in her own words that she convicted a man for refusing to fulfill “requests,” not legal obligations. The fact that these were requests guarantees the accused the right to deny them, otherwise, they aren’t requests but irrefutable demands protected by legal duty. In fact, Pickel insinuates that Muslims can make unlimited “requests” and that their non-Muslim counterparts must meet them as long as she deems that the aren’t a “hardship.”
Alabi told the hearing that his shoes had never been an issue before and accused his tenants of trying to set up roadblocks to his renting their flat. He also accused them of trying to impose their way of life on him and said “the fact that someone belongs to a religion does not permit them to inconvenience others.”
Disturbingly, Alabi was found guilty after the Muslim couple accused him of “racism and violation of our civil rights” for entering the “premises without permission.” The accusations of racism came after the couple discovered that Alabi shared a “joke” on Facebook about a devout Muslim and once responded, “Welcome to Ontario, Canada,” when they complained about his unwillingness to meet their demands.
Alabi told the hearing that “he had freedom of speech and could post what he wanted on his Facebook page … He did not share the post to attack anyone. He said he shared it only because it made him laugh.”
As expected, the liberal judge didn’t believe that expressions which offend Muslims are included in free speech as she personally interpreted Alabi’s comment to “prove” he is racist. The court then chastised him on behalf of the Muslim couple, claiming that he “harassed them and created a poisoned housing environment,” according to Daily Caller.
“When considered together, I find that the comment ‘welcome to Ontario, Canada,’ the making of loud pounding noises outside the applicants’ door shortly after making that comment, and (Alabi)’s refusal to remove his shoes when entering (their) prayer space amounted to harassment under the Code.”
This case showcases the liberal bias toward Muslims in the court system. Although the court couldn’t convict Alabi of breaking any laws, they wielded their authority to sentence an innocent man for failing to appease his Muslim guests’ requests for which he never had a legal obligation to meet. Alabi is only guilty of refusing to submit to Islam and Sharia law, which the Canadian court inexcusably recognized and enforced.