|
CAIR – March 13, 2007
Imams file civil rights suit against US Airways
Muslim leaders says removal from flight was based on race, religion
WASHINGTON, D.C., March 13, 2007- The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that six imams, or Islamic religious leaders, removed from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis last November have filed a lawsuit against the airline and Minnesota's Metropolitan Airports Commission alleging that their civil rights were violated.
The lawsuit, filed in United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, claims US Airways' alleged discriminatory actions were based on the imams' "perceived race, religion, color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, and/or national origin." It goes on to state: "Because of Defendants' discriminatory acts, Plaintiffs were denied the right to make and enforce a contract, subjected to unlawful discrimination by a recipient of federal financial assistance, denied equal treatment in a place of public accommodation, and falsely arrested and detained by law enforcement officers."
CAIR said the imams' legal complaint, which cites federal statutes, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, also alleges: "Defendants, with the intent to cause harm to Plaintiffs' reputation, maliciously, recklessly and without regard to their privacy and integrity, defamed and made false reports against Plaintiffs to justify their illegal action."
In documents filed with the court by the Law Firm of Omar T. Mohammedi, the six imams refute many of the allegations repeated in the media about the incident.
For example, in response to claims the imams made political statements before boarding the plane, the complaint states: "At no time did Plaintiffs discuss politics or refer to Saddam Hussein or President Bush."
According to the complaint: "This civil rights lawsuit is brought to ensure that the promise of equal treatment embodied in federal and state anti-discrimination laws does not become a meaningless guarantee for persons perceived to be Muslim and/or Arab and/or Middle Eastern."
The imams are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, and a legal injunction to prevent future unlawful discrimination by US Airways.
"The decades-long movement to advance civil rights in this nation must not be sent into retreat because of post-9/11 fear and stereotyping," said CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad. "When anyone's rights are diminished, the rights of all Americans are threatened."
Orlando Sentinel Editorial – April 3, 2007
Safeguarding the public doesn't mean
barring people from courts
Security experts are correct that the nation's first line of defense against terrorism ought to be an alerted public. Hundreds of millions of citizens can detect suspicious behavior at airports, rail stations and other venues more readily than a fraction as many security workers.
But does the importance of promoting citizen-defenders also mean that when they wrongly accuse someone of plotting terrorism and violence and happen to defame or injure the person that the accused shouldn't be able to claim his civil rights were violated?
Congress appears in a mad dash to say yes. And mainly because of six Muslim men, who had the nerve to file suit not just against an airline and airport involved in their removal from an airplane last fall, but against passengers who complained about them.
Start allowing people like those Muslim men to file suit, many in Congress believe, and what citizen in her right mind will ever want to blow the whistle on someone threatening the public again?
Congress needs to take a deep breath. In the almost six years since 9-11, the courts have hardly backed up with cases of individuals accused of plotting terrorist activity suing private citizens for defamation of character.
And though we won't presume to pass judgment on the case of the six imams that has yet to be tried, it does raise questions about reporting suspicious behavior versus targeting people out of fear and prejudice. The men were returning home to Phoenix from Minneapolis. Did they pose a reasonable threat justifying their removal from their flight and later missing it because of lengthy questioning by authorities?
Some witnesses suggest the imams, who spoke in Arabic, conferred before boarding, prayed aloud, discussed Saddam Hussein and sat apart in the cabin. But who among us hasn't prayed before take-off? Last we checked, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. And so what if the men sat apart?
A court could address those questions, and step in in rare future cases -- but not if Congress seeks to protect the public while compromising its civil rights.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-ed03107apr03,0,5585388.story
|
|
