July 10, 2017

Time To Fight the Sharia Fine!

Faith GoldyArchive

Recently, we were introduced to John Alabi, a 52 year old Ontario man, who is being issued a sharia ticket for $12,000 by this province’s Human Rights Tribunal. 

Some background: John is a Christian who came to Canada 22 years ago from Nigeria. Since then, he’s followed Canadian laws and worked hard; he carries not one but two jobs today, just to ensure his family is cared for.

John’s a man with the sort of story every Canadian should be proud of.

But instead, he’s being labelled a human rights violator.

John is now being ordered to pay an Arab Muslim couple, his former tenants, a whopping $12K for a failure to accommodate their religion — all because John didn’t remove his shoes when showing the bedroom where this couple prayed to potential new occupants.

So, The Rebel started a crowdfunding mission at HelpJohn.ca to get John Alabi the money he needed to pay the jizya. But we heard from Rebel supporters who said they wanted to help John — but not in this way.

Our supporters wanted to help John fight, not give in.

And so, we went back to John with your feedback.

As many of you know, John has not had it easy. For two years, John has been racking up legal fees and spent an inordinate amount of time combatting the case filed by Walid Madkour and his wife Heba Ismail.

His difficulties were compounded when he lost his young son during the proceedings.

But now, John says he's ready to get back in the ring against Ontario's Human Rights Tribunal, under one condition: We help him pay his legal fees.

The total cost of his legal fees which include the Request for Reconsideration, Divisional Court and Appeals will be $8000+HST ($9040).

So now it's time we live up to our promise. If you want to be a part of this important fight to appeal a dangerous Sharia precedent from being set in Canada, please contribute at HelpJohn.ca!

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2017-07-14 21:02:25 -0400
M-103 and the HRC..trudeau’s 2017 liberals are in conjunction with each other….The dots are connected.
commented 2017-07-11 10:49:20 -0400
Connect the dots
No religion allowed in public schools (lords prayer removed) except for the death cult.
Negotiate with terrorists, apologize and pay them 10.5 million that we know of.
The Canadian Imam misspoke talked about killing all non muslims. No charges filled.
Kangaroo court to rip off hard working Canadians money, for stepping in a property he owns through hard work.
Put people out of business because of nuisance law suits that are totally free for them to file.
Huge legal fees to be paid by Canadians sued, but totally free for them to ruin your life ,income, business.
Must be them white privilege white racist Canadians I keep hearing about.
commented 2017-07-11 01:31:11 -0400
Janice Kay the law only applies to one religion , quit making it sound like it is for anyone other than that one religion , and criticizing it is not a crime.
commented 2017-07-10 21:24:06 -0400
Janice Kay is probably a liberal dementia wing nut that wants to charge someone on the Rebel Media…Heads up Rebel People..
commented 2017-07-10 21:06:15 -0400
I have read nowhere that John entered the suite when the husband was not home Janice. Could you post a link?
From what I have read and listened to from John’s mouth, he respected that and all the other demands. You couldn’t come up with the video you said existed, showing him in the suite, can you come up with substantive proof he entered the suite when the husband was absent. I do not believe it happened. Prove me wrong.
John had been renting since the late 90’s, never had problems previously and I am sure was and is well aware of landlord obligations and the rights of the tenant.
The police were called for a snow shovelling incident which is explained in the Kevin J. Johnston video as well as Faith’s original one I believe. I am not aware of the police being called for anything else, again can you substantiate or are these just your suppositions or msm spin perhaps?
commented 2017-07-10 20:36:04 -0400
Janice Kay..(Jimmy) be careful on what you vote/hope for..It really does hurt when it bites you in the ass.
commented 2017-07-10 20:04:50 -0400
Rob Greeley, as if burned bodies and severed body parts have anything to do with an Ontario law that prevents discrimination against a citizen’s religious rights!
commented 2017-07-10 19:22:02 -0400
Janice Kay..What do you know about big boy pants?? Have you seen burnt body’s?.. severed body parts??
commented 2017-07-10 19:11:03 -0400
Janice Kay…" The sooner he understands that the better" says it all about your passive aggressive horseshit..
commented 2017-07-10 18:48:11 -0400
Liza Rosie, I agree with you. I don’t think he discriminated against his tenants because he took off the galoshes he wore over the slippers. I’m saying that according to the HRC, he discriminated. If you read the articles on this case, it mentions that the husband didn’t want his wife being in the suite by herself when John brought prospective tenants in. She was upset called her husband about it and he called the police. I think that the fact that John was able to enter the suite legally when the husband wasn’t there, caused a great deal of stress for the couple. And I think that that more than the shoe problem was the real reason for their stress. That’s a cultural, not a religious problem. I think the case was flawed.
commented 2017-07-10 18:41:18 -0400
Rob Greeley, I’m not in favour of Sharia. I think the way the HRC operates stinks. What I’m saying is that if you want to be a landlord, you should make yourself aware of what laws are in place that will affect you. That is all I’m saying. How else can one protect oneself against what happened to John?
I also think it stinks that people are supposed to somehow know what the religious requirements they need to adhere to are for Muslim tenants. And if they screw up and make a mistake, they’re ruined!!
commented 2017-07-10 18:41:15 -0400
“he has no rights under the law when it comes to religious discrimination against a tenant” .
This was not religious discrimination against a tenant, that is horse shit. Is that polite enough for you? We should not be expected to accommodate this sort of sharia demand. That is the whole point of this exercise Janice. We want, at the very least, the Superior court to overturn this kangaroo court ruling. This is not an acceptable precedent ‘most’ Canadians can live with. You may be willing to but I and many others are not, and that is why we have contributed to John’s legal fees. We do not recognise rulings in favour of Sharia compliance. So no ‘re education’ will be necessary or accepted.

An example of Sharia compliance push back.
commented 2017-07-10 18:26:31 -0400
Janice Kay… Speak politely?? Your’e joking right? People are getting their heads sawed off and your’e lecturing me about big boy pants.
commented 2017-07-10 18:16:56 -0400
So Janice you are a sharia law supporter..enough said. No more words. Bu.. bye.. “The sooner he understands that the better” What goes around comes around…..
commented 2017-07-10 18:11:15 -0400
Rob Greeley, I am in favour of John taking a course (or whatever he needs to do) to find out what his requirements as a landlord are under the law. The fact that he didn’t understand the law has caused him a lot of expense. As a landlord, he has no rights under the law when it comes to religious discrimination against a tenant. The sooner he understands that the better.

BTW, what’s with the profanity? Can’t you just put your big boy pants on and speak politely?
commented 2017-07-10 17:57:58 -0400
Janice Kay..With all due respect…FUCK YOU!! You want to force a Human Being to take a fucking course on whether he should take off his fucking shoes!!! Maybe John has a fucking bad case of ATHLETES FOOT!! Where is his right’s? Maybe his feet stink to high heaven!! And he is embarrassed about the stench!!!!! $12,000.00 dollars for wearing shoes in the Apartment that he owns with no mud..no gunk..natda on them!! Go to a bank and see if you can get a loan for some common sense..This is Canada..John is renting a place for People to live in. Where does it say in Canadian Law he has to be forced to rent for People to worship in
commented 2017-07-10 17:32:30 -0400
Liza Rosie, When I said re-education, I mean that John should find out what his responsibilities as a landlord are according to the HRC. If he’d been aware of what his rights and the tenants’ rights actually were, he’d most likely have taken off his shoes. I think that the HRC is requiring him to take some kind of course like this in addition to paying a fine.
commented 2017-07-10 14:02:23 -0400
Since 9/11 – IN THE NAME OF ISLAM (SATAN): 33,666 Attacks, 217,244 Killed, 298,470 Injured that we know of
commented 2017-07-10 13:13:03 -0400
Re education? Over my dead body, because I will not submit.
Re education! what an insult.
commented 2017-07-10 13:09:48 -0400
Janice are you saying that you think the Sharia fine is acceptable? Do you think people should be ‘re-educated’ to know what is halal and what is haram, you know, so that they don’t re offend or offend in the first place? Maybe there should be warning tickets given out for first time offenders of Islam before the ignorant kafir are punished with any severity. This ‘law’ you mention that you say John does not understand, is twisted and stretched to suit Islam. None of this is what Canadians were led to believe as the purpose of such human right ‘courts’. This is what happens with broad wide open policy, it gets filled in with all sorts of evil. (Just wait until the crap hits the fan with Bill 103).

We can’t allow any of this accommodation or sharia law will be normalized. If I wanted to live under sharia law I would move to an Islamic country. What right have liberal apologists or immigrants to change our way of life in order to accommodate their laws and barbaric customs. Islam needs to be exposed for the political system it is so that this ‘religious’ cloak they hide under is out of their reach. Islam needs a special category all its own. A pure religion it is not, so it should not be allowed exceptions or accommodations under our laws, let alone the preferential treatment it now receives.

“He’s an ordinary person who made mistake. I do think that a small fine and re-education is appropriate.” says Janice.

I say no ‘mistake’ was made in the Canada I want to retain. It wasn’t a mistake 5 years ago why would it be a mistake now?
commented 2017-07-10 11:15:17 -0400
Michael Minnis, All you’ve done here is ask a question, then hurl an insult. What’s the reason you think it’s not appropriate? John Alabi is a working man, an immigrant himself who obviously doesn’t understand the law. One of the people doling out justice to him is on the Sunshine List. John Alabi is not a rich man who owns a few high rises and can afford a fine of $12000.00. He’s an ordinary person who made mistake. I do think that a small fine and re-education is appropriate.
commented 2017-07-10 10:56:25 -0400
Janice Kay- So you think a little re-education and a smaller 500$ fine is more appropriate? Give your head a shake you idiot…
commented 2017-07-10 06:32:35 -0400
Hi Rebel!
Time to Expose this Muslim Bull Shit for What it Really Is PURE BULL SHIT, Noting More, Nothing Less. Paying Fines Like This Amounts to Saying Its OK to Kissing Ass to the Ontario Human Rights Board
I’ll GO to JAIL B 4 Paying that Fine The Message to Other Muslims is that ITS OK to Sue because You Didn’t Kiss Ass to Islam
commented 2017-07-09 20:47:42 -0400
I agree Rob, it is a kangaroo court and should be abolished back to the stone age where it belongs.
commented 2017-07-09 20:45:00 -0400
Got it Janice. At about 14:52 John starts explaining that part, and that they didn’t start the ‘shoe’ complaint until later on when they needed it by the sounds of it.
As far as the video showing John in shoes and refusing to remove them after being asked is concerned, I have my doubts about its existence or at least the ‘spin’ the msm has put on this.
It is a good interview with John, by Kevin J. Johnston. John gets a chance to explain his side and you can get a sense of the person, and he does not come off as inconsiderate landlord. I think he is being pulled through the ringer for compliance to Islamic practices.

Do this couple think no one has ever walked in that room with shoes on? They have prayer mats they can put down and roll up that can remain uncontaminated. It is a totally unreasonable complaint and punishment. I hope it goes to the Supreme Court and is overturned as this is the sort of precedence I do not wish to be set in Canada, which last time I checked is still NOT an Islamic country.
commented 2017-07-09 20:42:18 -0400
Janice and Liza..the kangaroo court is a fixed court. The complainant is guaranteed to win. They don’t look at fact’s..they don’t listen to the witnesses for the defendant..Got it..they all pretend and go through the motions like all moderate and extremist liberal Goofballs do. It is a disgusting vile organization..payed for by you and I. It’s just another form of trudeau liberal Goofball dementia.
commented 2017-07-09 20:33:07 -0400
Liza Rosie, John mentions wearing covers over his ‘slippers’ in the Freedom Report video. However, the HRC determined that these slippers were shoes, and the plaintiffs must have photographed him wearing them and most likely filed a complaint saying they were shoes.
commented 2017-07-09 20:16:46 -0400
okay looking now, thanks.
commented 2017-07-09 20:16:16 -0400
I am looking for where I heard him say he wore covers. If I find it I will post it. If he didn’t and walked into the ‘prayer’ room with shoes on it still isn’t, in my opinion a $12,000 mistake. Not wearing shoes in a prayer area is Sharia compliance. This is Sharia law. I am trying to think of a parallel offense to a Christian and I can’t come up with one. These sorts of claims only seem to apply to a certain group, and I don’t see how they can expect compliance of an Islamic law by non Islamic people.

I would like to see that video though.