…. I asked James what he thought a righteous religion-based grievance might be. He wrote, “It is difficult to know other than to say that they are getting broader and more absurd all the time. In light of this decision, what landlord wants to open themselves to this kind of debacle for failing to navigate someone’s personal belief system?”
Most sobering is the fact that the defendant must hire a private lawyer, whose costs — thousands of dollars per day, according to James — are not recovered even if he wins. Minimally, James reckons, Alabi is out $22,000. On the other hand, win or lose, the cost to the complainants is nothing but their time before the tribunal.
I now sympathize with neither party. Instead of going nuclear with the HRTO, basic mediation would have revealed that compromise could have been reached through a smidgen of mutual courtesy. It wouldn’t have killed Ismail to wear modest garb indoors the whole afternoon. It wouldn’t have killed Alabi to remove his shoes. It wouldn’t have killed Madkour to assign specificity to their prayer time.
[TOP RATED COMMENT 116 votes] It is obvious that the ‘victims’ were out to make trouble. I feel for the landlord. You can be sure that he’ll be much more particular in future when selecting tenants. The HRC is an abomination. The decision is just plain wrong.
[2ND 67] This isn’t tenants going nuclear, it’s Muslims employing lawfare to force people around them to capitulate to their way of life. Lawfare–it’s in the Koran. Everyone would do well to read it.
[3RD 56 ] I don’t blame the landlords. I’ve had to put up with Muslim tenants blaring their ugly religious music at 5AM, all throughout the day, and they try to bait you into doing something discriminatory so they can try to sue you for it after. It’s like the purpose of the religion is just to piss off everyone else. [National Post] Read more