Supreme Court Reviews Muslim Inmate's Allegations of Harassment in Prison
Monday, October 29, 2007
WASHINGTON — A Muslim inmate says prisoners around the country are regularly mistreated by their jailers because of religious faith. The Supreme Court is considering his case Monday.
The issue in the inmate's lawsuit is whether he can sue prison officials for allegedly confiscating two copies of his Quran and his prayer rug.
Abdus-Shahid M.S. Ali, a convicted murderer, says the books and rug are among the personal items that have been missing since 2003, when he was moved from a federal penitentiary in Atlanta to a facility at Inez, Ky.
[..]
Ali is serving a sentence of 20 years to life in prison for committing first-degree murder in the District of Columbia.
Somehow they, and their do-gooder supporters, seem to forget that the reason they're in prison in the first place is because they deprived someone else of their rights. In this case, the piece of shit whinging this time is there for murder. OK - so I use the term "piece of shit" because he is a Muslim more than anything because I wouldn't mind betting that when he committed the murder, he probably felt justified in doing it. Note that this is first-degree murder.
Screw the rights of the victim is the impression I get here.
Muslim inmates have been subjected to "very hard times and bad treatment" at the hands of federal, state and local prison employees because of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Ali says in court papers.
So, is he saying that non-Muslim inmates have it easy in prison? Considering the definitive class society that exists in prison, I would suggest that life is tough all round for everyone in prison as far as it goes with treatment from other convicts. With all the "human rights" that inmates are granted - many of which are NOT available to the homeless or even the average joe in society as repayment for breaking the law - the treatment from the Watchers would be the least of ones worries.
It seems as though "the many prison employees think that they can hurt you best taking your personally owned property," Ali wrote.
Ali added that because he has "practiced his faith to the fullest" he has been subjected to prison officials repeatedly confiscating and destroying his legal and religious property.
He said he has been harassed for his religious beliefs "year after year" in both the District of Columbia Department of Corrections and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
Ali says the items he turned over to prison officers in Atlanta for shipment never arrived at Inez.
In the Supreme Court, the question is whether federal prison officials qualify as law enforcement officers and are therefore exempt from suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946. The statute bars liability claims against law enforcement officers involved in detaining property. Two lower federal courts ruled against Ali.
Besides the two copies of the Quran and the prayer rug, Ali is missing stamps and other personal items worth $177 that he says weren't sent along to Big Sandy penitentiary in Kentucky.
Let me think about this for just a second.
It is truly a bad thing to judge someone on the colour of their skin, hair, looks and race, because, quite honestly, how someone looks doesn't dictate the kind of person they are and how they will behave. It is commonplace here to suggest that if someone is from New Zealand or is of aboriginal descent then there are 3 things that you cannot give them: A fat lip, a black eye, and a job. This is actually incorrect as I know quite a few people from both groups that have much higher personal standards than a lot of white trash that live in this country.
Where the difference comes in is the beliefs that a person may have.
If a group of people read Mein Kampf and believe in the ideals contained therein, then that makes their behaviour a constant. Similarly, if a group of people of various races read a text glorifying the practices of a war-mongering paedophile who decries death and destruction to non-believers, and the reader declares that they're a firm believer in that text - does that not dictate that they are someone to be wary of, regardless of the fact of whether they wear a sheet on their head or not?
So - a people not of this "religion" who believe in plurality and acceptance are attacked and 3000+ like-minded (ie: accepting) people are killed simply because they don't adhere to the 'prophetic' teachings of the hateful misogynist, I think it is exceedingly easy to comprehend why the book that reaffirms this hate might be thrown into a furnace and a blanket that facilitates the prayer might be used for the dogs to lay upon at night.
The solution is has many simple and easy-to-follow steps:
- Don't plan and carry out a murder and then claim hardship when caught.
- Don't openly follow a "religion" that preaches hate towards the people in the country in which you live.
- Don't openly follow a "religion" whose proponents dance in the street when cowardly attacks kill 3000+ people in an attack in that country in which you live.
- Secure those "Human Rights" in the countries that is predominantly that "religion" and then you can whinge and complain about minor inconveniences in the country in which you reside (and commit crime).
In other words: I'll gladly burn your knee rag and your book of hate while your double standards continue to drive the cowardly, French-like do-gooders into dictating how I live in my country!
No comments:
Post a Comment