Racist Muslim Boss Has To Pay Abused Sikh Employee £18,000

Despite Muslims claims of being the victims all the time they are more racist and intolerant of all

Muslim boss who racially abused Sikh employee is told to pay him £18k

AN INDIAN Sikh who was degraded and racially abused by his Muslim boss and colleagues has been awarded £18,000 at an employment tribunal.

Paramjit Singh, a forecourt cleaner at a garage in Greenock, was called a “lazy low-caste Sikh” and forced to repeatedly carry out demeaning tasks.

He was also abused for having a white British wife, with one co-worker saying: “I don’t know how you can stay with a white woman. They’re not clean and they don’t know how to live.”

The 39-year-old, of Greenock, successfully sued firm PK Imperial Retail Ltd for unfair dismissal and racial and religious discrimination at a tribunal in Glasgow.

He was awarded £7162 for unfair dismissal and a further £11,108 in compensation under equality legislation.

Following the release of a judgment in the case, Mr Singh,who was represented by solicitor Brian McLaughlin, of Fox and Partners, said he was “very happy” with the outcome of the case. The tribunal heard the garage was bought over by PK Imperial in September 2011, with Sohaib Riaz, the nephew of the owner, taking over as manager.

Mr Riaz forced Mr Singh to collect stock from a cash-and-carry three or four times a week when he was not on duty. Mr Singh never received payment for this and when he complained, the manager told him: “You need your job don’t you? If you can’t go, you’ll lose your job.”

The manager forced him to scrape weeds from forecourt slabs using a screwdriver, giving the instruction for him to do it by pointing to the ground with his shoe.

The judgment said: “Once [Mr Singh] had finished Mr Riaz told him ‘you’ve not f***ing done that right, do it again’. He made [him] go over the forecourt again with the scraper a third time. His purpose was to violate [his] dignity and create a degrading and humiliating environment for him.”

The tribunal heard Mr Singh was regularly made to repeat tasks two or three times because he was an Indian Sikh married to a white woman.

Mr Riaz also regularly called him “daft” and complained to customers that he was lazy and was not doing a good job. The manager’s brother-in-law, Mubashir Hussain, also worked at the garage and also abused Mr Singh.

The judgment detailed one morning in June last year when Mr Hussain asked Mr Singh why he had opened a fresh carton of milk to make a cup of tea.

He told Mr Singh to use milk from another carton which was out of date, while he used the fresh milk.

Mr Hussain then said: “You look homeless. Did your wife throw you out? I don’t know how you can stay with a white woman. They’re not clean and they don’t know how to live. You look homeless.”

Mr Singh complained to Mr Riaz, but he simply laughed and said: “That’s my family member. You can’t do anything.”

On another occasion, Mr Hussain said to Mr Singh: “You’re doing jobs very slowly. You Indian people think you are f***ing hard workers. You are lazy people. Low-caste Sikh man.”

Employment judge Mary Kearns said Mr Singh’s dismissal was “an act of direct discrimination”.

She added that the treatment of Mr Singh “upset and humiliated” him and was “thoroughly offensive”.

Solicitor Stephen Smith, of the Glasgow Law Practice, who represented PK Imperial, said: “Our clients were surprised at these claims and are naturally disappointed at the outcome of the tribunal.

“They are currently considering their options in relation to any appeal.”

Muslim woman plays the victim and starts legal proceedings against interrogation at airport

A Muslim woman who was stopped and questioned at the airport under anti terrorism law has started legal proceedings claiming that her human rights were violated. The Muslim woman was prosecuted after she refused to cooperate with the police and wouldn’t  answer their questions regarding the reasons for her visit to France. Now she is playing the victim in the whole thing like Muslims so often do despite pleading guilty to the charge of wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.  

Sylvie Beghal claims that being asked questions without a lawyer present under Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8). Under Schedule 7 anti terrorism laws a lawyer would not of been able to advise his client during questioning anyway and she had a legal duty to answer. Ultimately it was the woman’s stubbornness being awkward refusing to answer that resulted in her arrest .Now she is acting hard done to and putting  the whole schedule 7 laws at risk challenging the legality of an essential weapon in fighting terrorism.

If a person had nothing to hide then why would they object to a few questions if it helped keep our nation safe from terrorist attack. The only people who have anything to gain from those laws getting scrapped would be the Muslim terrorists who hate this country so much they want to slay as many innocent men, women and children as possible.


Muslim woman in legal challenge to interrogation at airport

2:27pm Thursday 21st March 2013 in News

A Muslim woman is seeking a legal declaration that her human rights were violated when she was prosecuted after refusing to submit to an interrogation under anti-terrorism laws at an airport.

Mother-of-three Sylvie Beghal was stopped and questioned, even though she was not “suspected” of being a terrorist.

Police officers said they needed to speak to her regarding her “possible involvement” in acts of terrorism.

In what is believed to be the first legal challenge of its kind, Mrs Beghal’s lawyers argued this week at London’s High Court heard.that the entire process of stopping and questioning people “without reasonable suspicion” breaches the European Convention on Human Rights.

They said it was significant that Mrs Beghal had no right of access to a lawyer while being questioned and was being put under direct compulsion to provide information.

The court heard she indicated she would answer questions after the arrival of her lawyer, but the police chose not to wait.

When her lawyer arrived after her questioning had finished, the officers did not seek to ask her any more questions in the lawyer’s presence, three judges were told.

Mrs Beghal, a French national living in the UK, arrived back at East Midlands Airport with her children on January 4, 2011 following a visit to Paris but was not formally detained or arrested.

She was stopped at the UK Border Agency desk but refused to co-operate with questioning by Leicestershire police officers acting under powers given by schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (TACT).

Mrs Beghal asked to consult with a lawyer and for an opportunity to pray.

After being given time to pray, police officers told her she could telephone her lawyer after she was searched. The prosecution initially accused her of physically resisting the search.

At 9.30pm she was taken to a room for an examination under Schedule 7 and asked to provide reasons for her journey, where she stayed in Paris, whom she had met or visited and how her travel was funded.

She was also asked whether she had a criminal record and about her knowledge of the French-Algerian community in Leicestershire, her use of vehicles, the languages she spoke and her current and past employment.

She failed to provide answers to most of the questions, indicating she would only answer questions after her lawyer arrived.

She was subsequently charged with wilfully obstructing a search, assaulting a constable and wilfully failing to comply with her duty under Schedule 7 to answer questions.

The first two charges were eventually dismissed in December 2011 after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence and Mrs Beghal pleaded guilty to the third charge.

She did so after District Judge Temperley, sitting at Leicester Magistrates’ Court, refused her request to stay the charge as an abuse of process, and the case was referred to the High Court.

Ms Beghal’s counsel Matthew Ryder asked three senior judges – Lord Justice Gross, Mrs Justice Swift and Mr Justice Foskett – to rule Schedule 7 “incompatible” with the human rights convention.

Mr Ryder argued Schedule 7 violated the right to liberty (Article 5), right to a fair trial (Article 6) and Ms Beghal’s right to protection for her private and family life (Article 8).

Mr Ryder also argued the prosecution was an unjustifiable interference with Ms Beghal’s “right to free movement” within an EU country as an EU national.

Louis Malby, appearing for the Crown Prosecution Service, told the judges that Schedule 7 empowered officers to question a person entering or leaving the country if they “appear to be a person who is, or has been, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

Any person being questioned was under a legal duty to give the officer any information in his or her possession that was requested.

Arguing that Mrs Beghal’s rights had not been breached, Mr Malby said: “The ability to stop and examine passengers at ports is an essential tool in the protection of the public from terrorism.”

Mr Malby said Mrs Beghal was given an opportunity to consult with a solicitor in advance of questioning, and it was agreed that a telephone consultation took place.

But a solicitor would have had no purpose at the actual questioning, other than as an observer to ensure proper procedure, as Mrs Beghal was under a legal obligation to answer the questions put to her.

Reserving judgment, the judges said they would give their ruling at a future date.