FEDERAL JUDGE SIDES WITH "CAIR"
AGAINST PARENTS, STUDENTS,
IN FAVOR OF "ISLAMOPHOBIA" INITIATIVE
IN SAN DIEGO SCHOOLS
BY CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS
SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/federal-judge-sides-with-cair-against-parents-student-in-favor-of-islamophobia-initiative-in-san-diego-schools; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research purposes:
Once again, the “Islamophobia” canard is being wielded by CAIR as a means to attain special status to Muslims. This is being done in public school systems, but is as yet unrecognized by authorities for what it is.
A federal judge has sided with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and against students and parents in the San Diego school district in their fight against a program that provides special protections and considerations to Islam that are not provided to other religions….School officials voted in April 2017 to enter into a formal partnership with CAIR.
Over in Canada, CAIR’s sister organization, the National Council of Canadian Muslims (formerly CAIR-CAN), was doing the same thing. The Toronto District School Board created an Islamic Heritage Month guidebook with the help of the NCCM, to be used in its public schools. The Jewish organization B’nai Brith noted that the book promoted the “Islamophobia” narrative and defined “Islamophobia,” in part, as “fear, prejudice, hatred or dislike directed against Islam or Muslims, or towards Islamic politics or culture.” As B’nai Brith rightly said: “Fighting bigotry against Muslims can’t be pretext for tolerating human rights violations.” It is now common knowledge, or at least should be, that human rights violations (including FGM, honor killing, wife-beating, and the jihad murder of infidels) are religiously mandated and practiced in Sharia states, and are increasingly being imported into Western nations.
Even the judge admitted the school district’s plan was to “develop an anti-Islamophobia Initiative … to address Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bullying and the district’s decision in April 2017 to adopt implementing ‘action steps.’” The parents complained that the district was entangling itself with a religious organization to fight a “Muslim bullying crisis” that didn’t exist…
“Judge sides with CAIR against students, parents,” by Bob Unruh, World Net Daily, September 28, 2018:
A federal judge has sided with the Council on American-Islamic Relations and against students and parents in the San Diego school district in their fight against a program that provides special protections and considerations to Islam that are not provided to other religions.Judge Cynthia Bashant this week refused to grant a preliminary injunction against the district’s pro-Islam activities, citing a wide range of factors. She concluded such issues are “matters which the courts ought to entrust very largely to the experienced officials who superintend our nation’s public schools.”At issue is an agreement between the district and CAIR purportedly to combat bullying.The school district has modified its deal with CAIR, which has been designated by the United Arab Emirates as a terror organization. The U.S. government has confirmed that CAIR is a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates a worldwide Islamic caliphate with zero tolerance for other religions.The Anti-Defamation League has condemned CAIR as a Muslim Brotherhood front group that continues “to partner with various anti-Israel groups that seek to isolate and demonize the Jewish state.”Bashant earlier forbade references to those subjects in her courtroom as irrelevant.School officials voted in April 2017 to enter into a formal partnership with CAIR. Books were purchased and distributed.Then in the face of resistance from parents, the board modified its plan and established an “intercultural” committee, telling CAIR it still was a major partner in the work.The parents raised questions about the district’s violations, through its anti-bullying, anti-Islamophobia effort, of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and California state law. The plaintiffs pointed out there were almost no complaints of bullying of Muslim students. And there were many more complaints of bullying against other students, including Jewish students.The case still will go to trial on the issues, but the decision this week means there are not the restrictions on school advocacy that the parents had requested pending the trial.The judge claimed there was no evidence to support the parents’ contention the district gave Muslim students benefits not given to other students, despite the fact that the district doesn’t not have any “Christianophobia” or other outreach efforts.“The judge was going to rule against us no matter what,” said Dan Piedra, chief of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund, in an interview with the Investigative Project on Terrorism. “We are most likely going to appeal the decision to the ninth Circuit, and if we get a favorable panel, then we can get an injunction pending appeal. Her analysis about the Establishment Clause is clearly wrong.”Even the judge admitted the school district’s plan was to “develop an anti-Islamophobia Initiative … to address Islamophobia and anti-Muslim bullying and the district’s decision in April 2017 to adopt implementing ‘action steps.’”The parents complained that the district was entangling itself with a religious organization to fight a “Muslim bullying crisis” that didn’t exist…
