THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume X, Issue # 98, April 14, 2008
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
WELCOME TO "LAWFARE" -- A NEW TYPE OF JIHAD
By Brooke M. Goldstein
THE ISLAMIST MOVEMENT & STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP): THE "LEGAL"
JIHAD ISLAMISTS ARE WAGING AGAINST AMERICA & THE WEST -- ISLAMIST ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUAL ISLAMISTS
FILING LITIGATION TO INTIMIDATE, DEMORALIZE, & SILENCE CRITICS OF ISLAM & ISLAMISM -- FILING FRIVOLOUS &
MALICIOUS LAWSUITS IN ORDER TO ABOLISH PUBLIC DISCOURSE CRITICAL OF ISLAM AS WELL AS TO ESTABLISH
PRINCIPLES OF STRICT ISLAMIC LAW (SHARIA LAW) AS THE POLITICAL & LEGAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY IN THE WEST --
THE ISLAMIST ASSAULT AGAINST WESTERN CULTURE, CONSTITUTIONALISM, & THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZEN TO
PARTICIPATE IN CIVIC AFFAIRS & SPEAK FREELY ABOUT PUBLIC ISSUES
FULL STORY:
The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful -- which can operate apart, but often reinforce each
other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in
Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.
Islamists with financial means have launched a "legal Jihad," filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of
abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law
dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.
Islamist lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to
intimidate, demoralize, and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace
harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.
Forum shopping, whereby plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave
of "libel tourism." At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy,
Switzerland, and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work.
Libel tourism has also resulted in foreign judgments against American authors mandating the regulation of their speech
and behavior. The litany of American anti-Islamist researchers, authors, activists, publishers, congressman, newspapers,
television news stations, think tanks, NGOs, reporters, student journals, and others targeted for censorship is long and
merits brief mentioning here.
One of the earliest cases in the U.S.A. dates back to 1937, where, in Birmington, Alabama, an Arab Sheik sued the
Birmington Post for libel over an article entitled "Arabian Sheik Asks Friend Here to Buy Him an American Girl for
Harem." The Post reported that Sheik Fareed Iman, "who is 29 years old and fears he may reach 30 before he
obtains a chief-wife for his four-wife harem, is ready to purchase a suitable girl from her parents." The lucky girl, the
article continued, "will benefit from the traditional Arabian protective treatment of women, but she can't be seen by those
who are not members of the household."
The article read more like a parody of a personal ad in the dating section of a magazine and listed a telephone number,
should anyone reading be interested. Nevertheless, the Alabama Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the suit and judged
the article libelous per se, or defamatory on its face, and remanded it for jury trial, where, eventually, the plaintiff lost for
his failure to state a cause of action.
Within the last ten years, however, we have seen a steady increase in cases pursued by Islamic organizations and Muslim
individuals attempting to use Western courts to stop the flow of certain information. They are achieving a degree of
success in Europe because the judicial systems in England, France, and elsewhere don't afford their citizens, or American
citizens for that matter, the same free speech protections granted in America under the U.S. Constitution. The cumulative
effect of the suits abroad, and of the suits here at home even if they are not successful, and the looming threat of future
suits is creating a detrimental chilling effect on dialogue concerning important matters of public concern because,
naturally, people want to avoid costly litigation.
I want to mention briefly a few cases that have occurred here within the last ten years against American anti-Islamist
authors and activists. It is imperative that our judicial system continue to enforce the authors' and activists' rights to free
speech and free assembly against all parties attempting to stifle them here and abroad.
In 1998, America Online (AOL) permitted chat rooms in which voluntary participants could post comments and talk
to one another about issues involving the Koran and the tenets of Islam. One Muslim visitor to the chat room
named Saad Noah considered posts by other visitors blasphemous and defamatory against Islam. Noah then sued AOL for
libel, attempting a class action on behalf of all Muslim chat room participants and claiming that AOL wrongfully refused to
prevent participants from posting anti-Islamic comments. The court properly dismissed the case against AOL, for failure to
state a cause of action.
In 2003 the Council on American-Islamic Relations (i.e., CAIR) sued U.S. Congressman Cass Ballenger after an interview
with the Congressman was published in the Charlotte Observer, wherein Ballenger exclaimed how living in
Washington across the street from CAIR headquarters no longer appealed to him because CAIR was, "a fundraising arm
for Hezbollah," and that the Congressman had reported such to the FBI and the CIA. Fortunately, the judge ruled that
Ballenger's statements were made in the scope of his public duties and were therefore protected speech in the interest of
public concern.
The following year, CAIR sued Andrew Whitehead, an American activist and blogger, for $1.3 million for maintaining the
website Anti-CAIR.net.org, on which Whitehead lists CAIR as an Islamist organization with ties to terrorist groups.
Ironically, after CAIR refused Whitehead's discovery requests, seemingly afraid of what internal documents the legal
process it had initiated would reveal, CAIR withdrew its claims against Whitehead, the two parties came to a settlement –
the terms of which have not been publicly disclosed – and the case was dismissed by the court with prejudice.
Whitehead's Anti-CAIR website, however, is still up and running along with the articles that were at issue.
Last year, When Joe Kaufman, an American activist and Chairman of Americans Against Hate, traveled to Texas to lead
a peaceful ten-person protest against the Islamic Circle of North America outside an event the group was sponsoring at
a Six Flags theme park, he was served with a temporary restraining order and sued for defamation and harassment. What
is particularly troubling about Kaufman's case is that the suit was filed against him, not by ICNA, but by seven Dallas
area plaintiffs who had never previously been mentioned by Kaufman, nor had they been present at the theme park. This
suit currently is being litigated.
Another case that is ongoing is that of Bruce Tefft. Tefft is a former CIA official and worked as a counterterrorism
consultant for the NYPD. After sending out emails to a voluntary list of police officer recipients, in which he cut and
pasted articles about terrorism – complemented with Tefft's own commentary – Tefft, along with the NYPD, was sued by
a Muslim John Doe Police Officer alleging workplace harassment.
Often, the mere threat of suit is enough to intimidate publishers into silence, regardless of the merit of their author's works.
In 2007, when wealthy Saudi Arabian businessman, Khalid bin Mahfouz, threatened to sue Cambridge University Press
for publishing the book Alms for Jihad, by American authors Robert Collins and J Millard Burr, Cambridge Press
immediately capitulated, offered a public apology to Mahfouz, took the book out of print, and ordered the destruction of
all unsold copies and the removal of the book from the shelves of libraries – a directive certain libraries refused to follow.
Sometimes defendants targeted are able to take advantage of Anti-SLAPP statutes.
Anti-SLAPP statutes have been enacted in several, but not all, states and are aimed at preventing such lawsuits designed
to hinder legitimate public participation.
In the book Hamas, author Matthew Levitt describes KinderUSA as a charitable front for terror financing. When
Levitt, along with Yale Press who published his book, were sued by KinderUSA, he instituted a counter-claim against the
plaintiff based on California's Anti-SLAPP statute. Shortly afterwards, KinderUSA dropped their lawsuit, claiming it found
the suit too costly to pursue.
Most disturbing, parties sued for reporting on U.S. government investigations into terrorist activities, or for formally
appealing to government authorities to conduct investigations, include the New York Times, which, in 2001,
reported on the U.S. government investigation of the Global Relief Foundation; the Wall Street Journal which, in
2002, reported on the monitoring of the Saudi bank accounts; and ADL, which, in 2002, called for the investigation of a
public school superintendent, Khadja Ghafur, based on indications that schools under his supervision were teaching
religion.
Legal Jihad is gaining momentum with a ripple effect, and we must expect that Islamists will engage in future legal efforts
along these lines. Indeed, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC)
have both stated publicly that they are considering filing defamation lawsuits against their critics. The Muslim World
League has called for the establishment of a commission to take legal action against those who abuse Islam and its
prophet Mohammed. During the recent two-day summit in Dakar, taking legal action against those who defame Islam was
a key issue debated at length by Muslim leaders.
For its part, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has announced an ambitious fundraising goal of $1 million, in part
to "defend against defamatory attacks on Muslims and Islam." One of its staffers, Rabiah Ahmed, has stated that lawsuits
are increasingly an ‘instrument' for it to use." Moreover, CAIR's Chairman, Parvez Ahmed, has stated that "People who
make statements connecting CAIR to terrorism should understand the legal consequences of their attempted slander and
defamation."
This is not a Left or Right issue.
The Islamist lawfare challenge presents a direct and real threat to our constitutional rights and national security. Left
unabated, this phenomenon has the potential to seriously hinder public debate on the threat of radical Islam. The United
States was founded on the premise of freedom of worship, but also on the principle that one should have the freedom to
criticize religion.
Should the voices of concerned Americans be intimidated into silence, a real possibility exists that the criticism of radical
Islam will be stifled, and Sharia law will begin to creep into our system, as we are seeing it do in the financial markets with
Sharia banking.
Daniel Pipes, who founded and heads the Middle East Forum, recognized the seriousness of this threat and last spring
established the Legal Project (LP) to counter it. The LP has been working to recruit and establish a network of attorneys
who are willing to work as pro bono counsel for the defendants in these cases; it has also embarked on fundraising efforts
to assist with the cost of litigation and is working to raise public awareness of this phenomenon. Moreover, the LP is
capable of positioning itself on the offensive and has recently succeeded in causing The Muslim Weekly
publication, a UK-based lslamist magazine, to issue an apology and retraction of an article in which one Tariq Ramadan
made false and defamatory statements about Dr. Pipes.
Those parties who recklessly and wrongfully defame our counterterrorism researchers should beware.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Lawfare -- The Use of Law as a Weapon in War & Politics:
Islamist Lawfare & the "Legal" Jihad Against America & the West
Political Correctness, Censorship, Thought Control:
Supression of Unacceptable Views & Opinions
The Fifth Column -- America's Internal Enemies:
Disloyalty, Subversion, Sedition, & Treason
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
International Politics & World Disorder:
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
Counterterrorism & U.S. National Security
U.S. National Security Strategy
Family Security Matters Contributing Editor Brooke Goldstein, a practicing attorney, is the Director of The Legal
Project at the Middle East Forum, Director of the Children's Rights Institute, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute,
and the 2007 recipient of the E. Nathaniel Gates Award for Outstanding Public Advocacy.
The foregoing article by Brooke Goldstein was originally published in Family Security Matters, April 14, 2008, and
can be found on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to
define and promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam,
working for Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote
constitutional democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly
asserting U.S. interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(Article URL: http://www.meforum.org/article/1884)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
April 14, 2008
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume X, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity