 In a major victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech, the Texas Supreme Court has just denied a petition by the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas and six other Texas-based Islamic organizations to review their case against human rights activist (and FrontPage Magazine writer) Joe Kaufman. The case has already gone against the Islamic groups in the initial decision as well as on appeal, but they seem determined to silence Kaufman, and could conceivably try now to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit itself is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech that is picking up steam more quickly than ever now, with conservative voices shouted down and physically threatened on college campuses, and warriors for free speech such as the Dutch politician Geert Wilders facing trial for exercising this fundamental right. The Islamic groups’ suit against Kaufman is a cynical attempt to silence him and prevent his dissemination of truths about them that they would prefer unwary Infidels didn’t know – specifically, the terror ties of Islamic groups in the U.S. Ironically, however, none of the groups that sued Kaufman were actually mentioned in the article they claimed libeled them. Kaufman explains: “In October 2007, I had a lawsuit and a restraining order brought against me by seven Dallas-area Islamic organizations, who objected to an article that I had written for FrontPage.
Not one of the groups was mentioned in the article. It was concerning information I had personally discovered linking the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) to the financing of terrorism abroad. My allegations regarding this were and are backed up by irrefutable proof.” As frivolous as their charges against Kaufman manifestly were, their implications were ominous. Leftists and their Islamic supremacist allies, unable to refute the evidence and arguments their opponents present, are resorting to intimidation both legal and physical.
While Kaufman has been harassed in the courtroom for over two years now, conservative speakers at campuses all over the country routinely face the specter of being physically attacked simply for expressing views out of sync with politically correct dogma. Speaking at the University of Southern California on November 4, 2009, David Horowitz noted that this was a relatively recent development: “It used to be a pleasure for me to speak on a college campus like USC. I can remember the days when I could stroll onto the USC campus and walk over to the statue of Tommy Trojan where College Republicans had erected a platform for a rally to support our troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 at which I was to speak. Now, however, I can’t set foot on this campus – or any campus – without being accompanied by a personal bodyguard and a battalion of armed campus security police to protect me and my student hosts.” He said this while protected by a bodyguard and twelve armed campus security officers. Both of these forms of intimidation are being directed now at Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who produced the film Fitna, which shows how Islamic jihadists use violent passages of the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism. For this and other alleged acts of “hate speech,” Wilders goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, for charges including having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.” It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be brought to a standstill.
But of course what Dutch authorities and Muslim groups in the Netherlands really want to bring to a standstill by trying Wilders is his truth-telling about the nature of Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism – an honesty that has made his party one of the most popular in the Netherlands. The trial is an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics. Wilders delineates the implications of his trial: “On the 20th of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.” Even if he does prevail, however, Wilders is still not free. “I would not qualify myself as a free man,” he has explained. “Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate.” Will American defenders of the freedom of speech also soon have to be under permanent guard, and spending thousands of hours defending themselves in court from frivolous charges that are intended only to silence them? We have already started down that road.
Joe Kaufman has won another victory this week, but the Islamic supremacist machine in the United States has by no means given up its larger jihad against free speech and free thought. Those who are determined not to be silenced must settle in for a long, hard fight. FPM 
 PAKISTAN'S Supreme Court has thrown the government into further turmoil by overruling an amnesty protecting President Asif Ali Zardari, ministers and 8000 bureaucrats from prosecution. The decision effectively revives thousands of criminal and corruption charges against public officials quashed under the controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance, including a money-laundering case pending against Mr Zardari in Swiss courts. While Mr Zardari enjoys presidential immunity from prosecution, the judgment leaves at least 30 politicians, including close ally and Interior Minister Rehman Malik, Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar and thousands of bureaucrats vulnerable to jail terms. However, the Supreme Court's late-night ruling is expected to pave the way for a legal challenge to Mr Zardari's eligibility to contest last year's presidential elections and his constitutional immunity. That view was backed by former chief justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqqi, who said the constitution did not protect a president from cases brought in foreign countries. Pressure on the unpopular President is now mounting, with opposition parties calling for him to step down within minutes of the verdict. Mr Zardari's chief spokesman, Farhatullah Babar, said yesterday: "There is no question of the President resigning". The party was prepared to "face any fallout" from the verdict, he added. A 17-member bench of the Supreme Court found the controversial NRO introduced by former president Pervez Musharraf in 2007 was unconstitutional. "(The) promulgation of the NRO seems to be against the national interest . . . thus it violates various provisions of the constitution," Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry said. The petition to overrule the NRO has thrown up hugely damaging evidence against the President, including claims he amassed assets worth $US1.5 billion during his slain wife Benazir Bhutto's time as prime minister. Documents provided by the National Accountability Bureau to the Supreme Court alleged Mr Zardari was facing charges of amassing assets beyond his means, including six cases of kickbacks and misuse of power, when General Musharraf introduced the NRO in October 2007. A bureau official said about $US60m received in alleged illegal commissions had been deposited in Swiss bank accounts held by Mr Zardari and Bhutto. The court has ordered the government to ask the Swiss courts immediately to revive their action against Mr Zardari and reinstate the Pakistan government as a damaged party in the case. But the judgment was scathing of the bureau's officials, accusing them of a lack of impartiality and calling for their replacement. It ordered a special cell of the Supreme Court to monitor all resumed corruption and criminal cases. Mr Zardari earned himself the unflattering moniker "Mr 10 Per Cent" during his wife's time in power, because of his rumoured demands for kickbacks, and spent 11 years in jail while facing trial on corruption and murder charges. He was released on bail in 2004. The NRO amnesty, which covered 3478 cases ranging from murder, embezzlement and write-offs of bank loans worth millions of dollars, was part of a deal brokered by the US and Britain that allowed Bhutto to return from exile and seal a power-sharing deal with the military ruler. She was assassinated two months later, leaving Mr Zardari to lead her Pakistan People's Party to victory in national polls in February last year. Meanwhile, the government is also under pressure from the US to expand its campaign to target Afghan Taliban leaders believed to be harbouring within its territory. The New York Times reported yesterday that Pakistani military and intelligence services appeared to be retaliating with a harassment campaign against US diplomats, refusing to extend or approve visas for more than 100 officials. One diplomat said the harassment campaign had led to the forced suspension of several US aid programs. The Australian
 FOUR men accused of planning a terrorist attack on the Holsworthy army base have today been ordered to stand trial.
In a surprise move, defence lawyers for the four men have opted to go straight to trial rather than having a preliminary committal hearing to test the evidence.
The four men - Abdirahman Mohamud Ahmed, Saney Edow Aweys, Wissam Mahmoud Fattal Yacub Khayre - all pleaded not guilty this morning and were remanded to appear before the Supreme Court..
Another man, Nayef El Sayed, did not enter a plea today and is likely to face a committal hearing next May.
more to come
 Dear Free Speech Supporter, Radical Muslims are using our court system to try to silence those who expose their terrorist connections. They've done it in Europe and Canada - and now they're trying it here in America. In the case of investigative reporter Joe Kaufman, they're not giving up - even though their case is completely bogus. After two years of defending Joe, we are now facing yet another challenge. I'm writing to you as a member of the Freedom Center to ask you to help pay for Joe's defense. Seven Muslim groups claim that Joe is a threat. They convinced a court that Joe "intends to threaten to take unlawful action...cause bodily injury...or threaten Plaintiffs or their members with immediate bodily injury." On those grounds the court imposed a restraining order on him. And they sued Joe for defamation to stop him from writing about Muslims in the future and to close down his websites. Joe reports and writes for my website FrontPage Magazine and for his own websites. He has never threatened a Muslim in his life. But he has exposed facts they want to hide. The reason Joe Kaufman is being targeted by these Muslim groups is that he monitors web sites run by Muslim charitable organizations, and he has identified money trails leading from some of these groups to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. We have been defending Joe from this lawsuit since 2007 - thanks to the financial support we've received from our members. And we thought we'd won when in June the Texas Court of Appeals finally threw out the lawsuit, ruling that the case had no merit to continue. But our victory celebration didn't last long. The Islamic groups involved have petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the case! Why do they keep this absurd case going? For one reason: If they can defeat Joe Kaufman in court, radical Muslims will know they can stop anyone from investigating and writing about any Muslim groups and individuals. This is a case of national importance. Radical Muslims are watching it carefully. They have seemingly unlimited funds to keep fighting as long as they have a hope. We need to keep fighting back. We cannot let these groups succeed. This is why I am urgently asking you to help the Freedom Center pay for the legal bills incurred in Joe's defense and to cover this latest development. Joe Kaufman has no money to spend on his defense. He has made a career of investigative journalism focusing on terrorism - something the mainstream media doesn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole, and therefore not a high-paying profession. He needs our help. A victory by the Islamist groups would be the first step in silencing all of us. This is a free speech issue and nothing more: Joe has not lied about, threatened, or touched any of the Muslims who are suing him, or any other Muslims for that matter. He simply reported the truth, and for that these groups are doing their best to silence him - and to intimidate the rest of us. The lawsuit against Joe Kaufman is part of a strategy by these radical Muslim groups to bully us into silence. That's why we cannot let them win. I am asking you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more if you can, to help us raise the $25,000 we need right away to pay for Joe Kaufman's defense. Any amount you can send will help. Just click here to give. It's urgent! Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely, David Horowitz President & Founder P.S. Our lawyers believe we have a strong case, but the outcome of this case is by no means predictable. Too many judges have shown themselves to care more about not offending Muslims than about free speech. We must raise the money to fight this case to the end! Please help us fight back. Source: David Horowitz FREEDOM CENTERJoe Kaufman
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 The United States holds a unique advantage in the fight against radical Islam: buttressed by the First Amendment, Americans' freedom to speak and write about the Islamist threat is unmatched anywhere in the Western world. However, such protections can suffer at the hands of judges who seek to mold the Constitution according to their own personal preferences. With Sonia Sotomayor nearing confirmation to the Supreme Court, there is no better time to explore which judicial approaches are most likely to weaken First Amendment rights. Three qualities in particular should set off alarm bells for those concerned about free speech: • Advocacy of the "living Constitution" model. When judges are "amending the Constitution and other laws as the judges see fit," a straightforward statement such as "Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" can become disturbingly pliable. If legal reasoning could be found to restrict political speech (e.g., McCain-Feingold), could not the same fate befall other types of speech?
• Citation of foreign law. This increasingly popular trend on the Supreme Court should put fear in the heart of anyone intent on protecting anti-Islamist speech, as practically every Western country has hate speech laws on the books, many of which have been employed against critics of Islamism. Just ask Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Oriana Fallaci, Geert Wilders, and a host of others.
• Fixation on group identity. Those who see the group, not the individual, as the central building block of society are more likely to curtail individual rights for the purpose of mollifying certain racial, ethnic, gender, or religious groups. Such thinking undergirds European-style hate speech laws. Unfortunately, all three of the above qualities are reflected, to some extent, in Sotomayor's past remarks. A sampling: "Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts … constantly overhauling the law," she wrote in 1996, effectively offering a thumbs-up to legislating from the bench — where, as she once put it, "policy is made." Furthermore, she asserted recently that "foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system"; she also has cited foreign cases in her decisions. Finally, her musings on the virtues of the "wise Latina woman" and the possibility that gender and ethnicity "will make a difference in our judging" do not bode well on the identity politics front. Read more ...Source: Islamist Watch
 Saudi Arabia and four of its princes are immune from 9/11-related civil litigation after Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision not to take up an appeal of a lower court decision that ruled against 9/11 families. The move keeps intact a ruling by New York's 2nd District Court of Appeals dismissing the lawsuits. In a statement, attorneys for the family of the FBI's former New York Executive Agent in Charge John O'Neill, who died at the World Trade Center, expressed disappointment at the ruling: "We note, however, that there are still cases pending in the lower courts against other sovereign nations unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling.
We note, too, that there are still cases pending against other defendants seeking to hold them accountable for their actions in assisting Al Qaeda." Earlier Monday, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported on a government report which found a Saudi-financed charity, the Saudi High Commission, helped supply weapons to the Somali warlord responsible for killing 18 U.S. soldiers in the 1993 Black Hawk Down battle. Read more ...Source: IPT Blog
 THE HAGUE
The Supreme Court yesterday produced an important ruling in principle in favour of freedom of speech. The highest court of the Netherlands acquitted a man of insulting Muslims although he dubbed Islam a tumour.
The Supreme Court quashed a ruling by an appeal court in Den Bosch. As had a district court earlier, the appeal court did find the man guilty. Yesterday's acquittal can have consequences for all future court cases on insulting followers of a faith or ideology, including the notorious case against MP Geert Wilders.
According to the country's highest court, people expressing themselves offensively about a religion are not automatically guilty of insulting its followers, even if the followers feel insulted. "The statement must unmistakeably refer to a certain group of people who differentiate themselves from others by their religion," ruled the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man who in November 2004 stuck a poster in his window with the text: 'Stop the tumour that is called Islam'.
While people may not insult believers, they can insult their religion, according to the Supreme Court. "The sole circumstance of offensive statements about a religion also insulting its followers is not sufficient to speak of insulting a group of people due to their religion."
The appeal court in Den Bosch had ruled that "in view of the bonds between Islam and its believers," as well as being unnecessarily offensive to Islam the poster was also offensive for those who practise Islam. But "the appeal court thereby gave too wide an interpretation of the expression 'a group of people according to their religion', as it occurs in Article 137c."
The case was about Article 137c of the Criminal Code, which makes offensive statements about a group of people an offence. It was not about incitement to hatred or discrimination, the Supreme Court stressed.
Party for Freedom (PVV) leader Wilders, meanwhile internationally known for his struggle against Islam, will be tried for insulting Muslims as a group. The court that will handle his case will have to take yesterday's Supreme Court ruling into account.
Originally, the Public Prosecutor's Office (OM) did not want to prosecute the MP, because it did not consider any of his statements a punishable offence. But in January, an appeal court in Amsterdam ordered the OM to change its mind.
As well as for insulting Muslims, Wilders will also be on trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination against Muslims. When the Wilders case will come to court is not yet known. Source: NISNews H/T: JihadWatch
 MADRID (AFP)--Spain's Supreme Court Tuesday acquitted on appeal 14 of the 20 men who were sentenced jail in February for belonging to an Islamic terrorist group suspected of planning to blow up a courthouse.
The National Audience, Spain's top antiterrorism court, had sentenced the 14 to prison terms from seven to 11 years for membership in an al-Qaida-inspired cell.
The Supreme Court also reduced the sentence of another man from nine to two years. It acquitted him of belonging to a terrorist cell but upheld a conviction for document forgery.
The court confirmed all the convictions against five others, including Abderrahman Tahiri, also known as Mohammed Achraf, who was found to have tried to obtain explosives to blow up a court with a massive truck bomb.
Tahri, considered to be the cell leader, received the stiffest sentence of 14 years behind bars.
The men were arrested in 2004, several months after the Madrid train bombings of March 11 that killed 191 people and which were claimed in the name of al- Qaida by an Islamic cell.
Prosecutors charged the men during their trial with planning an attack either on the National Audience, the Supreme Court, a Madrid metro station or the headquarters of Spain's opposition Popular Party. Source: AFP
 Sami Al-Arian could be back in a federal courtroom within weeks to face criminal contempt charges after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take up his appeal that claimed federal prosecutors have violated a 2006 plea agreement. The court announced without comment Monday that it would not hear the case. It is listed among dozens which the court chose not to consider. Al-Arian was to stand trial in August on two contempt charges stemming from his refusal to testify before a northern Virginia federal grand jury investigating terror financing. Al-Arian insists that he doesn't have to testify because his 2006 guilty plea did not include a provision for him to cooperate with law enforcement. That argument has been rejected by appellate courts in the 4th and 11th circuits. Monday's Supreme Court action was the second time it refused to hear an appeal related to the case. When attorneys filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema decided to delay the contempt trial until the appeal is resolved. A new trial date should be set soon. Read more ...Source: IPT News
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
In a major victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech, the Texas Supreme Court has just denied a petition by the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas and six other Texas-based Islamic organizations to review their case against human rights activist (and FrontPage Magazine writer) Joe Kaufman.
Posts
