 by Daniel Greenfield The thirteen US soldiers murdered at Fort Hood were killed by the bullets fired by Malik Nidal Hassan, but there were those who helped Nassan fire his bullets, who did everything but hold his gun and pull the trigger for him.
The initial FBI review has found that the Justice Department guidelines for opening a criminal investigation were too high, in turn investigators have said that it now requires a very high standard of evidence in order to convict a terrorist plotter. Pursuing charges before all the evidence is in hand can backfire – suspects have sued authorities before, claiming they were falsely imprisoned victims of witch hunts… Five Muslim immigrants were convicted last year of conspiring to kill U.S. soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey, but they were acquitted of attempted murder after prosecutors acknowledged they were probably months away from acting.
... In January 2006, agents watched as a young man suspected of links to terrorists walked out of an Atlanta Home Depot with materials that could be used to make a bomb. They knew Syed Haris Ahmed had researched bombmaking techniques online and shaved his head, as some jihadis have done before an attack. However, they decided to wait to arrest him and keep building a stronger case – and risk a potential terror attack. Not being able to stop a terrorist before he strikes. Not being able to remove Muslims who are engaging in threatening behavior on a plane. Not able to take action against a terrorist plot for fear that the terrorists will be allowed to walk free. That is what the domestic version of the War on Terror looks like today. Those are the wages of Lawfare, the legal campaign on behalf of terrorists waged by well known liberal legal advocacy groups such as the ACLU, and the much wider base of liberal organizations and newspapers who lobbied on behalf of captured terrorists and republished every single one of their claims of torture… to the extent that the Al Queda manual made it a default for captured terrorists to cry abuse once on trial. Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard and driver, who was captured together with Al Queda operatives, became a cause celebre for liberals and liberal groups from Amnesty International to People for the American Way to the American Jewish Committee to George Clooney who was interested in making a movie about him and starring as his lawyer.
They turned Salim Hamdan into a martyr and breathlessly repeated every single one of his statements. And they won. They won with Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. And they won again at trial. Hamdan was freed a few months after sentencing to return to Yemen. The liberal establishment had fought its hardest for Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard… and they won. America lost. That wasn’t the only time they won.
From day one every terrorist in Gitmo, every terrorist plotter seized on American soil plotting to murder Americans had the liberal establishment in their corner and fighting on their behalf.
From trial lawyers queuing up to defend them to the editorial pages of every liberal newspaper in America clamoring that they had been victimized, that the charges against them were worthless and that America had besmirched itself by not bowing to the wishes of the aforementioned trial lawyers. And they won. From Abu Ghraib to Gitmo, from Hamdan to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, they won. They successfully smeared US soldiers and interrogators and CIA agents as monsters, torturers and kidnappers.
They successfully portrayed Al Queda terrorists as sensitive victims and martyrs of a latter day Gulag. The same press that wouldn’t report on any of Castro’s atrocities a few miles south of Guantanamo Bay if you put a gun to their heads, put on their novelist hats and transformed butchers into loving fathers, and dedicated fanatics into misunderstood patriots. And they won. More at CFP 
 Texas upholds free speech rights of an internet journalist while an Islamist group loses its appeal. Should we all move to Texas?By Richard Thompson On July 16, 2009, seven Texas-area Islamic organizations lost an appeal of the unanimous ruling of the Texas Second Court of Appeals at Forth Worth, which protected the free speech rights of internet journalists and at the same time dealt a blow to the legal jihad being waged by radical Muslim groups throughout the United States. The Islamic groups asked for a reconsideration of the appellate court’s recent decision through what is known as an en banc opinion (appeal to the whole court, not just a panel of the court). The Court ruling, in a per curiam (in the name of the whole court) two page opinion, upheld the dismissal of the libel lawsuit filed against internet reporter Joe Kaufman by the seven Islamic organizations. The lawsuit against Kaufman was funded by the Muslim Legal Fund for America. The head of that organization, Khalil Meek, admitted on a Muslim talk radio show that lawsuits were being filed against Kaufman and others to set an example. Indeed, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic of filing meritless lawsuits to silence any public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats. Read more ... Source: FSMKhalil Meek
Muslim Legal Fund for America
Latest recipients of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
Court wades into brewing battle over rights of Internet journalists July 04 | By Drew Zahn When Internet journalist Joe Kaufman wrote an article exposing terrorist connections in two American Muslim groups, he was sued by a swarm of Islamic organizations, none of which he had mentioned in his online article. The technique is called by some "legal jihad" or "Islamist lawfare," and the Thomas More Law Center, which is representing Kaufman in the lawsuit, claims Muslim advocates are using the strategy to bully online journalists into silence. "The lawsuit against Kaufman was funded by the Muslim Legal Fund for America. The head of that organization, Khalil Meek, admitted on a Muslim radio show that lawsuits were being filed against Kaufman and others to set an example," claims a Thomas More statement on the case. "Indeed, for the last several years, Muslim groups in the U.S. have engaged in the tactic of filing meritless lawsuits to silence any public discussion of Islamic terrorist threats." The organizations suing Kaufman also sought to legally deny him certain legal protections granted to traditional journalists, claiming that as an Internet writer, his right to seek a quick and inexpensive dismissal of the case didn't apply. The case set up a battle, not only between Islamic advocates and those that would question their political connections, but also between organizations that fly low under the mass media's radar, enjoying little public scrutiny, and the burgeoning field of Internet journalism that often investigates places the mainstream media ignores. In an unanimous decision from a three-judge panel of the Texas Second Court of Appeals, however, not only did the court rule that the Muslim organizations had no basis for claiming defamation – since Kaufman didn't name or point to them in his article – but the judges also declared that online journalists do merit the same status and legal protections that their more traditional media peers enjoy. Though the case against Kaufman is therefore dismissed for now, the Law Center reports the seven Muslim organizations have filed an appeal, continuing their quest for, according to court documents, "injunctive relief related to Kaufman's existing and future Internet publications." As WND reported, Kaufman's troubles began when he wrote an article for the online FrontPage Magazine in 2007, criticizing two Islamic groups for hosting a "Muslim Family Day" at Six Flags over Texas, a Dallas-area amusement park. The Islamic Circle of North America and the Islamic Association of North Texas, Kaufman revealed, had funneled money to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and al-Qaida. "While using images of cartoon characters and sponsoring events at amusement parks may seem innocuous, the danger that the Islamic Circle of North America poses to the United States, Canada and others is clear," Kaufman wrote. "As a faction of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization looks to impose Islam on Western society, and as a donor to a terrorist organization, the group is a willing participant in the act of violence." And while neither the ICNA nor the IANT claimed libel, seven other Muslim organizations – the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas, Islamic Center of Irving, DFW Islamic Educational Center, Inc., Dar Elsalam Islamic Center, Al Hedayah Islamic Center, Islamic Association of Tarrant County and Muslim American Society of Dallas – cried foul, bringing the defamation suit against Kaufman. Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This frivolous lawsuit is an example of the legal jihad being waged by radical Islamic organizations throughout our nation. These lawsuits are aimed at stifling the free speech rights of Americans who dare to expose their agenda. They intentionally file lawsuits to intimidate reporters who seek to expose their agenda. By making it costly to defend against their lawsuits, they hope journalists will refrain from writing about the threat to our nation." The opinion of the court, written by Justice Terrie Livingston, overturned a lower court's denial of Kaufmann's motion to dismiss the libel claim before a time-consuming and expensive trial. Listing seven different reasons for the court's decision, Justice Livingston wrote, "We conclude that an Internet author's status as a member of the electronic media should be adjudged by the same principles that courts should use to determine the author's status under more traditional media." The court did not, however, uphold that all Internet writers – such as bloggers – should be afforded the protections traditional journalists enjoy. Kaufman, the court noted, has written for a variety of national publications since 1995, has appeared on several television news networks and in writing for FrontPage Magazine, was writing for a separate online news source with the freedom to accept or reject his article. The court concluded, "We believe that these facts and circumstances, establishing Kaufman's journalistic background and his notoriety outside of the parameters of the article and graphic at issue and FrontPage Magazine's broad readership and its existence as a news/commentary medium that is independent from Kaufman's articles, are sufficient to qualify Kaufman as a member of the electronic or print media and to qualify FrontPage Magazine as an electronic or print medium." Furthermore, the court ruled, that the Muslim organizations' contention that an Internet author could "never" qualify as a member of the media "would make as little sense as an inverse rule that a print author (such as someone distributing their own photocopied musings) would always qualify as such." Source: WorldNetDaily
NEW YORK - Moneeb Hassan remembers having to choose between a final exam in American history or celebrating the Muslim holy day of Eid al-Adha. In the end, he chose both. Hassan, 17, is one of thousands of Muslim students in the city who must perform a balancing act between his academic and religious obligations during his holidays. But the nation's largest school district hasn't sanctioned official Muslim holidays. "People came to this country for freedom of religion," Hassan said. "We're just asking for fair and equal treatment." Muslim activists lobbying to add the holy days to the school calendar - which takes school off for Christmas and the Jewish holidays of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur - were heartened this week by a City Council resolution supporting the observance of the two holidays - Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Read more ...Source: APH/T: Weasel Zippers
By Jamie Glazov Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Dave Gaubatz, the first U.S. civilian (1811) Federal Agent deployed to Iraq in 2003. He is the owner of DG Counter-terrorism Publishing. He is currently conducting a 50 State Counter-terrorism Research Tour (CTRT). He can be contacted at davegaubatz@gmail.com. FP: Dave Gaubatz, welcome back to Frontpage Interview. You have researched issues on the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) for several years. What are your updates for us on this “civil rights” organization? Gaubatz: Thanks Jamie. CAIR has actually just sent me a letter from the law firm of Martin F. McMahon & Associates pertaining to my upcoming attendance at the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference to be held in Washington, DC, during the 4th of July holiday. FP: What did the letter say? Gaubatz: First let me emphasize what I have said for several years. Read more ...Source: FPMCAIR
Latest recipient of the Distinguished Islamofascist Award
Radical Muslims exploit liberal Western lawfare systems and, most recently, blasphemy laws, to advance their Jihad agenda – and liberal Westerners continue to go along to get along.By Dr. Sami Alrabaa If Christian and Jewish religious symbols are criticized and satirized, most people do not care. Nobody takes to the street to demonstrate violently against the “culprits.” A long history of enlightenment and freedom of expression has tamed the majority of Christians and Jews. They accept religious freedom as a civilized fact of life. This, however, does not apply to radical Muslims. They exploit liberal Western lawfare systems and, most recently, blasphemy laws, especially in Europe, to advance their Jihad agenda. Read more ... Source: FSM
 By Valentina Colombo If we consider it from a Western point of view, one of the advantages of armed jihad is that it is patently clear and easily identifiable. Intelligence services only need to look either for arms or for cells of jihad or terror preachers. Unfortunately in the last years another kind of jihad has been gaining ground, which has been spreading especially among Islam ideologically close to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is parallel to the so called “jihad of word” and has become known as “jihad by court”. Any journalist, politician, lawyer or intellectual who talks or writes either about Islam or some representatives of political Islam in a critical way may be charged and taken to court for outraging a “group of people because of their religion”. The lawsuit the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris raised against the satirical magazine “Charlie Hebdo” for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad. In March 2008 the Court of Appeal in Paris wisely rejected all the accusations since , the cartoons “which clearly refer only to a part not to the whole Muslim community, cannot be considered neither an outrage nor a personal and direct attack against a group of people because of their religious faith and do not go beyond the limits of freedom of expression”. Read more ...Source: The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam
 Hasanali Khoja objected to handling pork
while working as a chef for the MetBy David Sapsted LONDON // A Muslim chef is suing Britain’s largest police force, claiming he suffered religious discrimination because he was expected to cook bacon and pork sausages for breakfast. Hasanali Khoja is due to put his case against the Metropolitan Police to an employment tribunal, which starts a 10-day hearing in London tomorrow. The case has caused outrage in the British press and has been seized on by far right political parties, being branded “the madness of multiculturalism” by the British National Party. Mr Khoja, 60, whose claim is being backed by both the Association of Muslim Police and the National Black Police Association, says he was refused permission not to handle pork when he took a job as catering manager at a police headquarters in west London. Instead, he said his supervisor suggested he wear gloves when preparing a “999 breakfast” – a policeman’s favourite that includes bacon, pork sausages and black pudding, which is made from pigs’ blood. “I felt very unhappy about it. I was very upset and angry because it is not permissible in my religion,” said Mr Khoja, who is an adviser on Muslim food issues on the government’s Foods Standards Agency. Read more ...Source: The National
 A recent commentary by Maria Giovanna Maglie for the Italian daily Il Giornale notes how the Italian Muslim Brotherhood affiliate, the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy (UCOII), has begun to mimic various other branches of the Islamist movement around the world by waging "another kind of jihad, one that takes place in court and achieves the goal of scaring people on a personal and financial level." As such, various individuals have been sued, threatened, and bullied into silence. As Maglie's article states, "[a]nybody dealing with Islam – journalists, politicians, and academics – risks being sued for 'offending a group of people because of their religion.'" This same pattern has been clearly evident on this side of the pond with another Brotherhood offshoot, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). CAIR's historical links to the Brotherhood have been detailed at length on this website, and as recently as last year were confirmed by a senior Egyptian Brotherhood leader. As a result of these connections – particularly those to the Brotherhood-linked HAMAS terror group – the FBI recently decided to sever ties with CAIR. Read more ...Source: IPT Blog
 By David Solway According to Syrian revolutionary thinker Said Hawwa in his influential book Min Ajl Khutwa (English: For the Sake of a Step), jihad may come in three flavors: by heart, by word, and by hand, a tripartite distinction derived from the hadith literature. The jihad of the heart is an ambiguous formulation: it can mean self-discipline or the passion and steadfastness applied to waging war. The jihad of the hand (also known as the jihad of the sword) is the most conspicuous in virtue of its immediate destructiveness. But the jihad of the word — of indoctrination, propaganda, and institutional infiltration — is perhaps even more menacing since it operates virally, as it were, infecting the organs of the open society with a view to its gradual demise. Pajamas MediaSource: Pajamas Media
 By Chris Serres A federal judge gave approval for Gold'n Plump Inc. and an employment agency to pay $1.35 million to settle lawsuits alleging religious discrimination against Muslims at a chicken processing plant in Cold Spring, Minn. The money will go to 128 Somali Muslims who claim that St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump violated their religious rights by refusing to allow them prayer breaks during work hours, and to another 28 workers who said a St. Paul employment agency, the Work Connection Inc., required them to sign forms acknowledging they would be required to handle pork. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigated the allegations and said it found cause to believe discrimination occurred, according to lawsuits filed last year. In a settlement approved Tuesday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Jeanne Graham, Gold'n Plump will add a paid break during the second half of each shift to accommodate Muslim employees who wish to pray. The break is in addition to one early in the shift and lunch breaks required by law. Read more ...Source: Star TribuneH/T: Jihad WatchEEOC
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
Weak laws abroad threaten First Amendment freedoms here. Congress could step in to help.THE PROBLEM has lightheartedly come to be known as libel tourism, but the damage inflicted on the First Amendment and academic freedom is serious. Disgruntled subjects of articles or books produced and distributed almost exclusively in the United States file suit in foreign jurisdictions to get around the strong First Amendment protections afforded here to journalistic and academic works. In the United States, for example, a public figure or public official must prove that allegedly libelous material is false and that the author acted with actual malice in publishing the material. Britain, on the other hand, has become a favorite venue for unhappy subjects because the author must prove that the material is true. Plaintiffs win cases that would be thrown out by U.S. courts. Read more ... Source: Washington Post
A Muslim catering manager has accused the Metropolitan Police of religious discrimination as he was told he may have to handle sausages and bacon.
Hasanali Khoja was told he would be expected to handle pork products at his new job at the Empress State Building in Earls Court, west London.
His lawyer said Mr Khoja was excused from pork meat in his previous job at Hendon Police College in north London.
An informal agreement was reached with the force but he wants it formalised.
An employment tribunal in Watford will consider his claim in May 2009.
A Metropolitan Police (Met) spokesman said it was defending a claim of religious discrimination brought against it at an employment tribunal.
Islam forbids the consumption of pork meat or products containing pork. Source: BBC
 A DERBY Muslim who sued Tesco for religious discrimination after he was asked to handle crates of alcohol has lost his case. Mohammed Ahmed, who worked in a warehouse, said the job was against his Islamic beliefs. The 32-year-old, of Upper Dale Road, Normanton, also accused Tesco of victimisation and harassment during a three-day employment tribunal in Birmingham. His job at the supermarket giant's Lichfield depot involved the transportation of various goods, including alcoholic drinks, on fork-lift trucks. The Saudi Arabian national told the tribunal he was not informed that he would be handling alcohol when he started the job last year. He said he was considering appealing against the decision after being told his legal action had failed. He said: "It's not fair but what can I do? They [Tesco] were not taking into account my religious beliefs. I will consult with solicitors." The situation came to a head before Christmas last year, when more alcohol was ferried to the Tesco warehouse in preparation for the festive season. Mr Ahmed told the tribunal that he was not made aware he would be required to handle alcohol when he started the job, a claim denied by Tesco. Read more ...Source: Evening Telegraph
 By Supna Zaidi
Have you seen the little old lady who passes out Jehovah's Witness literature in your neighborhood? Some people stop and show interest. Others roll their eyes, and keep walking. But, would you ever expect anyone to threaten her? Call her a racist, and try to get her arrested?
Islamists would. And that is exactly what happened to two English Christian ministers who had the nerve to proselytize on a street corner in a predominantly Muslim immigrant area in the UK in 2007.
Such freedom of speech violations won't be an anomaly if the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which has a permanent delegation to the United Nations, succeeds in passing a UN resolution against "Defamation of Religion" Noboby in a western country will be able to discuss the socio-political consequences of Muslim immigration, for fear of being labeled "Islamophobic" and slapped with a fine, or even jail time.
Islamists are increasingly using lawful Islamism, or non-violent and legal strategies to spread Sharia, (Islamic law) in the West, encroaching on non-Muslim life everyday. Other examples include:
1. Sharia Finance;
2. Islam in public schools;
3. Violations of basic hygiene policy by Muslim medical staff;
4. Workplace violations in the name of religious freedom;
5. Censorship of literature.
Under the banner of "religious freedom," Islamists attack the very fabric of democracy in favor of Islam in the public sphere. The above examples are not examples of pluralism, but a violation of the separation of church and state doctrine meant to keep people of all faiths, or no faith, equal under the law. Liberals have forgotten that secularism is not a free-for-all, but has boundaries in order to remain meaningful.
Freedom of speech has already been attacked repeatedly. Islamists tried to censor criticism of Islamist terrorism when the Muhammad cartoons were published in Jyllens-Posten in 2005. Strangely enough, the "cartoon intifada" arose 5 months after their original printing, but only weeks before the UNHCR was due to consider the OIC's resolution on "Combating Defamation of Religion."
Such a coincidence caused the National Secular Society to state in its Memorandum (Section E, point 2) to the UK Parliament that, the Danish cartoon crisis was manufactured… to exploit sensitivities around racial discrimination and to promote (or even exaggerate) the notion of "Islamophobia" in order to restrict possibilities for open discussion or criticism of Islam….measures calling for legislation banning "defamation of religion" - …. aims to remove religion, especially Islam, from public scrutiny and public debate.
If any religion is to be integrated into the daily social, economic and political life of a nation, it must open the door for evaluation of its goals and application. Otherwise, OIC nations will be able to govern unilaterally without respect to international law. Consider the following precedent.
Saudi Arabia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 2000, with reservations, stating, "In case of contradiction between any term of the Convention and the norms of Islamic law, the Kingdom is not under obligation to observe the contradictory terms of the Convention."
Thus, Saudi Arabia confirms that it will only offer lip service to human rights by signing documents like the CEDAW charter. It will not actually improve the status of women, because it is a theocracy, and every move a woman makes is governed by Islamic law. CEDAW can do nothing for them. Moreover, if the Defamation of Religion resolution is passed, all human rights activists will feel even greater censorship, since protests from abroad will be construed as racism.
Consider the "Qatif girl" case. A Saudi girl was gang-raped in 2005 and blamed for it, since she was in the presence of unrelated men when it happened. Her attorney lost his license for challenging the Saudi courts. Only after generating global media pressure did the situation change in her favor. The king pardoned her and the attorney got his license reinstated. In a post- Defamation of Religion world, the attorney would have been trapped, unable to help the girl and disbarred if he dared to challenge Saudi Islamic law.
Lastly, the OIC resolution must fail because it is patently hypocritical. While professing great sensitivity toward religion, OIC members ironically regularly fail to show any respect for other faiths:
1. Saudi Arabia continues to use bigoted textbooks, and export them to American Islamic schools despite promises to change.
2. Iran sponsored a Holocaust cartoon contest in retaliation for the Danish cartoons of Muhammad in 2005. Yet, Jews had nothing to do with the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
3. Pakistan's blasphemy laws attack Christians as a pretext for personal disputes.
The Defamation of Religion resolution is a free pass for Islamists to continue denigrating other religions and minorities through lawful Islamism. It ties the hands of any politician that questions the spread of Islamism in the West, and prevents critical evaluation of the treatment of women and minorities in Muslim societies.
Liberal and conservative citizens of the West must work together to prevent this resolution from passing in the UN. Source: Muslim World Today
 Political participation by radical Islamic groups has led the West to believe they can be moderated - but it is only a guise to bring about the same goal the radical terrorists have: the complete overthrow of the West.By Victor Vejil and David Vejil "All warfare is based on deception," Sun Tzu said.Radical Islamists who are bent on establishing a global caliphate employ a deceptive type of war against Western civilization. It doesn’t use bombs or bullets - yet its tactics are just as effective in weakening the West in its war against terror. This type of war is called “lawfare.” Lawfare is the legal counterpart to terrorism. Rather than instilling fear into Western democracies and influencing their actions with random acts of violence, radicals who use lawfare aim to instill change in the democracies by misusing its own system against it. The radical Islamists have always had two powerful weapons at their disposal: violence and politics. Both weapons are only as effective as their targets allow them to be; both have their advantages and disadvantages, but by using violence and lawfare together, radical Islamists have found a winning combination. The deceptive goal of the lawfare is the same as that of the violence. Despite claims to the contrary, the ultimate goal of Islamist lawfare is the implementation of Islamic law and customs in Western societies - in short, the creation of a worldwide caliphate. However, because practitioners of lawfare don’t use violence, it can be harder to discredit their organizations for what they are in the same way you can discredit people who shoot and blow up women and children. Western democracies, the targets, are so desperate to appease Islamic minorities and avoid violence that they simply cannot or will not acknowledge the true motives of these political groups. Read more ... Source: The TrumpetH/T: Shariah Finance Watch
U.S House Takes First Step to Protect Free Speech Against "Libel Tourists" Washington, DC – The U.S. House of Representatives today passed H.R. 6146, crucial legislation that will protect American citizens from foreign libel judgments that undermine their fundamental First Amendment free speech rights. Dr. Ehrenfeld knows first-hand the effects of this destructive practice of forum shopping. She was sued in Britain, where the libel laws are plaintiff friendly, by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz for alleging in her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, that he funded al-Qaeda.
Rep. Peter King, who initiated the federal legislation agrees with Dr. Ehrenfeld, stating that although he supports H.R. 6146, “this bill does not go far enough nor does it resolve the problem of “libel tourism.” Even Rep. Cohen, the author of H.R. 6146, acknowledged his bill is not enough to “ address libel tourism,” and stated on the floor of the House that he is “committed to working with Mr. King to push for a public hearing… which advances additional measures to address libel tourism.”
Indeed, the ACLU, the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, the PEN American Center, the Families of the 9/11 victims, and many others support the Free Speech Protection Act, 2008, sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter, Joseph Lieberman and Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Peter King. Source: Shariah Finance Watch
By Megan Murphy Policy Exchange, the centre-right think-tank, is facing legal action over a report that accused several British mosques of selling or promoting extremist literature. The North London Central Mosque has issued a writ in the High Court, saying the report's defamatory conclusions unleashed "verbal and physical attacks" against mosques, Islamic centres and individuals following publication in 2007. "The Board of Trustees decided to take legal action in light of Policy Exchange's continued disregard for calls to remove and withdraw the said report and to apologise for the profound harm that had come upon not only the named establishments, but upon the British Muslim community as a whole," the mosque said. Policy Exchange said it is consulting its lawyers about the case. Read more ...Source: Financial Times
By Chris Serres In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities. The federally mediated agreement is among the first in the nation that requires employers to accommodate the Islamic prayer schedule and the belief, held by many strict Muslims, that the Qur'an prohibits the touching and eating of pork products. "For this group of Americans at this time in our nation's history, this is a very important outcome," said Joe Snodgrass, a St. Paul attorney who represented workers in the case. The agreement follows a year-long examination by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and a class-action lawsuit brought in October 2006 on behalf of nine Somali immigrants who worked at Gold'n Plump's poultry processing plants in Cold Spring, Minn., and Arcadia, Wis. An EEOC attorney said both sides have reached a settlement in principle. Read more ...Source: Minneapolis Star TribuneEEOC
Latest recipient of The Dhimmi Award
 By Clifford D. May Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways. The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists -- from novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would be black humor to say this is having a chilling effect. The second is "political correctness." On campuses and within Western governments, it is increasingly taboo to label terrorists who slaughter in the name of Islam "Islamist terrorists." In Canada, "human rights commissions" attempt to enforce this taboo by putting such writers as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant on trial for the "crime" of expressing opinions that offend Islamic grievance groups -- and also for quoting Islamists accurately and thereby casting them in an unfavorable light. If that's not Orwellian, what is? But it is the third approach that could be most consequential for Americans. It's known as "libel tourism" and here's how it works: A book published in the United States names an individual abroad who supports terrorist groups. That individual -- for the sake of discussion, let's say he's a Saudi petro-billionaire with a home in London -- goes online and orders a few copies, which arrive in the mail. He takes those books to a British attorney who files a lawsuit complaining that his client has been libeled.The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the United Kingdom than it would be in an American court, where the First Amendment and decades of case law provide free speech protections. (Under English law, by contrast, the burden in a libel case is on the defendant to prove his innocence -- which can be impossible if he's been using confidential sources or even just sources who don't want to cross an ocean and take part in a courtroom battle.) Read more ...Source: Union Leader
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
by Daniel Greenfield
Posts
