Wednesday, December 14, 2011

How to Fight Back Against Lawfare

Terrorism is just the tip of the Great Jihad Iceberg. It plays a relatively small role in the push for Islamic supremacy.

There are five other major strategies employed by the Ummah in its long-term war against the unbelievers of the West:

1. Demography. Muslims immigrants and their descendants in Western nations reproduce at two to three times the rate of the indigenous population. In some Muslim countries the rates are much higher. These trends are sustained and reinforced by generous welfare benefits and Western charitable organizations, respectively.
2. Information Warfare. By shrewdly manipulating media reporting, and playing on the toxic fads that are currently ascendant in the Western zeitgeist, Muslims impose their “narrative” in most public forums, displacing traditional cultural norms. Muslim talking heads are adept at taking advantage of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, the morbid fear of being seen as “racist”, and all the other debilitating intellectual preoccupations of the media and the academy.
3. Infiltration. Members of Muslim Brotherhood affiliates have been inserted into Western governments and institutions at all levels.
4. Bloc Voting. Even though they comprise only a small proportion of the electorate in the West, near-uniform voting patterns (generally for the Socialist parties) allow Muslims to swing elections at the margin. As a result all the major parties tend to listen to Muslim demands, accelerating the pace of Islamization.
5. Lawfare. Muslims repeatedly probe the legal system in Western countries by filing trivial lawsuits, “hate speech” complaints, and allegations of “discrimination” based on their religion. These assaults weaken the legal system whether or not they are successful. If they lose, the judicial system is clogged up by all the pointless litigation. If they win, the rule of law is rolled back just a little bit further in favor of sharia.

The last of these strategies is the subject of a new book by Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer of the Lawfare Project. Below is a press release from Center for Security Policy announcing the launch of the book Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech.

Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech
New Book To Counter Global Campaign to Censor Discussion About the Threat of Militant Islam

Washington, DC December 14, 2011 — The Center for Security Policy Press announces the release of Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech — A First Amendment Guide to Reporting in an Age of Islamist Lawfare by Brooke Goldstein and Aaron Eitan Meyer.

Lawfare: The War Against Free SpeechLawfare: The War Against Free Speech exposes the history, use and methodology of Islamist Lawfare to censor anyone who speaks or writes about militant Islam, terrorism and their sources of financing. The book is a first of its kind and intended to help reporters write about national security issues, by outlining the legal framework within which they are entitled to operate. Lawfare outlines the free speech rights of investigative journalists, bloggers, and authors under U.S. law. Resources include case examples of previous Islamist lawfare lawsuits, guidance on how to avoid potential lawfare without self-censorship, direction on relevant differences between American and European law, an accessible introduction to the First Amendment, and much more.

In the book’s introduction, the authors describe lawfare as “the wrongful manipulation of the legal system to achieve strategic military or political ends… a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants.” The strategic end of Islamist lawfare is to “abolish public discourse critical of Islam and punish anything deemed blasphemous of its prophet Mohammad.” By circumscribing free speech, publishing and analysis in national security, lawfare limits the ability of Americans to accurately understand and respond to the threat of shariah, jihad and Islamism.

Former Ambassador to the UN John Bolton says of the book: “Freedom of speech is under assault from a direction that the United States and the West generally rejected centuries ago. ‘Blasphemy,’ as some define it, may not be pretty, but the suppression of speech is profoundly ugly, not to mention dangerous to a free and open society. This book explains why.”

Regarding why reporters need this book:

  • Author Brooke Goldstein stated: “This book serves as a much needed primer on the First Amendment and is intended to educate and encourage Americans to speak freely and openly about real and imminent threats to our national security as well as issues of public concern. Despite the protections afforded by the Constitution, there has been a steady increase in the filing of frivolous and malicious defamation lawsuits designed to chill free speech about the threat of Islamist terrorism. Many have also fallen prey to false charges of ‘Islamophobia’ merely for exercising their rights. The cornerstone of any liberal democracy is the right to speak freely and critically about government and religion. Islamist lawfare is a direct threat to our freedom and must be stopped. This book will explain how.”
  • Author Aaron Eitan Meyer stated: “Freedom of expression has always been critical in maintaining our freedom, and our national security no less so. There is a concerted effort already underway to hinder counter-terrorism and related efforts, by manipulating our own legal system against us. This book exposes the threat, and shows how the Constitution protects us more than we may know.”

Website for Lawfare: The War Against Free Speech

Buy the book at Amazon

About the Authors

  • Brooke Goldstein is a New York City based human rights attorney and award-winning filmmaker. Goldstein serves as director of The Lawfare Project (, a nonprofit legal think-tank that monitors and facilitates a response to the abuse of the law as a weapon of war. Brooke is also the founder and director of the Children’s Rights Institute (, a nonprofit dedicated to raising awareness and legally combating the illegal indoctrination and recruitment of children to become suicide bombers, child soldiers and human shields. From 2007-2009 Brooke served as director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum, an organization that arranges financial support for, and pro-bono legal representation of persons wrongfully sued for exercising their right to free speech on issues of national security and public concern. She is a regular commentator on FOX News and has been featured in several media including CNN and The New York Sun. A Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, and Associate Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, Brooke has been published in a variety of sources including the New York Daily News, The American Spectator, Commentary Magazine, and the Washington Times. Canadian born, Brooke earned her B.A. from McGill University and received her J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
  • Aaron Eitan Meyer is a researcher and analyst, legal correspondent for the Terror Finance Blog, and is on the advisory board for the digital advocacy group Act for Israel. He has served as research director of The Lawfare Project. Mr. Meyer’s work has appeared in the Terror Finance Blog, Covenant, Washington Post Online, Washington Times and The American Spectator. He received his B.A. from New School University, and his J.D. from Touro College Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center.


Anestis canelidis said...

This will be a great tool for writers such as myself.

George Pal said...

I would add to the list one other strategy, the establishment of extra-territorial enclaves (no-go zones) where sharia and islamic cultural conventions apply; everything else, being haram , is proscribed, condemned, punished, terrorized, or threatened.

8b2xcc71 said...

it seems a truly excellent tool in the war against jihad. I very much hope its contents will be used soon, but the main stumbling block is that politicians who allow muslims to destroy us are, and will most likely remain in their posts for a long while. What could this book change on this political field?

whitney said...

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society... then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.”
Karl Popper

" Hence it is that all armed prophets have conquered, and the unarmed ones have been destroyed"
The Prince, by Nicolo Machiavelli

"... and out of His mouth came a sharp two-edged sword; and His face was like the sun shining in its strength"
Revelation 1:14

That sword coming out of Jesus' mouth is looking more and more like freedom of speech.

Long live the 1st Amendment.

Ex-Dissident said...

Aren't we lucky to have a Secretary of State who is currently in closed door meeting with OIC to stigmatize speech critical of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Minor correction: Speech critical of Islam is ALREADY stigmatized.

The OIC is ready to take the next step and CRIMINALIZE (via enforced Sharia Law) speech critical of Islam.

Anonymous said...

Well, based on recent news reports, it appears that the OIC also wanted - and received - the infidel jizya.

No need to formally criminalize hate speech (which MIGHT be just be overturned in a court case) now that the Congress has illegally and obligingly empowered our very own Caliph-in-Chief to order our military to pull people off of the street and imprison those people as criminals - without trial - indefinitely.

It seems as if there is more than one way to skin a hate speecher....

Pierre_Picaud said...

"Silenced : How Apostasy and Blasphemy Codes are Choking Freedom Worldwide" by Nina Shea and Paul Marshall of the Hudson Institute, published this year, is also a very important read on this issue.

trencherbone said...

Five other strategies?

I would say nearer 20:

Lawrence said...

Free Speach is not directly synonymous with the legal Right to Speaking Freely.

Freedom to Speak Freely comes at a significant price. That price being the cost of resources, reputations, and even lives dedicated to defending this right.

The problem faced by people's in Europe is they generally do not have the same rights to Speak Freely like we have in the U.S.

Unless we in the U.S. continue capitulating our rights in favor of political correctness...

Anonymous said...

ChristianInfidel says:

Another great article!

Maybe I will ask for this book for Christmas. It is so helpful to know about resources such as this. This book looks like the kind of thing that could convince moderate, uninvolved, unaware friends of mine that there is something going on that should be addressed.

babs said...

I can't wait for Christmas dinner, not. We have a group of friends that think nothing of taking pot shots at me and mine in political discourse and expect me to keep my mouth shut.
Two years ago my oldest son was deployed over Thanksgiving and Christmas to the country of Georgia to help rebuild schools and docks after the Russian destruction. Over dinner a "friend" of mine turned to me and said he thought all our troops should stop killing people and come home.
I came so close to getting violent it took everything I had not to haul off and slam him.

Anonymous said...

I'm rather of the opinion that troops should start killing people or come home. In the case of Georgia, it is apparent that they have legitimate security needs against a vastly overpowering foreign aggressor, but any troops sent should be fully engaged in preparing to thwart such an assault, not cleaning up after the last one.

As a rhetorical tool, why don't you suggest that your "friends" go supply humanitarian assistance in the proper way, unarmed and fully subject to the local laws?

Anonymous said...

Chiu: I agree with your comment.

Babs: At one recent holiday, my aunt who has strictly forbidden me from discussing Islam or any other topic that makes her uncomfortable (i.e., Obama is EVIL.) - anyway, my aunt was oh-so-happy to chirp away about how my distant relative by marriage had two adorable twins with a very nice young Muslim man.

Of course, the very nice young Muslim man refuses to marry my infidel distant relative because his Muslim parents have forbidden him to marry a non-Muslim; but, as my aunt assured everyone, he is different from his parents....

Of course, my aunt has strictly forbidden anyone to discuss any other conclusion. ARGH.

Anonymous said...

You might ask her why she is bringing up Islam herself. Why can't she just refer to him as a young atheist who doesn't believe in marriage, if she is so determined to avoid all references to Muslims?

Or you could ask her why she tolerates being told about this man's Islamic faith by whoever told her.

My personal response would be to never talk to her or acknowledge her presence in any way. But that's easier for me to do than it might be for others.

Anonymous said...

Well, it is clear that anti-anti-jihadists think that they are more moral and all-around better people than anti-jihadists.

Ha! :)

Anonymous said...

That's pretty normal, though.

Personally, I don't much see the point of 'morality'. If I want to do something, I don't trouble myself with whether it is "bad". If I don't want to do something, I don't trouble myself with whether it is "good".

Is treating a close relative in the manner you would treat any other person with similar attitudes and behavior "right"? No. God forbids it, and it is contrary to human nature. Do I care? No. I don't have that instinct and I don't see any reason to pretend that I do. I also don't see the point of pretending that human nature or the decrees of God are other than what they are.

Does that make me a "bad" person? Yes. Is it the worst thing about me. No. The fact that I can't see the point of trying to be 'moral' even to the extent of making that claim (let alone doing things I don't want to do just because they're "right" or forgoing things I do want because they're "wrong") probably is a bit worse than the fact that I don't see the point of treating my relatives differently than I would treat them if they weren't my relatives.

So perhaps a more useful bit of advice would be to tell your aunt that you love her (or whatever) but it hurts your feelings when she talks about Islam. Since this is probably approximately what she told you at some point, it is also funny...which I like. But I have to admit I would like ignoring her even more. You probably would not.

Chiu Chun-Ling.

Anonymous said...

If anti-jihadis ignored everyone who disagreed with them, there'd be no one left to talk to at holidays....