Announcements

Legal Project director Daniel Huff to speak at conference on Lawfare

February 16, 2010

Legal Project director Daniel Huff will be speaking at a conference on Lawfare: The Use of Law as a Weapon of War, to be held on March 11th in New York City. For the invitation, RSVP details, and list of conference participants, please click here.

Legal Project Part of Chorus of Opposition to UN Resolutions Banning Defamation of Religion

November 12, 2009

PHILADELPHIA – The Legal Project has joined the Becket Fund for Religious Freedom and over 100 other non-governmental organizations from around the world, in a joint statement decrying the danger to free speech rights posed by a series of pending UN resolutions prohibiting defamation of religions.

On October 29, 2009, Syria, along with Venezuela and Belarus, proposed a resolution entitled "Combating defamation of religions" to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. Among other things, the resolution condemns any organization "perpetuating stereotypes about certain religions." In particular, it avers that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with … terrorism" and proceeds to "reaffirm the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of … incitement to discrimination" which would include, for example, suggesting the "profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001." While non-binding, the resolution is just the latest in an ongoing effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to criminalize criticism of Islam globally and, if adopted, would lay the groundwork for a binding version proposed by Pakistan as a treaty amendment earlier this year.

As the joint statement notes, "[u]nlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the 'defamation of religions' punish the peaceful criticism of ideas."

Legal Project Director Daniel Huff called the resolution a "brazen attempt to curb criticism of radical Islam, cynically disguised as a pious affirmation of fundamental freedoms. In tenor and purpose it runs contrary to the bedrock principle of American First Amendment jurisprudence that 'debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.'"

The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum is dedicated to protecting authors and researchers from predatory lawsuits designed to stifle dissemination of information related to terrorism and its sources of funding. It assists targets of such suits with litigation costs, arranges for pro bono counsel, works with policy makers to publicize and address this growing threat.

Immediate release

For further information contact: Daniel Huff at huff@meforum.org

Suit against Joe Kaufman Dismissed

June 29, 2009

PHILADELPHIA – The Texas Court of Appeals for the Second District on June 25, 2009, dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by several Dallas-area Muslim organizations against Joe Kaufman, an investigative journalist for Front Page Magazine, the founder of Americans Against Hate, and a client of the Middle East Forum's Legal Project.

The case concerns an article by Kaufman published on September 28, 2007, at FrontPageMag.com, "Fanatic Muslim Family Day" in which he alerted readers to a forthcoming event, "Muslim Family Day," at the Six Flags Over Texas amusement park hosted by the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Islamic Association of North Texas (IANT). Kaufman called ICNA "a radical Muslim organization that has physical ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and financial ties to Hamas" and stated that, "ICNA has also been involved in the financing of Al-Qaeda." On October 14, 2007 Kaufman led a lawful and peaceful protest against ICNA outside the amusement park.

Seven Dallas-area Muslim groups responded by filing a lawsuit and restraining order against Mr. Kaufman – despite his article not even mentioning them and his telling the court he had "no knowledge that the majority of the entities even existed."

In dismissing the lawsuit on appeal, the Court agreed with Kaufman that:

There is simply no indication to a reasonable reader of Kaufman's article that "those involved" meant the sponsors of the event other than ICNA or IANT, because the article did not inform the reader that there were any such other sponsors.

In his press release, Kaufman, who received financial assistance from the Middle East Forum's Legal Project, said that the case against him was "entirely frivolous" from the start, and that the dismissal represents a victory for freedom of speech. Indeed, the Court noted "the inherent public concern in the terrorism issues he reports and opines on."

Reacting to the dismissal, Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes said, "It is reassuring to see so obvious an instance of a predatory lawsuit rejected by the court. But it is equally dismaying to note that an appellate court had to reverse the trial judge's mishandling of the case, at considerable cost to Joe Kaufman and to freedom of expression about Islamism and terrorism."

Legal Project director Brooke Goldstein, a practicing attorney, stated that "The case against Kaufman exemplifies how, despite First Amendment protections, American citizens are targeted with lawsuits designed to punish public dialogue about radical Islam and terrorist financing. I am thrilled that the appellate judge recognized the absurdity of the plaintiffs' claims and that Kaufman can continue writing without legal distractions. True justice, however, requires the plaintiffs to cover Kaufman's legal fees."

The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum, is dedicated to legally and financially assisting parties wrongfully sued for speaking out against radical Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing.

Immediate release

For more information, contact Brooke Goldstein
Goldstein@MEForum.org

Conference on Islamist Lawfare - May 19th, Washington DC

May 8, 2009

The Legal Project, in conjunction with the Federalist Society, the Center for National Security Law, and the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, is pleased to present a conference on Islamist Lawfare, to be held on May 19th in Washington, DC. For the invitation, RSVP details, and list of conference participants, please click here.

Eboo Patel Acknowledges Error Regarding Daniel Pipes

February 5, 2009

An Islamist writer for ABC News, Eboo Patel, has acknowledged his mistake in an article when he mentioned Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum. Please see the official press release.

The Legal Project's Response to the Federal Election Commission

November 15, 2008

Thomasenia P. Duncan, General Counsel
Office of the General Council
Federal Election Commission
999 E. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463

RE: Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Complaint Against Clarion Fund

Dear Ms. Duncan:

This letter is in response to a complaint filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) against the Clarion Fund on September 19, 2008 from the Middle East Forum, a non-partisan think tank located in Philadelphia, PA.

The Clarion Fund was not contacted or involved in the drafting of this reply.

The Legal Issue

The Complainant requests that the FEC review whether the Clarion Fund, a non-profit, made contributions and expenditures, or used foreign contributions in connection with a federal election by mailing an excerpt of a DVD called "Obsession" to various newspapers this summer as an insert.

The sole legal issue is whether the Clarion Fund tried to advocate a particular presidential candidate by mailing an excerpt of the DVD in swing states. It is immaterial whether the funding to mail the DVD originated domestically or abroad.

Analysis

The DVD is candidate neutral. Clarion produced the DVD in 2005, three years prior to the current presidential election. In its Complaint, CAIR alleges that the Clarion Fund, not the DVD, is pro-McCain. This completely ignores IRS rule Rev. Rul. 76-456, 1976-2 C.B. 151Instead, CAIR relies on hearsay, stating that a pro-McCain article was "purportedly" removed from the distributor's website. "Purportedly" is not evidence.Publisher.com asked New York Times Co. spokeswoman Diane McNulty about the policy on this insert. She replied:

Without evidence, CAIR relies on connecting Clarion to vague and unsubstantiated allegations of anti-Muslim bias and hopes that the FEC will assume that such a connection surely implies a pro-McCain position. CAIR'S evidence this time? Selective quotes from newspapers, which found the DVD to be "anti-Muslim" with zero reference to either McCain or Obama.

The DVD is about important matters of national security, it is about terrorism and it is a legitimate, constitutionally protected "opinion advertisement." Moreover, CAIR ignores the fact that the New York Times, a national liberal paper had no problem including the DVD as an insert. Editor and

"We believe the broad principles of freedom of the press confer on us an obligation to keep our advertising columns as open as possible. Therefore our acceptance or rejection of an advertisement does not depend on whether it coincides with our editorial positions. In fact, there are many instances when we have published opinion advertisements that run counter to the stance we take on our own editorial pages.

"We do require that opinion advertisements include the name of the sponsoring organization and a mailing address or a telephone number. This enables our readers to communicate directly with the sponsor should they seek additional information or wish to express agreement or disagreement with the advertised message. This advertisement complied with these requirements [1]". , which states that motivation is "irrelevant in determining whether activities are prohibited campaign intervention". Moreover, even if it was relevant, CAIR fails to prove its allegation.

Contrary to CAIR's assertions, the DVD includes interviews with Muslim-Americans, and with recognized counter-terrorism experts. It is also part of a plethora of post 9/11 literature, movies and documentaries discussing the threat posed by violent radical Islamic extremists to the West. Thus, "Obsession" should rightfully be considered educational material

Both candidates for US President have stated that they find terrorism to be a central foreign policy issue in this election. Barack Obama repeats the message of the DVD at issue when he says,

"The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for[2] ."

John McCain also regards radical Islam as the most serious threat to America, stating:

"It will strengthen us to confront the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism. This challenge is transcendent not because it is the only one we face. There are many dangers in today's world, and our foreign policy must be agile and effective at dealing with all of them. But the threat posed by the terrorists is unique. They alone devote all their energies and indeed their very lives to murdering innocent men, women, and children. They alone seek nuclear weapons and other tools of mass destruction not to defend themselves or to enhance their prestige or to give them a stronger hand in world affairs but to use against us wherever and whenever they can. Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has -- to protect the lives of the American people[3]".

CAIR has provided zero evidence showing the Clarion Fund, a non-profit advocated either Barack Obama or John McCain by mailing an excerpt of a DVD they produced three years before this election cycle.

Instead, CAIR wants to create connections based on reader biases. By erroneously connecting the Clarion Fund to Israel, despite its incorporation in NY, CAIR's wants the FEC to assume that the Fund must be anti-Muslim. And, if the Clarion Fund is anti-Muslim, so is the DVD. And, if the DVD is anti-Muslim, it must be against Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Why? CAIR offers no explanation. Just a divisive inference that alludes more to CAIR's political agenda, rather than that of the Clarion Fund.

The Complaint to the FEC against the Clarion Fund is equivalent to a predatory lawsuit, where the allegation seeks to harm the reputation of the Respondent, as no evidence has been provided by CAIR on the merits of the accusations laid. The fact is that CAIR has maliciously attempted to deprive Clarion of its First Amendment rights to speak freely on issues of grave public concern.

This is not the first time that the organization has acted in such an irresponsible manner. We urge your office to take close note of CAIR's history of filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits designed to silence public discourse on radical Islam, terrorism and its sources of financing:

CAIR v. Andrew Whitehead[4], CAIR v. Cass Ballenger,[5] and the organization's threats against Robert Spencer and Mike Adams.[6]

The Middle East Forum requests that the FEC recognize CAIR's Complaint against the Clarion Fund as predatory and frivolous because it attempts to shut down organizations with opposite policy positions from their own in violation of the first amendment.

Brooke M. Goldstein
Attorney at Law
Director, The Legal Project at the Middle East Forum
http://www.meforum.org/legal-project.php
Fax. (215) 546 5409

[1] http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003849746

[2] http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

[3] http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/872473dd-9ccb-4ab4-9d0d-ec54f0e7a497.htm

[4] Specifically, a $1.3 million lawsuit in reprisal for Whitehead's site anti-cair-net.org, where he described CAIR as an Islamist organization with ties to terrorist groups. The suit was dropped by CAIR after the organization failed to respond to discovery request pertaining to CAIR's internal documents.

[5] After Congressman Ballenger revealed in an interview that he had reported CAIR to the CIA and FBI as a "fundraising arm for Hezbollah," CAIR filed suit, where the judge ruled that the Congressman's statements were made in the course of his public duties and therefore constitutionally protected speech in an area of public concern. See Council of American Islamic Relations, v. Cass Ballenger, 444 F.3d 659 (D.C. Cir. 2006), available online at http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/05-5161a.pdf

[6] CAIR's attorney, Joseph E. Sandler threatened legal action were the Young America's Foundation to host Robert Spencer as a speaker at its 2007 convention. Adams commented on the matter on Townhall.com, and was duly threatened by Sandler with prosecution for "obscene or harassing telephone calls." However, the threats were not followed up, as Spencer did speak at the convention, and Adams' article remains online. See, http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/017609.php, http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/08/13/duck_stew, http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/08/08/i_don%E2%80%99t_cair_if_muslims_are_offended, and http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26500 for further information

Irfan Yusuf Apologizes to Daniel Pipes

September 17, 2008

Irfan Yusuf has recently published an unreserved apology to Dr. Pipes for grossly misrepresenting Dr. Pipes' views in an Australian newspaper. Please see the official press release.

The European Center for Law and Justice Submits Crucial Report to the UN about Freedom of Speech

June 2008

In response to the recent UN Human Rights Council Resolution 7/19, which bans any language blasphemous of Islam and any "attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations," the ECLJ submitted a crucial report detailing, correctly, that freedom of religion does not encompass freedom to practice your religion free of criticism.

"Muslim Weekly" Apologizes to Daniel Pipes

March 3, 2008

The UK publication, the Muslim Weekly, has recently published an unprecedented apology to Dr. Pipes. Please see the official press release.

The Legal Project Announces its support for the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act"

January 24, 2008

The legislation introduced by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Long Island) proposes a much-needed First Amendment protection for our country's valuable counter-terrorism authors, researchers and publishers.

Libel terrorism is being waged in the form of frivolous and malicious lawsuits designed to intimidate, silence and bankrupt anyone who speaks out against terrorism, Islamism or its sources of financing. Forum shopping and foreign lawsuits are creating a chilling effect within this country on the exercise of free speech about matters of grave public concern. If enacted the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, proposed in the info-media capital of the U.S., has the potential to protect counter-terrorism authors from meritless libel lawsuits filed by libel terrorists who hide in foreign jurisdictions. Thus, it is paramount that the Libel Terrorism Protection Act be signed into law as soon as possible.

Please consider writing both Assemblyman Lancman and Senator Skelos expressing your support of this important and timely legislation which addresses a real and present problem.

Assemblyman Lancman's email address: rlancman@nyad25.org

Senator Skelos's email address: dunham@senate.state.ny.us