| Home | About | Articles | Blog | Announcements | Mailing List | Donate | Participate | Mobile Site |
Stacking the Deck against Geert Wilders
In a brief courtroom session today, Amsterdam's District Court found it had jurisdiction to hear the case against Geert Wilders for "inciting hatred," and further announced it would allow only 3 of the 18 witnesses Wilders had requested.
Wilders had sought three categories of witnesses: 5 free speech experts, 8 Islam experts, and 5 "experiential experts." This latter category consisted of various Islamists, including Theo van Gogh's murderer, a Dutch imam who had unsuccessfully tried to sue Wilders, and the Egyptian fundamentalist Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
The court decided to permit only the three Islam experts to testify: Johannes Jansen, Simon Admiraal and Wafa Sultan. In fairness, barring the Islamist witnesses is perhaps excusable. Presumably none would be willing to testify voluntarily, and only one resides freely in the Netherlands. What is much more troubling is the court's refusal to hear from any of Wilders' five free speech experts - all of whom would likely have appeared voluntarily.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | February 3, 2010 at 2:35 pm | Permalink
The OIC shows not all condemnations are equal
The Organization of the Islamic Conference's (OIC) recent condemnation of extremist Muslim violence would be absolutely remarkable except for one small problem – there's no reason to believe that the OIC actually meant a word of it.
On January 3, the OIC issued a statement in English condemning the attempted murder of Kurt Westergaard for creating the controversial Mohammed cartoons. Although lukewarm, it did say that the attack ran totally against the teachings and values of Islam.
That seems encouraging, but consider this. On January 8, the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten republished six of the original 12 cartoons, alongside details of the attack on Westergaard. The OIC promptly and unequivocally condemned Aftenposten's decision in a January 10 communication, averring that the newspaper's stand against extremism would not serve any purpose other than to incite intolerance and hatred.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | January 19, 2010 at 10:43 pm | Permalink
Liberty on Trial in Dutch Court
On January 7th, it was reported that Minnesota prosecutors had declined to prosecute a man who had posted anti-Muslim images, on the grounds that it was, as Stearns County Attorney Janelle Kendall aptly put it, a "classic First Amendment case." Indeed, the case would only have been significant if prosecutors had attempted to bring charges.
In marked contrast, the upcoming criminal trial of Dutch politician Geert Wilders for having "intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims," and the potential of a two-year prison sentence for this 'crime,' is nearly unfathomable.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | January 12, 2010 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
OIC places the United States in its crosshairs - but only in Arabic
On December 23-24, 2009, the Organization of the Islamic Conference ("OIC") and the League of Arab States held a joint high level conference in Cairo to develop a strategy for addressing 'Islamophobia.' As the conference proceeded, the OIC issued two press releases exclusively in Arabic.
The first release's headline alone warrants scrutiny.
It translates as "The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the League of Arab States discuss ways to address Islamophobia."
The title does not use an Arabic term for 'Islamophobia,' but instead uses 'al-islamufobia,' "الإسلاموفوبيا" which is merely a transliteration.
This underscores the point that the OIC's 'Islamophobia' campaign is squarely aimed at manipulating Western audiences rather than appealing internally to Muslims.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Daniel Huff and Aaron Eitan Meyer | December 26, 2009 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
Tough Times for Libel Abusers in the UK
On December 10th, the New York Times reported on efforts to reform Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws, which have been widely criticized as easily abused, particularly by Islamists eager to silence critics.
Those familiar with the broader struggle against Islamist Lawfare will recognize that libel tourism has garnered disproportionate attention relative to its utility as a lawfare tactic. Nevertheless, steps to prevent abuse of English law are to be encouraged.
Indeed, in March 2009, the Legal Project submitted written testimony to the UK Parliament's House of Commons Culture Media and Sports Committee, making several recommendations as to how the UK might revise its libel law regime.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | December 18, 2009 at 11:40 am | Permalink
For Geert Wilders, Law Finally Triumphs Over Politics in the United Kingdom
On October 13th, the United Kingdom's Asylum and Immigration Tribunal issued a ruling overturning an earlier decision by the Home Office to refuse entry to Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders, on the absurd grounds that his presence in the UK might represent a "threat to public order and public harmony."
Tribunal Judge CMG Ockleton was clear in his reasoning, as The Guardian reported,
"Substantial evidence of actual harm would be needed before it would be proper for a government to prevent the expression and discussion of matters that might form the opinions of legislators, policy makers and voters," he said.
However, it appears that the Home Office is insistent upon justifying its earlier decision. As reported by BBC News, the Home Office expressed "disappointment" with the decision, stating that "The decision to refuse Wilders admission was taken on the basis that his presence could have inflamed tensions between our communities and have led to inter-faith violence. We still maintain this view."
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | October 13, 2009 at 10:56 pm | Permalink
Islamist-Friendly Self-Censorship in the United States Marches On
Islamist attempts to suppress the free discussion of radical Islam take many different forms, but the most difficult effect of these attempts to document may well be self-censorship. Indeed, Islamist lawfare may well be likened to an iceberg, with self-censorship representing the immense mass lurking beneath opaque waves, while its chilling effect extends farther than the eye can see.
On August 12th, the New York Times reported that Yale University Press' upcoming book on the Danish Muhammad cartoons, entitledCartoons That Shook the World, would not only fail to include the cartoons themselves, but would also be entirely devoid of any images depicting Muhammad. The Times article further reported that Yale had consulted "two dozen authorities, including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism" and that these unnamed individuals unanimously stated that the book should contain no images of Muhammad. The rationale for this absurd recommendation was, according to special adviser to the secretary general of the United Nations Ibrahim Gambari quoted in the Times article, "You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published."
This is eerily reminiscent of how Random House attracted considerable attention this past year when it pulled the novel The Jewel of Medinaafter it received hysterical predictions of outrage and violence; Beaufort Books eventually published the novel, a historical fiction work centering on Muhammad's young wife Aisha. Nor are publishing companies the only ones to engage in this type of behavior: television channel Comedy Central censored a "South Park" episode in 2006 that ironically enough was about censorship, while approximately 25 newspapers refused to run two 2007 "Opus" comic strip Sunday installments that poked fun at radical Islam.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | August 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
The OIC's Back-Door "Blasphemy" Campaign at Durban II
One of the few relatively positive developments to have emerged from the UN debacle known as Durban II was the deletion from the draft resolution of language calling for the international criminalization of "defamation of religion." Without going into a previously addressed issue, the Organization of the Islamic Conference did not thereafter cease its attempts to eradicate the right to criticize Islam, promptly securing a UN Human Rights Council resolution to that effect.
However, despite the fact that even the word "defamation" is absent from the final Durban Review Outcome document, it would be a grave mistake to believe that the OIC abandoned its attempts to use the Durban conference to pursue its 'blasphemy' agenda.
At the high level segment of the Durban Review Conference, OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu made certain to restate the claim that "defamation of Islam represents one of the most conspicuous demonstrations of contemporary racism and intolerance, and constitutes a threat to harmonious and cooperative relationship between and among nations."
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | April 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
The Human Rights Council Subverts Human Rights Once More
On March 19th, it was reported that the United Nations draft resolution for the second Durban conference on 'racism' had been substantially altered, notably dropping the provisions calling for measures to be taken against "defamation of religion," which were, in practical terms, meant to shield Islam, and particularly its radical variants, from criticism. This was rightfully seen as a blow against ongoing efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to globally criminalize speech pertaining to Islam.
However, a mere week later, on March 26th, the Human Rights Council passed a Pakistan-sponsored resolution on behalf of the OIC condemning "defamation of religion," despite loud outcries from numerous governments and a statement from nearly 200 non-governmental organizations, from 50 countries around the world, strongly urging the Human Rights Council not to pass the resolution.
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | March 27, 2009 at 12:09 am | Permalink
Geert Wilders and CNN's Warped Mirror
Geert Wilders is without question a controversial figure. His outspoken views on Islam and his film Fitna have resulted in death threats from Islamists, threats of extradition to Jordan for 'blaspheming Islam,' politicized court rulings targeting him in the Netherlands, and British appeasement to Islamists. Concurrently with these actions, a war of words has arisen, with some of Wilders' critics increasingly engaging in crude personal attacks on Wilders.
The rhetorical battle regarding Wilders reached mind-boggling proportions this past November, when a textbook was sent to schoolchildren in the Netherlands that equated Wilders to Adolf Hitler. Only after a fierce battle in Dutch Parliament was an insert sent out to replace the highly offensive assertion.
However, a recent self-fulfilling statement that appeared on CNN on February 26th may well render the textbook incident tame by comparison. CNN Co-Anchor Christine Romans introduced Wilders as being "sometimes referred to as the 'Al Qaeda of the Netherlands' because of his controversial views about the Koran and Islamic culture." Indeed, CNN entitled the segment ""Al Qaeda of the Netherlands" on Capitol Hill."
Continue to full text of posting...
By Aaron Eitan Meyer | March 3, 2009 at 12:36 pm | Permalink
© 2010 The Legal Project.