Newsletter July 2007 #69

Table of Contents:

The Anatomy of a Jihadist Lawsuit

In the United States and to a lesser extent in Canada, the supporters of the global Jihad movement have often filed lawsuits against so-called 'Islamophobes', 'extremists' and 'racists' who keep a close eye upon and occasionally identify the Jihad's Wahhabi and Salafist front organizations. These suits have included legal attacks on David Harris, one of Canada's top experts in terrorism; and Ezra Levant of the Western Standard magazine for reprinting some of the Danish cartoons last year (in this case, the plaintiff opted to use the Alberta Human Rights Commission as his vehicle of choice for legal harassment). Other suits have been launched against key analysts of the Jihad in the US, such as Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch, and Stephen Emerson.

One of the biggest suits was launched in the United States (ISB) by the Islamic Society of Boston against 17 defendants -- including a variety of private citizens, reporters and two media outlets. To summarize this massive suit as simply as possible: The city of Boston took 40,000 square feet of land in the Roxbury area (citing eminent domain) in the 1970s; and did nothing of note with it. Although the land was assessed at having a worth of $401,000 in 2003, it was sold to the ISB for $175,000 by the Boston Redevelopment Authority so that the ISB could build a gigantic mosque.

The ISB appears to be a Dawa-oriented organization and is certainly funded by Saudi Arabia. The presence of such a massive Wahhabi mosque with these backers is bad news, and the sweetheart land deal was itself controversial. A number of news outlets including the Boston Herald and Fox-25 as well as scholars of the Jihad movement like Steven Emerson had called attention to the deal and the ISB sued them. There were other details of considerable interest -- donations by the ISB to the Holy Land Foundation (which funds Hamas and other terrorist groups), secret bank accounts, massive money transfers from Saudi Arabia, and a whiff of corruption in Boston's municipal politics.

The lawsuit is a classic one, and follows the same pattern as so many others launched by supporters of the global Jihad movement.

1. 1. Launch lawsuit. Cast as wide a net as possible.
2. 2. Issue press releases about launch of lawsuit and proclaim this as a moral victory against the forces of darkness and evil, because the suit is for 'Human Rights', against 'Racism', ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Remind everyone on every possible occasion that the defendants are now of questionable veracity and worth because they have been sued for being such dastardly villains.
3. 3. If the defendants stand firm and look resolved, up the ante by spending more on the best legal help you can afford. Cheques and wire transfers from backers in Saudi Arabia will certainly help, as this suit should shut down critics of the Jihad.
4. 4. Slow up the process of discovery (that stage of a civil suit whereby the parties are supposed to have access to each others files). If possible, withhold some documents altogether, particularly when the defendants start looking enthusiastic about the treasure trove of intelligence they hope to access.
5. 5. Competent legal council starts advising that the case is not likely to succeed and may be embarrassing for the plaintiff. Then keep branding the defendants as racist Islamophobes, but start quietly trying to back out of the case without having to pay the defendants costs.
6. 6. The case is dropped if possible, although sometimes this doesn't work as the defendant may be positively looking forward to the trial. A victory is claimed, particularly alleging that poor little old plaintiff just didn't have the financial resources available to the defendants; and broad hints are dropped to supporters about wealthy Jews, sinister government slush funds, etc. etc. The hat is passed for more money, even though the plaintiff may have done well off the suit so far.
7. 7. If Step 6 didn't succeed, the plaintiff agrees to pay the defenders' costs and hope that this ends the matter.
8. 8. An announcement is made that the plaintiff has won a victory against racism and Islamophobia merely by raising the case in the first place. They then act as if they defended the highest principles and look for another hook that will let them proclaim a wonderful victory -- the ISB is now alleging that their critics were trying to halt construction of the mosque (they weren't), so that the continuing building program is a glorious vindication ... and so on.
9. 9. The plaintiff quietly settles any other side issues resulting from the failed suit if they can (for instance, it might be a result of a failure to disclose everything during the discovery process). They then regroup and wait for the next chance to do it all over again against someone else -- hopefully, someone with less resolve.
10. 10. If the publicity of the case has been too adverse, they dismantle their organization -- but keep the assets and principal officers and just reshuffle the name of the group and start over with a fresh slate. Thus the East Podunk Islamic Congress becomes the Islamic Congress of East Podunk. Then they start to look around for other grounds for complaints and shows of indignation. Once a suitable defendant is found, they go back to Step 1.

Given the nature of so many lawsuits from Jihadist front organizations, and the absolute absurdity of Wahhabis and Salafists issuing suits based on human rights in the first place, hopefully North America's judges will soon automatically treat these cases with the brusque dismissal they deserve.

Judges must learn to recognize the incongruity of a 'human rights' or 'discrimination' suit coming from the partisans of an Islamic sect that doesn't even recognize the validity of many other interpretations of Islam (let alone any other religion) and which is backed by prominent residents of a country in which the concept of religious freedom is absent. It is sometimes too much to hope for common sense in our courts, but hopefully the day will soon come when judges no longer let their courts be used as another campaign front for the Jihad.

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mackenzieinstitute@bellnet.ca