Sunday, January 21, 2007
Special to Solomonia! Charles Jacobs, President of The David Project has a few things to say about the litigious Islamic Society of Boston (search results show oldest results first, scroll down for most recent), exclusively via this site. The ISB has filed multiple lawsuits against people who have dared to ask questions about its multi-million dollar Boston Mosque project. This entry will remain at the top for today at least, so scroll down for new entries:
The Islamic Society of Boston and Intimidation 101
The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) denies that it has any intention of intimidating people or trying to stifle their First Amendment rights — even though it is suing an Islamic cleric, a Christian political science professor, the Jewish daughter of Holocaust survivors, various journalists, non-profits and researchers who had the nerve to raise questions about the Society’s funding and leadership, and about the somewhat extraordinary nature of a deal by which it received public land at a fraction of its fair market value.
To repeat: They are not trying to intimidate or stifle free speech. That's why in an August, 2006 letter to Michael Graham and WTKK, who had the nerve to discuss these matters publicly, the Islamic Society's counsel warned Graham and his station that they might be subject to legal action if there were further broadcasts. The ISB's counsel closed his letter with the following warning:
"Please instruct your show's producer to keep and maintain the master copy of yesterday and today's radio program as well as any future radio programs which concern, reference or mention the ISB".
Intimidation? Nah. Just a little reminder that journalists who are thinking about writing or speaking about the issues raised by the Boston Redevelopment Authority's (BRA) transfer of public land to the ISB at a fraction of its cost, or the role of BRA Deputy Director Muhammed Ali-Salaam in this amazing transaction, or about the past and present leaders of the ISB, or about its funding, may want to think twice. The ISB wants them to know that the ISB will be watching them.
But it isn't intimidation. Not at all.
Charles Jacobs, President
The David Project
Update: This Cox & Forkum cartoon seems quite an appropriate addition:
[h/t: Michael Graham and the Valley Patriot]
Update2: Those looking for further background on this case can start by reading here, here and here.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that Islam, yes, Islam itself, is a far greater threat to freedom on the globe than Comminism and Nazism ever were and even were those two combined?
It's definitely disquieting to think that a nominally American organization can simply phone up a few Saudi princes, and have limitless funds to sue their critics into silence. Not that I'm questioning their patriotism or anything...
Congratulations on the lizardlanche, btw...
1) Offense, 2) offense and 3) offense - together with uncompromising disavowals of self-reflection and self-criticism; a certain, qualitative mindlessness and inevitable, concomitant heartless and soulless qualities as well.
Such is the result of the jihadist/salafist outlook and such is the face both Islamicists and Islam in general has chosen, consciously and unconsciously, to offer the world. Committed salafists and jihadists comprise a decided minority within Islam, but the broad range of sympathizers and the additionally broad range of apathetic quietists - those who, due to intimidations and other motives, refuse to criticise and oppose the core militant groups - together represent a decided majority within Islam. It requires a critical self-blinded quality to imagine otherwise.
(On the other hand Chicago has won the NFC title, so at least for now all is well with the world.)
I wonder if there is going to be that big push by the Dhimmicrats for a ban on criticism of religion, especially Islam, of course.
The Muslims in America are pushing it hard, but look how far they have come in Europe. Europe is practically cowering in the corner.
Hey, is Jim Baker's law firm representing the ISB? I read they are representing the Saudis in the family lawsuit.
Charles, I was led to your site by the other Charles (at lgf). Wonderful site. Great gutsy post. I hope you keep holding these folks up to the spotlight of public scrutiny. I resent their arrogance. Also, I resent the Saudis and the free ride that the Bush White House is determined to give them -- despite the efforts that a NUMBER of PROMINENT Saudis are undertaking to UNDERMINE the allege war on terror (that is -- at best -- rather fainthearted, in my opinion). -- gunjam
michael b wrote:
1) Offense, 2) offense and 3) offense - together with uncompromising disavowals of self-reflection and self-criticism; a certain, qualitative mindlessness and inevitable, concomitant heartless and soulless qualities as well.
Such is the result of the jihadist/salafist outlook and such is the face both Islamicists and Islam in general has chosen, consciously and unconsciously, to offer the world. Committed salafists and jihadists comprise a decided minority within Islam, but the broad range of sympathizers and the additionally broad range of apathetic quietists - those who, due to intimidations and other motives, refuse to criticise and oppose the core militant groups - together represent a decided majority within Islam. It requires a critical self-blinded quality to imagine otherwise.
Superbly articulately and insightfully written paragraph.
I call it a steadfast resistance to the development of a conscience -- something that stands in stark contrast to the experience of many followers of Christianity and Judaism.
-- gunjam
And let us not forget the wonders of libel tourism.
I recall that Michael got fired in DC, too, because he called some of the local salafists "Islamofascists." Pissed off any number of people, but was right on the mark, of course!
Steadfast opposition to this crap is the only possible solution. They will bend every effort to bury us.
The appropriate response would be to counterclaim for abuse of process, the civil version of false arrest. You can go for the original petitioners, their attorneys, everybody on the attorneys' letterheads, the typists, everybody on the petitioners' letterheads and in their leadership -- in short, everyone who is in the enemy chain of command. You can, early on, get from the bad guys a complete list of their assets and addresses (in case you win and want to squeeze the bad guys). Such interesting information can then be posted on the Internet. If it is accurate, it might be quite informative. If not, it can get the bad guys in trouble with the court. Go for their kaffiyehs, fellas!
Only by allowing more free speech, together with intense public scrutiny, can Americans hope to shine a light upon Islamist efforts to foment internal separateness; and further, expose the singularity of their indivisible religious and political agenda which aims to subsume our Constitution and supplant our individual freedoms for a seventh (7th) century Islamic paradise.
While Bush is making noises against the Iranians, he thinks the Saudis can do no wrong. Meanwhile, it is the Saudis not the Iranians who are spending massive amounts or money in the US. Bush is even inviting the Saudis to send over more "students" to US universities. If the President thinks this is no problem why should we?
The thing about CAIR is that for such a well-oiled PR apparatus, they haven't been all that successful with their defamation suits, have they.
The score I am aware of so far is:
Andrew Whitehead of AntiCair:1 CAIR: 0 and Daniel Pipes: 1, CAIR: 0.
The six imams yanked from a flight story has been debunked.
The 40 tardy Hadj travellers -- compensated by North West Airlines for being kept off a plane for arriving too close to departure time.