Wednesday, March 28, 2007

CAIR Must Be Fought, Pt. II

By Henry Mark HolzerNew Media Journal March 28, 2007

Last week I wrote an article in these pages entitled A Call To Arms: Cair Must Be Fought. In my article I repeated what I have been saying (and writing) since the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) began attacking the free speech rights of American citizens: that CAIR must “be countered with a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity that could raise tax-deductible contributions for the sole purpose of fighting CAIR in court.”

Examples of CAIR’s court cases, including its most recent on behalf of the “flying imams,” were discussed.
As a result of my article, I’ve been asked exactly how CAIR could be fought in court. There are many ways, and the remainder of this article explains just one of them.

At least 23 states and one territory have statutes known by their acronym SLAPP—“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” [1] Actually, the laws are known as “Anti-SLAPP” statutes because they protect “public participants” from lawsuits brought by people who want to silence them.
Since the “flying imam” flap originated in Minnesota, I’ll use that states’ “Anti-SLAPP” statute as my example of what smart, tough lawyers can do to the bullying thugs of CAIR. The statute appears in bold face below; my comments are interspersed.

But before getting to that, I want to set the stage.

A broadcaster urges the FBI to search every mosque in America, a blogger demands the state department deny visas to Muslims, a newspaper editorial insists that the Attorney General prosecute citizen Islamofascists for treason.

Next, on behalf of itself and/or the allegedly injured parties, CAIR sues everyone connected with the incident. Also sued, as in the flying imam case, are “John Does”—other people allegedly connected to the incident whose names are not yet known to the plaintiffs.

These defendants are not powerless. These defendants are not sheep going to slaughter under CAIR’s knife. Every one of these defendants, every time, should invoke an available “Anti-Slapp” statute, like this one.

Entire article here.

No comments:

Post a Comment