Lawfare is the use of our legal systems by terrorists and their enablers to attack our societies. The best defense is to counter sue the attackers and their lawyers.
Here’s John Yoo, a former official in the Bush administration (my ellipsis):
Last week, I (a former Bush administration official) was sued by José Padilla — a 37-year-old al Qaeda operative convicted last summer of setting up a terrorist cell in Miami. Padilla wants a declaration that his detention by the U.S. government was unconstitutional, $1 in damages, and all of the fees charged by his own attorneys.
The lawsuit by Padilla and his Yale Law School lawyers is an effort to open another front against U.S. anti-terrorism policies.
It’s unlikely the terrorist and his Yale enablers will prevail, but in losing they’ll have forced Yoo to spend time and treasure defending himself, and the US justice system prevents him recovering his costs from his attackers.
Mark Steyn is being attacked by five Islamic law students, who are using that nation’s creepy Human Rights Act. Here’s the basis of their action:
…when Maclean’s published the Mark Steyn article The Future Belongs to Islam last year, we met its editors and asked that they publish a response to its Islamophobic content from a mutually acceptable author, from inside or outside the Muslim community. The intention was to engage Mr. Steyn about his views on Muslims. Maclean’s said it would rather go bankrupt than publish any response – hence, our human-rights complaints.
Actually, here’s what the Muslims wanted (my ellipsis):
The student lawyers in question came to us five months after the story ran. They asked for an opportunity to respond. We said that we had already run many responses to the article in our letters section, but that we would consider a reasonable request. They wanted a five-page article, written by an author of their choice, to run without any editing by us, except for spelling and grammar. They also wanted to place their response on the cover and to art direct it themselves.
People like this have no place in a free society, but if the Canadian Human Rights Commissioners toss their claim, they’ll have lost nothing and Steyn and the magazine will have spent a packet.
Muslims been playing this game for some time:
At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland, and other jurisdictions, by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work…
A major player on this front is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Egyptian who resides in Saudi Arabia. Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue more than 30 publishers and authors in British courts, including several Americans, whose written works have linked him to terrorist entities. A notable libel tourist, Mahfouz has taken advantage of the UK’s plaintiff-friendly libel laws to restrict the dissemination of written material that draws attention to Saudi-funded terrorism.
Back in Canada, there’s Ezra Levant:
The first time I met the complainant, the radical Muslim imam Syed Soharwardy, was when I debated him on CBC radio, nearly two years ago. The subject was the Danish cartoons.
As a part-time pundit, I do debates like that every week, but Soharwardy doesn’t, and he wasn’t used to being challenged so vigorously. I went about the rest of my day as usual; Soharwardy went to the police to ask them to arrest me.
They laughed him out of the police station, but the human rights commission welcomed him, and has chased me for two years now, using tax dollars and government bureaucrats.
I learned early in my UK career that the best way to deal with vexatious litigation is to counter sue. I was running a division of a company that received a demand for damages for breaching a patent that had no bearing on what we did.
The claimant said the giants of the industry had paid them off, and if we didn’t join in, they’d force us to spend millions of dollars (they were American) defending ourselves.
But my bosses had a strong objection to paying off crooks, so our grizzled company lawyer filed an enormous counterclaim. The claimant exited smartly, but only after we’d made him pay our (inflated) costs and ample damages.
In the case of Islamic lawfare, going after the claimant isn’t enough – you have to get their lawyers too.
That’s hard, since there’s a legal fiction that although the lawyers – say at Yale – actually assemble the claim and get their nutter to sign off in it, the law treats said nutter as the claimant and the lawyers as his humble servants and beyond attack.
To roll these people up, our governments must pass anti-terror laws that allow legal representatives to be counter sued.
That will quickly put an end to Islamic lawfare in the US and UK.
Canada is easier – all it needs to recover its freedoms is a legal hit on this man:
In the three decades of the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal’s existence, not a single “defendant” has been “acquitted.”
…In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole “complainant,” one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal “human rights” star chamber since 2002 — and he’s won every one…
Who is Richard Warman? What’s his story? Well, he’s a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission: an investigator.
So if you’re the victim of Islamic lawfare, remember my grizzled company lawyer.
Strike back. Brutally.