Here's a taste:
The Islamist movement has two wings – one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad.
Islamists with financial means have launched a "legal Jihad," filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West.
Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished.
Goldstein is right on point. The jihadists are sharp and perpceptive. As long as the surest way to end political debate in this country is to yell "racist," or "sexist," the jihadists will use that same tactic against us. The reaction to this movement needs to be measured but forceful. It need not--and should not--turn into a barrage of anti-Islam rhetoric. However, the contrast between the Islamist vision for the world (coereced adherence to Islam) and the West's vision (renewed commitment to religious freedom and pluralism) needs to be made again and again. If only so we don't forget the stakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment