U.S. town bans residents from criticizing mosque

WND, by Bob Unruh, August 2, 2017:

A New Jersey township that was sued by Muslims for refusing to approve a massive mosque project is returning to court because of a settlement agreement that restricts speech regarding Islam.

The settlement required the township to hold a public meeting about the mosque project, but it forbade anyone from commenting on “Islam” or “Muslims.”

A key tenet of Shariah, the Muslim law that governs both personal and political life, bans any negative comments about Islam or Muslims.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, which sued the township on behalf of two residents whose home is within 200 feet of the proposed mega-mosque, the settlement with Bernards Township “reads more like an instrument of surrender.”

The Islamic Society of Basking Ridge sued and won a decision in federal court after its mosque proposal was rejected based on traffic and other concerns.

The Township agreed on a $3.5 million payment and a “public hearing to approve the settlement.”

Residents Christopher and Loretta Quick challenged the agreement in court, arguing it restricts speech and violates the Establishment Clause by preferring Islam over other religions.

“The Quicks reside within 200 feet of the proposed mosque construction in a zoned residential area,” Thomas More explained. “Yet, the settlement agreement prohibits them from describing the many unique features of Islamic worship which will impact design of the building, traffic density, water and sewage, traffic control problems, road construction, and parking arrangements. According to the settlement agreement, ISBR is permitted to make statements concerning Christians and Jews and their places of worship, but in contrast, the agreement prohibits commentary relating to Islam or Muslims. In fact, ISBR has previously discussed the Christian and Jewish religions and their places of worship.”

Richard Thompson, chief counsel for Thomas More, said the Islamic center “has taken the extraordinary step of concealing significant links on their website to a radical group named by the federal government as an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America history, the Islamic Society of North America (‘ISNA’).”

“ISNA is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of ‘our organizations.’ According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a ‘grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within,’” said Thompson.

He said that while “claiming that the township had a religious animus against Muslims, ISBR hid from the public view its animus toward Christians and Jews, by not only hiding anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses published on its website, but also hiding its significant ties to ISNA.”

“Instead of standing up to defend its citizens against ISBR’s hate-filled anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bias, the township colluded with ISBR’s ‘Civilization Jihad’ by capitulating to payment of millions of dollars to ISBR, allowing the construction of the new mosque and Islamic center in violation of zoning codes, and now even suppressing speech concerning Islam or Muslims at a public meeting,” Thompson said.

IslamThreat.com estimates there were nearly 3,200 mosques in the United States as of 2015, with a massive surge following the 9/11 terror attack by Muslims.

The website lists 525 mosques in California, 507 in New York, 302 in Texas, 200 in Illinois and 186 in Florida.

The Islamic center sued the township when officials refused to permit a huge project on a lot critics contend is far too small. Later, U.S. Department of Justice, then under Barack Obama, also sued the township.

The new complaint argues the First Amendment provides no open door for governments to issue blanket censorship orders on speech.

“Defendants … have put in place a prior restraint on speech that bans citizens from engaging in free speech at a public hearing on political matters because of the content,” the complaint asserts.

“The settlement agreement further allows defendants to forbid speech with which they or others disagree.”

Further, the fact that the agreement doesn’t provide the same protections to Christians, Jews and others means that “defendants have shown preference for Islam and Muslims over other religions.”

The complaint seeks a declaration that the residents’ constitutional rights are being violated, preliminary and permanent injunctions against the agreement, and damages.

WND reported earlier this year citizens fought back after the personal communications of critics of the Basking Ridge project were subpoenaed in the case.

Neighborhood residents, including Lori Caratzola, were named by ISBR in its lawsuit as a fervent opponent of the mosque. Caratzola faced demands for all of her personal communications that mention Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, imams, burkas, hijabs, Shariah, jihad and other features of Islam.

“ISBR is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court process to chill and trample on the First Amendment rights of private citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at public hearings,” Thompson said at the time.

He asked for the subpoenas to be thrown out “because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech at a public place on a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection.”

Caratzola charged the Muslims’ intent with her was “to embarrass, strike fear, silence and cause financial harm to any citizen who dared oppose his nonconforming project.”

France: “Jihad by Court”

Gatestone Institute, by Yves Mamou, July 10, 2017

  • The goal of this trial is to create judicial precedent: to ensure that in the future, any criticism or insult against Islamism must be considered “racism”.
  • Valentina Colombo, a professor at the European University in Rome, warned early on about jihad by court. In 2009, she wrote that, “The lawsuit that was initiated by The Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad.” But nobody paid attention to the warning. And when jihadists came in 2015 to murder eight journalists and cartoonists, nobody understood that “jihad by court” is only the first step.
  • “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” — Steven Emerson, Founder and President of The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

A silent jihad is under way in France. Spread by a constellation of Muslim organizations allied to powerful (non-Muslim) “anti-racist” associations, “jihad by court” is attacking freedom of press, and freedom of speech. Any journalist, politician, lawyer or intellectual who talks or writes either about Islam or some of its representatives in a critical way, is at risk of being taken to court for “racism” or “outraging a group of people because of their religion.”

The so-called “jihad by court” began in an experimental way in France at the beginning of the century. In 2002, the famous French writer Michel Houellebecq was sued for “incitement to hatred” by Islamic organizations allied to the Ligue des droits de l’Homme, (“Human Rights League”), a prestigious “anti-racist” organization. Houellebecq was sued for having said in an interview with Lire magazine that, “of all existing religions, Islam is the dumbest. We read the Coran, we all collapse.” Houellebecq was acquitted.

In 2007, a similar lawsuit was initiated by the Union of the Islamic Organizations of France (UOIF) and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, because it republished the Danish Muhammad cartoons. The plaintiffs accused Charlie Hebdo of “racism”. Charlie Hebdo was acquitted. In 2011, unknown arsonists burned Charlie Hebdo‘s offices. The magazine was sued again in 2012 and in 2013. Each time, the plaintiffs were different Muslim organizations claiming different instances of “racism” or “blasphemy”. January 7, 2015, two Muslim terrorists stormed into the offices of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people.

Two years after that, jihad by court is everywhere.

Against Intellectuals and Journalists

Éric Zemmour, a writer and journalist, was sued in February 2011 for “racial incitement”. He saidon television that “most dealers are blacks and Arabs. That is a fact”. He was fined €2,000. In May 2012, Zemmour was sued for defamation by Patrick Lozes, president of Council of Black Associations (CRAN). Zemmour had written in 2008: “Patrick Lozes said ‘Obama is our president’, which proves that for him, racial solidarity is superior in his enamored eyes than national solidarity”. Zemmour was acquitted.

In 2014, Zemmour was sued again because he said, “The Normans, the Huns, Arabs, the great invasions after the fall of Rome are now replaced by gangs of Chechens, Roma, Kosovars, North Africans, Africans, who rob, abuse or strip your belongings.” He was released in September 2015. The appeals court reconfirmed his release in 2016.

In December 2015, Zemmour was again fined €3,000 because he had declared to the Italian daily Corriere della Sera that the “deportation” of five million French Muslim seems “unrealistic”, but is comparable to “the five or six million Germans who had to leave eastern Europe after World War II”. Zemmour succeeded in proving that the word “deportation” was added by Corriere della Sera, but the judge did not take that into consideration, and Zemmour’s conviction was reaffirmed after an appeal in November 2016.

In June 2017, Zemmour was fined €5,000 after saying on television in September 2016, that “jihadists were considered by all Muslims, good Muslims.” The plaintiff was a pro-Palestinian association, CAPJPO-EuroPa­les­tine.

Pascal Bruckner, an author and essayist, was sued in December 2015, by the Islamic, “left-wing” associations, Les Indivisibles and Les Indigenes de la République. Bruckner had said on television that the plaintiffs had “ideologically justified the murder of Charlie Hebdo‘s journalists”. Bruckner was acquitted in 2016.

In January 2017, all “anti-racist” associations and the Islamist CCIF (Collective Against Islamophobia) sued Georges Bensoussan — an award-winning Jewish French historian, born and raised in Morocco — for racism. He had said on the radio that “in France, in Arab families… anti-Semitism is imbibed with one’s mother’s milk.” He was acquitted, but the prosecutor has filed an appeal.

Against the “Fachosphère”

The fachosphère (combination of “fascist” and “sphere”) is the term that the mainstream media are now calling a collection of websites — such as the Riposte Laïque, Resistance Republicaineand many others — that warn of the dangers of being overrun by radical Islam. Between 2012 and 2017, Riposte Laïque alone was sued “no fewer than 43 times” its editor-in-chief, Pierre Cassen, told Gatestone. This time, the plaintiffs were not only “anti-racist” associations (LDH, SOS-Racisme, le MRAP, la LICRA and Islamist CCIF) — but also the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo; former Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, and various Islamic associations such as L’Aube du Savoir (“Sunrise of Knowledge”), journalists from the mainstream media (Libération, Le Monde), the Ligue de Défense Judiciaire des Musulmans (“Muslim Judicial Defense League”). These libel and racism suits asked for fines from €5,000 to €40,000.

Against Officials

On March 30, 2016, Laurence Rossignol, then Minister of Families, Children and Women’s Rights and known to be a fierce critic of the omnipresence of the Islamic veil in public places, was interviewed by the radio station RMC. She compared veiled women to “American negroes [“nègres américains”] who supported slavery”. Rossignol apologized for using “negroes”, but possibly too late. The Islamist Collectif Contre L’islamophobie en France (CCIF) and the Frantz Fanon Foundation launched a class action suit for “insult of a racial nature” and announced their intention to submit a complaint to the Cour de Justice de la République, a court empowered to adjudicate lawsuits against members of the government. The plaintiffs also threatened to sue the minister appointed to the Correctional Court and the Administrative Court of Paris.

In June 2017, Véronique Corazza, Head of Elsa-Triolet secondary school of Saint-Denis (a suburb of Paris), was sued by Majid Messaoudene, an official of the municipality of Saint Denis, because she republished on her Facebook page dozens “shameful tweets” of Messaoudène in which he supported BDS against Israel and mocked the secularist imam of Drancy, Hassen Chalghoumi.

On June 20, 2017, the jihadi terrorist Salah Abdeslam sued Member of Parliament Thierry Solère, for “breach of privacy”. Abdeslam is the only survivor of the Islamist terror cell that murdered 130 people and wounded 430 others on November 13, 2015 in Paris. Exercising his right as a member of parliament to visit prisons, Solère described to two journalists the life of the prisoner, from brushing his teeth to doing exercises in his cell.

Salah Abdeslam (left), a member of the Islamist terror cell that murdered 130 people in Paris on November 13, 2015, filed a lawsuit against Member of Parliament Thierry Solère (right), for “breach of privacy”. Solère had described to journalists the life of Abdeslam in prison. (Images source: Wikimedia Commons)

On June 22, 2017, Pierre de Bousquet de Florian, head of the new anti-ISIS task-force created by president Emmanuel Macron, was sued and fined €500 euros for “defaming” Imam Mohamed Khattabi. In 2015, Bousquet de Florian said that Khattabi was a Salafist and a hate-preacher.

Against Secularist Muslims

On February 6, 2015, Soufiane Zitouni, a professor of philosophy, published an op-ed in the daily, Libération, questioning the Islamist style of Averroes Muslim College, which was employing him. He described the college as “Muslim territory under contract with the State” and criticized an incipient anti-Semitism in the school. He was sued for defamation by Amar Lasfar, president of Union des Organizations Islamiques de France (UOIF), an umbrella organization said to be “in conformity with” the Muslim Brotherhood. Zitouni was acquitted.

Between 2015 and 2017, Mohamed Louizi, author of Pourquoi j’ai quitté les Frères Musulmans(“Why I Quit the Muslim Brotherhood”) was sued four times. In May and July 2015, he was sued for defamation because he published six articles on his blog about Sofiane Zitouni’s case with Averroes College (see above). In these two cases, Louizi was acquitted.

Then, in 2017, Louizi again shed light on arrangements made behind closed doors between some Socialist officials heading the city of Lille and Islamists accused by Louizi to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He was sued twice. Judgement is pending.

On June 6, 2017, Ahmed Meguini, secularist activist and founder of LaïcArt association, said on Twitter that Marwan Muhammad was “a son of a b**ch Salafist” and a “small sh**t”. Marwan Muhammad, an Islamist and Executive Director of CCIF was not angry at all. He simply picked up his phone and called his lawyer to sue Meguini — not for having insulting him, but for “racism“. The goal of this trial, according to Causeur magazine, is to create a judicial precedent: to ensure that in the future, any criticism or insult against Islamism must be considered “racism”.

These lists are not comprehensive; the trials above are just the most visible part of the iceberg.

A “Modern and Aggressive Form of Jihad “

Valentina Colombo, a professor at the European University in Rome, warned early on about “jihad by court”. In 2009, in Gatestone, she wrote:

“The lawsuit that was initiated by The Union of the Islamic Organizations of France and the Great Mosque of Paris against the satirical magazine ‘Charlie Hebdo’ for republishing the Danish cartoons about Muhammad is one of the most recent examples of this kind of jihad.”

But nobody (in France) paid attention to the warning. And when jihadists came in 2015 to murder eight journalists and cartoonists, nobody understood that jihad by court is only the first step. When people persist in what other people regard as “Islamophobia”, murderers have shown up to make sure the message sticks.

In another article, Colombo writes: “Jihad by court is another form of ‘intermediate’ jihad and is a modern and aggressive form of jihad through legal means.”

Jihad by court is one of the favorite means of the organizations and individuals ideologically linked with the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the West and sometimes is connected with the accusation of Islamophobia. The strategy is clear: any journalist, writer, intellectual, academic, activist or any newspaper, organization, association criticizing or exposing a Muslim Brotherhood individual or organization is very likely to be sued for defamation. The Legal Project of the Middle East Forum, based in the U.S., has given a very useful definition of this tactic:

Such lawsuits are often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, but undertaken as a means to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. Plaintiffs seek less to prevail in the courtroom than to wear down researchers and analysts. Even when the latter win cases, they pay heavily in time, money, and spirit. As counterterrorism specialist Steven Emerson comments, “Legal action has become a mainstay of radical Islamist organizations seeking to intimidate and silence their critics.” Islamists clearly hope, Douglas Farah notes, that researchers will “get tired of the cost and the hassle [of lawsuits] and simply shut up.”

French intellectuals, journalists, officials do not yet understand that they must organize, raise funds and elaborate strategies with lawyers to counter this threat. No one can compete individually against court by jihad. If an organized counter-strategy is not elaborated, the prediction of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian Islamic cleric and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars — “We will colonize you with your democratic laws” — will come true.

Yves Mamou, author and journalist, based in France, worked for two decades as a journalist for Le Monde.

Islamic Society with Questionable Background Joins Forces with Justice Department to Intimidate Citizens Opposing Mosque

Thomas More Law Center, April 18, 2017:

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) has learned that the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”), which was trying to obtain zoning changes to build a mosque in Bernards Township, NJ, has hidden from public view anti-Christian and anti-Semitic verses on its website, as well as its connection to the Islamic Society of North America (“ISNA”)— an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in America.  ISNA is claimed by the Muslim Brotherhood as one of “our organizations and . . . our friends.”  According to internal documents seized by the FBI, the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategy is to engage in a “grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within . . .”—one of the stages of this civilization jihad is the building of mosques and Islamic centers.

Plaintiffs ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued in March 2016, claiming that the denial of zoning changes to permit a mosque violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) of 2000 and reflected community “religious and cultural animus against Muslims.”  Within a week of the ISBR lawsuit, the Justice Department launched its own investigation and filed its own lawsuit.

While a visible link to the quotes below was once contained on the ISBR website, ISBR has now taken the extraordinary step of hiding the links from public view.  Accordingly, the quotes cannot be found through a simple internet search or a view of the public portion of ISBR’s website, they can only be found by access to the direct links here:

“Ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.”

“Fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war).”

“And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; … .”

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI entered the case solely to protect the constitutional rights of several Bernards Township citizens who exercised their fundamental right to publicly oppose proposed zoning changes.

These private citizens had no authority to deny the zoning application; nor did they have any official role in the Township.  Nevertheless, they were served with burdensome and harassing subpoenas which demanded: all their email addresses and social media accounts; all personal documents including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam; any object inscribed with or containing the words “Preserve Liberty Corner,” or anti-mosque signs, flyers, banners, email messages, or pamphlets, distributed or otherwise existing at any time within the Township.  In addition, Department of Justice (“DOJ”) lawyers began a new front of intimidation by directly contacting these private citizens, asking them to come in for interviews concerning the mosque.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “Under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the Justice Department, using politically driven DOJ attorneys, weaponized itself against fundamental constitutional principles to intimidate American citizens with whom they disagreed.  Immediately after the San Bernardino terrorist attack and just months before DOJ inserted itself into this case, Ms. Lynch made the infamous statement chilling free speech: ‘…when we see the potential for someone lifting that mantle of anti-Muslim rhetoric…. when we see that we will take action.’  This is exactly what happened to the citizens of Bernards Township. DOJ attorneys initiated a deep state inquisition, seeking to bring citizens objecting to the mosque in for questioning.”

Click here to read previous TMLC press release on Subpoenas.

Also see:

Outrageous Unconstitutional Intimidation of Private Citizens Who Opposed Mosque Project; Thomas More Law Center Steps In

Thomas More Law Center, March 28, 2017:

ANN ARBOR, MI – If you speak out against building a mosque in your community, you may be slapped with a subpoena demanding all your personal documents, including emails, voicemails, text messages, and social media posts concerning Muslims, Islam, mosques, the Quran, Muslim worship or prayer services, wudu, imams, burkas, hijabs, Sharia, jihad, or anything else associated with or related to Muslims or Islam.

This was part of the harassment and intimidation experienced by scores of private citizens of the small New Jersey town, Bernards Township (also known as Basking Ridge), who spoke out at public hearings against a plan to build a disproportionately-sized mosque on a small piece of residential property.  The mosque project, sponsored by the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (“ISBR”) and its president, Mohammad Ali Chaudry, was denied by Township officials for not complying with local building ordinances.

On March 10, 2016, ISBR and Mohammad Ali Chaudry sued Bernards Township in federal court, claiming various violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  Shortly after, ISBR had coercive subpoenas served on private citizens whose only involvement was voicing concerns at public planning board meetings about whether the proposed mosque complied with local building ordinances.

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently granted the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, permission to represent, without charge, several of these citizens who desired to quash the coercive and abusive subpoenas.  Westfield, New Jersey attorney Michael P. Hrycak is assisting the Law Center.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “ISBR is setting a dangerous unconstitutional precedent by abusing a court process to chill and trample on the First Amendment Rights of private citizens whose only involvement was to speak out against the mosque at public hearings. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that speech at a public place on a matter of public concern is entitled to special protection, we will ask the Federal District Court to quash the subpoenas served on our clients as a misuse and abuse of the Court’s process.”

Lori Caratzola, described in the ISBR Complaint as a fervent and frequent objector to the mosque, was a prime target for ISBR’s personal attacks.  She was personally mentioned over a dozen times in their Complaint.  Yet she has remained steadfast in her opposition.  Ms. Caratzola commented:

“Being served with a Federal Court Subpoena to turn over all my personal communications including voicemails, social media, emails, notes wherein I make any mention of anything having to do with Islam is an absolute violation of my First Amendment rights. I was a citizen exercising my right to attend public planning board meetings about a land use application that affected my community.”

She continued:

“Dr. Chaudry’s clear intent was to embarrass, strike fear, silence and cause financial harm to any citizen who dared oppose his nonconforming project.  And if these subpoenas are allowed to stand, it will set a chilling precedent for all citizens who wish to exercise their Constitutionally protected right to free speech and to petition their government.

“I was named numerous times in the Complaint, yet as a non-party, I had no standing to challenge the lies and half-truths told about me.  After the Complaint was filed, mainstream media picked up and repeated these lies and half-truths.”

Caratzola concluded:

“I have lost days, probably weeks, devoting time to trying to find counsel – only to find most attorneys are afraid of challenging an Islamic group in today’s political climate.”

Attorney Karen Lugo, a specialist on constitutional law and zoning issues, echoed Lori Caratzola’s concerns:

“ISBR’s subpoena of private citizens’ communications with local government, as well as all personal email and social media statements related to ‘anything associated with or related to Muslims or Islam’ is in direct violation of speech protections enshrined in the Constitution and in Supreme Court rulings. ISBR’s blatant efforts to chill the free exercise of speech while intimidating local citizens with these subpoenas must not only be denied, but must be rebuked, by the courts.”

Cody Smith, another subpoenaed resident who opposed the Mosque, stated:

“The planning board did exactly what it should have done—set emotions aside and judge ISBR’s application solely on its merits and whether it complied with our local regulations. It’s unfortunate that Dr. Chaudry, the Township’s former mayor, has resorted to an all-out smear campaign and retaliation against residents who exercised their fundamental Constitutional rights of Free Speech in a public forum.”

Soon after ISBR’s lawsuit, DOJ investigators opened another coercive front by attempting to   interview the private citizens who opposed the mosque.  Eight months later, the DOJ filed its own lawsuit against the Township.

Astonishingly, the DOJ was dismissive of an apparent conflict of interest between Mohammad Ali Chaudry and the DOJ’s chief investigator, Caroline Sadlowski, both of whom were serving together on the Center for Religious and Cultural Conflicts board at Drew University.

See Bernards Township Press Release here

‘Clock Boy’ Loses in Court, Father’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

PJ Media, by Debra Heine, January 11, 2017:

A district court judge in Texas has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year-old son, Ahmed Mohamed. They had sued Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the mayor of Irving — among others — for defamation in September of 2016.

A year earlier, Ahmed, then a 14-year-old freshman at an Irving, Texas, high school, was arrested, briefly detained by police, and suspended for three days after bringing to school a “cool clock” that looked like a briefcase bomb. Ahmed claimed to have “invented” the easily assembled clock, and that he had brought it to school to show it to his shop teacher.

The incident led many to question the Mohamed family’s motives. Newly appointed District Court Judge Maricela Moore dismissed the lawsuit following a nearly three-hour hearing on Monday, according to the American Freedom Law Center:

The motion to dismiss was filed by lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) and local counsel Pete Rowe on behalf of the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson, two of the defendants in the defamation case, which also named as defendants the local Fox affiliate, Glenn Beck, and Beck’s production company.

Mohamed had sued Hanson and CSP for statements Hanson had made on Beck’s program about the connection between the Clock Boy hoax bomb affair, the attendant media frenzy created in large part by his father Mohamed, civilization jihad, and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in the United States that promotes civilization jihad.

During the hearing, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel David Yerushalmi explained to Judge Moore that the purpose of the lawfare-driven lawsuit was to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam. As such, Yerushalmi argued, “this case is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or ‘SLAPP’ case and should be dismissed.”

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore said that she would rule by the end of the day. On Tuesday, the court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.

Upon leaving the courtroom, Yerushalmi made the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

Yerushalmi added:

The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as “Islamophobic,” and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions.

Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, the AFLC is petitioning the court for lawyer fees and sanctions against Clock Boy’s dad.

***

Clock Boy’s Defamation Lawsuit Attacked as Lawfare: AFLC Lawyers Ask Court to Award Sanctions

clock-boy

AFLC, December 6, 2016:

Today, lawyers for the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson filed a motion in a Dallas, Texas court seeking to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Mohamed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year old son, Ahmed Mohamed.

Ahmed is better known as “Clock Boy” for bringing a hoax clock bomb to his Irving, Texas middle school in September 2015 and causing a bomb scare that led to his arrest and suspension from school.  Later, Ahmed claimed the look-a-like briefcase bomb was just a “homemade clock.”  In reality it was neither a bomb nor a homemade clock, but a disassembled digital clock put in a small carrying case giving it the look of an improvised digital bomb or trigger for a bomb.

The Clock Boy’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from various media companies and personalities, such as Glenn Beck, the Glenn Beck Show, and the local Fox News station, for commenting on the hoax bomb affair during their programs.

Jim Hanson, a CSP senior vice president, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, and an expert on counter-terrorism, was sued along with CSP and the other media defendants for suggesting that the entire affair was a PR stunt by Clock Boy’s father in order to generate a media firestorm about anti-Islamic bias and Muslim-victimization.

During Hanson’s appearance on the Glenn Beck Show, Hanson noted that the Clock Boy’s father had orchestrated an intense media campaign with the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), which the U.S. government has formally linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and to the designated terrorist organization Hamas in several formal court filings in federal terrorism cases.

Hanson went on to explain that the entire affair had the look and feel of a typical “influence operation”—the standard operating procedure of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad” against the West.

The motion to dismiss, filed by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”), along with AFLC’s local Texas counsel Pete Rowe, not only seeks dismissal of the lawsuit, but also requests the court to award attorneys’ fees and to sanction Clock Boy’s father for filing a meritless lawsuit whose only purpose is to silence those who might speak out publicly against such influence operations.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

“The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as ‘Islamophobic,’ and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions,”

Yerushalmi added.

Texas, like California and a number of other states, has an anti-SLAPP statute that requires a court to dismiss such lawsuits and to sanction those plaintiffs who file them.

Robert Muise, AFLC’s other co-founder and senior counsel, made clear:

“AFLC was formed in large measure to take on Islamists like CAIR who use and abuse the legal system with their cynical form of lawfare to undermine our constitutional liberties—notably free speech.  We have confronted these lawsuits across the country in federal and state courts and have defeated CAIR and its minions at every turn.  When appropriate, we have won sanctions.  This lawsuit will be no different.”

Muslim Flight Attendant Sues For Refusing Passengers THIS

Capture

CAIR immediately takes up her cause.

CounterJihad, by Bruce Cornibe, Aug. 11, 2016:

Flight attendants have a number of duties and one of them is providing customers with food and beverages – including drinks containing alcohol. However, for one Muslim flight attendant working for ExpressJet serving alcohol has come into conflict with her religious beliefs. The Muslim woman, Charee Stanley, is now on unpaid leave and suing “the airline of wrongly suspending her because she refused to serve alcohol to passengers.” The Detroit News reports the chain of events leading up to the lawsuit:

According the lawsuit, Stanley converted to Islam in January 2013 and began work with the airline that month.

She served alcohol to passengers and was “not aware” that Islamic proscriptions on alcohol consumption extend to the act of serving alcohol to others, the complaint says.

In June 2015, Stanley learned of the proscription and the following work day asked ExpressJet to grant her a religious accommodations [sic] in which she did not have to personally serve alcohol to passengers.

The company accommodated her by having her ask other flight attendants to serve alcohol to passengers.

Around August 2015, Stanley alleges she was told to either resign or serve alcohol. She made another request for the accommodation and was denied, according to the complaint.

Stanley was placed on unpaid leave on Aug. 25, 2015, for 12 months, after which her employment would be terminated.

The federal court case follows a discrimination complaint filed last year with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which dismissed it without determining whether the airline violated the law.

Stanley alleges ExpressJet didn’t provide a reasonable religious accommodation and seeks back pay and other damages.

So, Stanley essentially served alcohol for over two years for the airline as a Muslim woman, then decides it conflicts with Sharia and now refuses to serve the intoxicant. How is it fair to make other flight attendants and staff take over her duties in that area all because she changed her mind on what’s halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden) in Islam? Is this about a reasonable religious accommodation or Sharia? Furthermore, what happens if Stanley decides that she can’t serve pork products since “the flesh of swine” is haram (Quran 2:173, Quran 6:145) or serve passengers with seeing eye dogs because dog saliva is impure in Islam? Would these religious accommodations as well as many others be reasonable? Stanley’s case is still pending but it’s important to note that religious accommodations cannot be made for a totalitarian ideology like Sharia which lacks moderation.

Of course, the one filing the lawsuit is none other than the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR (Michigan chapter). As highlighted in this video CAIR is notorious for filing these alleged religious discrimination complaints – using them as a way to advance their Islamist agenda by pressuring companies and government agencies to give into their demands.

Also  see: