Islamist-Friendly Self-Censorship in the United States Marches On

by Aaron Eitan Meyer • Aug 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm

http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2009/08/islamist-friendly-self-censorship-in-the-united

Islamist attempts to suppress the freediscussion of radical Islam take many different forms, but the mostdifficult effect of these attempts to document may well beself-censorship. Indeed, Islamist lawfare may well be likened to aniceberg, with self-censorship representing the immense mass lurkingbeneath opaque waves, while its chilling effect extends farther thanthe eye can see.

On August 12^th, the New York Times reported that Yale University Press' upcoming book on the Danish Muhammad cartoons, entitledCartoons That Shook the World,would not only fail to include the cartoons themselves, but would alsobe entirely devoid of any images depicting Muhammad. The Times articlefurther reported that Yale had consulted "two dozen authorities,including diplomats and experts on Islam and counterterrorism" and thatthese unnamed individuals unanimously stated that the book shouldcontain no images of Muhammad. The rationale for this absurdrecommendation was, according to special adviser to the secretarygeneral of the United Nations Ibrahim Gambari quoted in the Times article, "You can count on violence if any illustration of the prophet is published."

This is eerily reminiscent of how Random House attracted considerable attention this past year when it pulled the novel The Jewel of Medinaafterit received hysterical predictions of outrage and violence; BeaufortBooks eventually published the novel, a historical fiction workcentering on Muhammad's young wife Aisha. Nor are publishing companiesthe only ones to engage in this type of behavior: television channelComedy Central censored a "South Park" episode in 2006 that ironically enough was about censorship, while approximately 25 newspapers refused to run two 2007 "Opus" comic strip Sunday installments that poked fun at radical Islam.

Still, the most alarming aspect of self-censorship is that itschilling effect goes well beyond public perception. There is simply noway to determine how many books have not been published, or how manyreports have been censored rather than face an Islamist reaction –whether that reaction is the specter of violence or threats of legalaction.

The Jewel of Medina incident was itself but another in a longline of self-censoring publishers. In December of 2006, publisherPalgrave McMillan reneged on its plans to publish a new, progressive,translation of the Quran entitled QURAN: A Reformist Translation,after receiving an anonymous review from "a very well-establishedprofessor," to which the book's editor Edip Yuksel responded thatshelving the book on this basis "was akin to a medieval publishinghouse turning down Martin Luther's 95 Theses after consulting "a verywell-established" Catholic Bishop!" While Brainbow Press eventuallypublished it, few are aware of its existence, much less of thecontroversy that surrounded its non-publication by Palgrave McMillan.

Perhaps an even better example of the unknowable nature of self-censorship's reach comes from a completely unreported incident. "Faith Fighter"is an online video game featuring various religious figures in combat,including Muhammad. It attracted considerable attention andcontroversy, but was removed after the Organization of the Islamic Conference threatened the game's producers.

The American television channel G4 describes itselfas "the one destination on television that feeds your addiction for thelatest must-have tech gadgets, web culture and video games." It was notsurprising, therefore, when it ran a 45-second "Indie Games" spot about"Faith Fighter" during a commercial break of the premier episode of theshow "Web Soup" on June 7, 2009.

The brief spot summarized the game and its controversial nature, andthe announcer, Kevin Pereira, mentioned the playable characters byname, noting that one could play as God, Jesus, Buddha, Ganesha andBudai. However, not only did the segment completely omit the fact thatOIC pressure led to the game being taken down, but it glaringly ignoredthe fact that there are six playable characters, even as Muhammad's unidentified image appeared directly behind the presenter.

Self-censorship takes many forms, whether by refusing to includeimages in a book or television program, reneging on a contract topublish, or simply omitting crucial facts when reporting. And the firststep towards effectively countering this hugely successful Islamistploy is to bring these incidents into the light of public dialogue –precisely what proponents of radical Islam seek to prevent.

Related Topics: United Nations receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing listThistext may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as anintegral whole with complete information provided about its author,date, place of publication, and original URL.

Islamist Lawfare

by Aaron Eitan Meyer
American Spectator
September 15, 2009

http://www.legal-project.org/article/460

On Tuesday, August 18, the Saudi Arabia-based Arab News reported that Khalid bin Mahfouz, the Saudi billionaire perhaps best known in the West as the "Libel Tourist" for his penchant for using U.K. connections to bring libel lawsuits against his critics had passed away.

However, the much-publicized phenomenon of 'libel tourism' -- that is, the practice of non-United Kingdom residents suing American researchers and authors for libel in the plaintiff-friendly U.K. -- had already effectively met its own demise over a year ago, after Rachel Ehrenfeld's refusal to comply with a British court's default judgment in favor of bin Mahfouz against her led to the enactment of protective legislation in several U.S. states, and consideration of similar bills in Congress.

In fact, bin Mahfouz's only newsworthy success came when he sued for libel over the book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, whose publisher, Cambridge University Press, capitulated to him, abjectly apologizing publicly and even requesting that libraries pull copies off of shelves -- a request that American libraries categorically refused. However, unlike the Ehrenfeld case, bin Mahfouz's suit over Alms for Jihad, reprehensible and predatory though it was, was not a case of libel tourism, since Alms for Jihad was "Printed in the United Kingdom at the University Press, Cambridge."

Yet, despite its brief and extremely limited existence, libel tourism has been allowed for too long to overshadow the real extent of the threat to free and open discourse on radical Islam, terrorism, and its sources of funding -- Islamist legal warfare, or "lawfare."

Unlike libel tourism, Islamist lawfare is not a mere tactic, but part of a grand strategy, and one that uses every legal opportunity possible to achieve its goals: including rewriting international human rights norms to comport with Shari'a-based interpretation, attempts to globally criminalize manufactured and unsubstantiated assertions of "Islamophobia" or "defamation" of religion, claims of "hate speech" or "harassment," and promoting self-censorship by American publishers and media. Even as far as predatory libel lawsuits go, there have been many cases brought within the U.S. without the need to resort to British libel law, leaving bin Mahfouz's "libel tourism" as generally unnecessary.

Even within the United States, fixating on the predatory domestic libel suits that are a mainstay of Islamist lawfare is dangerously myopic. Counterterrorism consultant Bruce Tefft is being sued by a John Doe Muslim police officer not for libel, but for "workplace harassment." Random House's cowardly decision not to publish the novel The Jewel of Medina, like Palgrave McMillan's earlier decision to renege on publishing QURAN: A Reformist Translation, had nothing to do with threats of libel lawsuits, but everything to do with Islamist pressure.

Despite these and countless other examples, few are even aware of the term Islamist lawfare, much less the extent of its reach. Conducting an online search for the term "Islamist lawfare" on a major search engine will likely result in somewhere between 14,000 and 18,400 hits, while a search for "libel tourism" will net between 189,000 and 213,000 hits. In part, the number of hits for libel tourism is the positive result of excellent analyses of the phenomenon, such as Andrew C. McCarthy's highly informative article, which appeared in the September, 2008 issue of Commentary magazine, where he clearly laid out the crucial public interest at stake, as "the need to understand and address financial support systems that invigorate the terror networks targeting Americans for mass murder."

The danger does not stem from the fact that a search for libel tourism nets many results, which demonstrates how effective the response to libel tourism has been, but from the fact that the vastly more complex and dangerous issue of Islamist lawfare has yet to be fully addressed in the public arena.

Perhaps bin Mahfouz's demise will provide an end to the dangerous overemphasis that has been placed on libel tourism. Islamist lawfare is a far larger threat that needs to be understood as such. Otherwise, we in the West will find ourselves further outflanked by Islamist entities with immense political and financial resources -- and by a certain point, that could prove sufficient for radical Islam's victory.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to the legal project's free mailing list This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL. http://www.legal-project.org/article/460