Lawfare infringes on the rights of investigative journalists, steps on free speech, ruins lives and wastes the resources of the courts

December 28, 2012, 6:40 pm
  


 



By Gary Gerofsky

The court systems are being abused by serial lawfare agents working on behalf of international governments and in some cases, terrorist-connected or terrorist-supporting Islamist groups. Where there is money, there is always a lawyer waiting to get a piece of the pie regardless of the merit or morality of the case. Frivolous lawsuits waste tax dollars, ruin lives, and tie up valuable court resources so that others are delayed or denied justice. We must act now to prevent our courts from becoming vehicles for Islamist and other groups who want to silence journalists and citizens; anyone who challenges and exposes their hateful, violent and vengeful ways.

Stock Photos from 123RF

I recently received an email from a blog that is currently being sued by a lawyer famous for his mercenary legal activities on behalf of anyone who has the money to pay him. He positions himself as the aggrieved party and then goes in for the kill. He has made a killing in terms of dollars over the years in this role. He used to work for major Jewish organizations going after Nazis and right-wingers in Canada but has since shifted his focus to work for Islamists who wish to shut down any criticism of their advancing of sharia and jihad in North America. The whole concept presents moral dilemmas for me in that a tactic and strategy that I once applauded (the tracking down of Nazis) is now being used to silence media and individuals who are chronicling the crude acts of Islamists by taking videos and exposing daily events in mosques and public schools as they become more sharia compliant and bully pulpits for hate speech against Jews, Christians, and “infidels” in general. The leftwing and unions in the public school systems do not see this infiltration of Islamism and the breach of church-state divisions as a problem; in fact, they encourage it by telling us that it fits in with their concept of multicultural acceptance. This lawfare business has me thinking more than ever about the importance of free speech and the differences and lines between free speech and hate speech in a free society.

The lawyer who conducts the bulk of the lawfare for Islamists in Canada is rumored to be connected and directed by Iranian Islamic groups and their primary Iranian contact person in Canada. The bloggers know that the lawyer has been communicating with law firms who work for the Iranian contingent in Canada. Iranian government consular officials have been recently booted out of Canada for spying on and bullying Iranian Canadians into joining protests in favor of the regime and in opposition to “Zionists” and the Canadian government. They have been recruiting for Iranian support from their Diaspora community here in Canada and Iranian Canadians feel threatened by the long arm of the Iranian terrorist regime.

As a taxpayer I find this lawfare business to be highly wasteful of resources and court time and it should be easily remedied by a simple recognition of two facts: 1) that media must not be controlled by unelected, untrained, and biased human rights tribunals and, if the real court system does become involved then they must pre-screen cases for serial and repeat offenders of multiple and frivolous cases; 2) the bar must be raised to address only the worst hate speech that incites violence or death. In other words, if bloggers are investigating public schools where the entire space of the gym or auditorium is being utilized by Islamists to pray each and every day (in itself a violation of the public school mandate and rules) and where menstruating girls are deemed dirty and must be relegated to the back of the auditorium, that is something that we must all know about. It is news, important news that a free society must deal with accordingly. A blogger who exposes such acts should not be subjected to a lawsuit by an aggressive and well-funded lawyer who is acting on behalf of an offended Islamist group that does not like the PR generated by the baseness of their own beliefs in the 21st century. A speech given by a public school Muslim girl that vilifies Jews and is filmed and exposed by a blogger should be lauded, not met with a lawsuit by a serial lawfare agent.

The problems created for those exposed to the lawfare agents are terrible. All lawsuits require money and lawyers do not come cheaply. It disrupts the lives of those who are targeted by the lawfare agents. The lawfare agents feign offense and have the power to ruin lives and stop the good work journalists and others are doing to reveal the attacks against our freedoms and the transformations taking place in our country. In Canada we do not have first amendment rights in our constitution. Our Charter keeps growing over time with the inclusion of new precedent cases that result in additional rights for groups instead of protection of individual rights. In practical terms this means that groups (individuals claiming some kind of group affiliation that allows them a slew of fake and artificial grievances on behalf of the group) are frequently prosecuting when mere insults or offending language is directed against them. In Canada we need to develop thicker skins and push back against those who use the court systems whenever they feel offended or their religion or politics come under scrutiny.

What will happen if this trend continues? We will have many more lawyers hopping on the gravy train taking advantage of pools of money from Iran, Saudi Arabia, unions, communist countries and others who can silence critics simply by launching a law suit. They do not even have to go through with the suit for their opponents to cave because of the imbalance of power between those with the bucks and those without; most will throw in the white towel immediately. My suggestions also have consequences for those groups I support – they will no longer be able to take advantage of political quasi-legal human rights tribunals or the court system just because they feel offended or think that hate is being directed at them. They will simply have to fight back with ideas, words, commentary and hard-hitting facts and language. In other words, they will have to do what they have refrained from doing – behave in the same way that the blogs are doing now by using investigative techniques to expose and critique the infamy of their opponents. The stronger arguments will prevail in the court of public opinion.

Given the heinous and violent mentality of authoritarian, oppressive, misogynist, and evil regimes, the arguments for and from a free society will win out. At the present we just have two classes: 1) a tiny minority who fearlessly confront the evil; and, 2) those who are afraid to confront them because they officially promote and sanction the use of silence as a response to evil and tell everyone else to use silence and ignore real problems. In a world where free speech reigns supreme, they will have to wake up, mobilize their people and fight with their minds. At present those doing exactly that are being targeted by lawfare agents while the groups with money stand idly by and do not lift a finger. Individuals who are speaking for freedom are being called radicals and ignored by mainstream groups that consistently pat each other on the back and hold charity dinners to honour themselves for doing nothing. In the meantime, lawfare agents are working for Islamists to silence those who have put themselves on the front lines. Mainstream groups ought to finance their defense and to defend their brothers-in-arms. That would be a good stop-gap measure. In the long term we need to screen out frivolous lawsuits and prevent serial lawfare agents from carrying out their heinous plan on behalf of their evil paymasters.



Related: Activism, Appeasement, Canada, Constitution, Corruption, Free Speech, Islam, Law, Political Correctness, Public Opinion


Leave a Reply

By posting a comment, you agree to our Terms of Service and Usage.