The June 19th conference given by Middle East Forum's Legal Project, entitled "Libel Lawfare: Silencing Criticism of Radical Islam" was superb. A cast of personalities spoke in the morning and afternoon sessions: Alan Dershowitz, Frank Gaffney, David Harris, Andrew McCarthy, Alan Mendoza, Douglas Murray, James Taranto and John J. Walsh. The morning session was moderated by Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum and star of DanielPipes.org. The afternoon session was moderated by David Rivkin, Attorney at law of Baker Hostetler.
The morning session's panel of five---Dershowitz, Gaffney, McCarthy, Taranto and Walsh---each gave their own versions of why freedom of speech is so important to our country and to the entire world. They each had their own unique view, but all were in agreement that it is increasingly difficult to criticize radical Islam--for that is what this is basically about---and get away with it unscathed. Daniel Pipes' contribution to this discussion was minimal, which was disappointing, as more of his voice would have been most welcome; however, he is a gentleman and a scholar and let the panel fight amongst themselves. His role, basically, was as a Solomon, allowing the panelists to divide the baby into equal parts, wisely keeping his own counsel.
David Rivkin, on the other hand, tried to involve himself more in the afternoon session--I detected a bit of "old Holloywood star syndrome"-- a la Sunset Boulevard. The panelists were just as interesting as the morning's selection, and they held the attention of the audience until the close at 4:00, the last few minutes devoted to audience questions.
There were testimonies from three very prominent figures: Hassan Daioleslam (iranlobby.com), Joe Kaufman, Chairman Americans Against Hate, and Marc Lebuis, President and CDO, Point de Bascule. All three men are fighting libel lawfare in their own countries; Daioleslam has had his life threatened and is currently in big trouble in Iran for speaking out against the government; Kaufman is currently fighting a lawsuit against him; Lebuis writes scathing articles in the Canadian press, pro-freeom of speech and anti-Islamic. These three men have proven that speaking your mind gets you into big trouble, but they are relentless in their pursuit of the freedoms that should be allowed, but aren't.
There was an invitation-only lunch provided: Chicken Cordon Bleu, baby broccoli, roasted potato wedges, salad, water, coffee and petite fours. Ice tea or a glass of wine would have been welcome, but the food was excellent nevertheless. After all, we didn't attend this conference simply to enjoy a free lunch--we who were there have a hunger for the truth, for the true freedom to speak and to write freely, to criticize, to inform, to ask questions---regardless of religious persuasion or non-religious affiliation. Hopefully we were all on the same page: fighting radical Islam with a free voice, not to be crushed by the national or international media or court systems, to define exactly what libel is and to fight false claims of libel.
The most significant aspect of this conference was the fact that libel lawsuits are creeping into Western society from Islamists who are trying to smother the voices of free speech. If the world can criticize Christianity and Judaism and other religions, then it certainly can criticize Islam and particularly, radical Islam, which is quickly consuming the more moderates of that belief. What kind of religion gives the nod to the murder of those who would not join its ranks? Where is the line between radical and moderate Islam? Or is it conveniently blurred to give more points to the radical side?
Our world is entering another phase of political and religious correctness, but it is unbalanced against all religions except Islam. Let us be brave and redress this balance.
No comments:
Post a Comment