The Islamic campaign to silence us

An interview from Sun News in Canada with Brooke Goldstein from The Lawfare Project which  is an organisation that fights for free speech against political censorship — especially from Islamic extremists.

interesting stuff, especially with regards to the recent EU decision about Hamas and UN actions.  

What is “Lawfare”?

“Lawfare is not something in which persons engage in the pursuit of justice, and must be defined as a negative phenomenon to have any real meaning. Otherwise, we risk diluting the threat and feeding the inability to distinguish between that which is the correct application of the law, on the one hand, and that which is lawfare, on the other. Because that is the essence of the issue here: how do we distinguish between that which constitutes a constructive, legitimate legal battle (even if the legal battle is against us and inconvenient) from that which is a counterproductive perversion of the law, which should be allocated no precedent? The delineation is not as simple as some may like to make it; that is, that lawsuits against terrorists are good, and legal actions against democracies are bad. The question is not ‘Who is the target?’ but ‘What is the intention?’ behind the legal action: Is it to pursue justice, to apply the law in the interests of freedom and democracy, or is the intent to undermine the very system of laws being manipulated?”

 – Brooke Goldstein, Director, The Lawfare Project

Lawfare denotes “the use of the law as a weapon of war”** or, more specifically, the abuse of Western laws and judicial systems to achieve strategic military or political ends.

It consists of the negative manipulation of international and national human rights laws to accomplish purposes other than, or contrary to, those for which they were originally enacted.

Lawfare is also evident in the manipulation of domestic legal systems (by state and non-state parties) to implement laws inconsistent with general principles of liberal democracy.

The principles underlying lawfare are also present in glaring failures to apply human rights law and in the disproportionate and biased application of the law.

Modern-day lawfare has five goals:

     1. To silence and punish free speech about issues of national security and public concern;

     2. To delegitimize the sovereignty of democratic states;

     3. To frustrate and hinder the ability of democracies to fight against and defeat terrorism;

     4. To confuse laws of armed conflict with human rights law; and

     5. To prevent the application of human rights law in situations where it is needed the most.

These goals are interconnected – any one instance of lawfare may serve to achieve more than one of the aims listed above.


Do you want ad-free access to our Daily Crossword?

Do you want access to daily Incite Politics Magazine articles?

Silver Subscriptions and above go in the draw to win a $500 prize to be drawn at the end of March

Not yet one of our awesome subscribers? Click Here and join us.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story.  And when he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet.   Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet, and as a result he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist that takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him.  But you can’t ignore him.

52%