SLAPP CAIR

Last week I linked to a piece by Henry Holzer on why CAIR must be defeated, A Call To Arms: Cair Must Be Fought. This week Holzer describes how here;

A Call to Arms: CAIR Must Be Fought - Part II

The Fifth Column 
Henry Mark Holzer

Last week I wrote an article in these pages entitled A Call To Arms: Cair Must Be Fought. In my article I repeated what I have been saying (and writing) since the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) began attacking the free speech rights of American citizens: that CAIR must “be countered with a non-profit 501(c)(3) entity that could raise tax-deductible contributions for the sole purpose of fighting CAIR in court.” Examples of CAIR’s court cases, including its most recent on behalf of the “flying imams,” were discussed.

As a result of my article, I’ve been asked exactly how CAIR could be fought in court. There are many ways, and the remainder of this article explains just one of them.

At least 23 states and one territory have statutes known by their acronym SLAPP—“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” [1] Actually, the laws are known as “Anti-SLAPP” statutes because they protect “public participants” from lawsuits brought by people who want to silence them.

Since the “flying imam” flap originated in Minnesota, I’ll use that states’ “Anti-SLAPP” statute as my example of what smart, tough lawyers can do to the bullying thugs of CAIR. The statute appears in bold face below; my comments are interspersed.

Read it all.

But before getting to that, I want to set the stage.

Comments

[danceswithgoats]

I always thought that a muslim cab driver that won't accept fares at an airport was damaging/impeding interstate commerce. The same thing goes for someone who won't ring up pork products at a grocery store. If the feds could use the interstate commerce angle to help combat civil rights violations, why can't they use them to combat sharia in the US?