The upcoming lawfare trial of the century

Ever heard of lawfare? Soft jihad? You will soon.

The so-called Hairless Sockpuppet is suing Ezra Levant. Heh heh heh. I'm ordering a CASE of microwave popcorn for this performance that will put Awan's name down in the annals of Canadian history.

His name will one day be synonymous with lawfare. And a source of shame for generations.

The excellent Robert Sibley gives some background on the man who is foolish enough to sue Ezra
(my bolds).

Khurrum Awan, one-time president of the Canadian Islamic Congress’s youth wing, and sidekick to Congress leader Mohammed Elmasry, undertook the complaints against Steyn. The latter, as I’m sure everyone remembers, once declared on The Michael Coren Show that every Israeli over the age of 18 was a legitimate terrorist target. (I’ve provided an excerpt below for those who’ve forgotten what Elmasry said. I’ve often wondered why he wasn’t charged with hate speech.)

Anyway, the complaints against both Steyn and Levant were eventually tossed, much to the irritation of Islamo-propagandists like Greg Felton, who, in the Dec. 9, 2008 edition of Canadian Arab News, denounced “the stupidity and cowardice” of the human rights tribunal that handled the Steyn complaint.

Khurrum Awan, however, took some consolation, according to Felton’s report. Awan gloated at the thought that his complaints had cost Maclean’s a great deal of money. Indeed, that seems to be the real purpose of the complaints.

Felton quoted Awan as saying: “‘We do not plan to appeal the decision because we attained out strategic objective — to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.’ Awan said Maclean’s spent $500,000 alone on the B.C. case, but that does not take into account the case in Ontario. The total legal cost to Maclean’s is somewhere around $2 million.” (No mention of all the taxpayers’ money the human rights commissions wasted in allowing the complaints in the first place.)

In other words, Awan and his Muslim friends weren’t really concerned about rights or justice or wanting to be treated the same as other Canadians. Nope, it was all about making it too expensive for anyone to dare criticize Islam. It was all about using (abusing?) the legal system to silence Canadians who question the Islamic worldview.

I’d call that jihad chill, or, perhaps, soft terrorism. Isn’t it a kind of terrorism when the law itself becomes the means for frightening people into silence, and, thereby, stripping them of rights to free speech and freedom of religion, which, of course, including the right to criticize religion. (Can you imagine the hullabaloo if the Catholic Church started indulging in lawsuits against those who blaspheme the Son of God?)

I cannot wait until the discovery process begins.