Grâce à la rencontre, à Pepperdine, d’Arnaud Dotézac, professeur de droit en Suisse, et d’un membre de Vigilant Freedom / 910 Group. Extrait: 

Professor Dotezac [proposes] utilizing a common legal concept to enforce accountability on radical mosques and their preachers. That concept is the Precautionary Principle. Says Wikipedia,

The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action.

In other words, it is up to you to prove that your product does not do public harm, and if it does harm, you can be held legally responsible. Says Dotezac,

The Koran contains passages which constitute general calls to violence. They do not aim at individuals in particular, but readers of the Koran can think that they conform to these injunctions by aiming at individuals. I propose that this risk should be taken into account. That one should ask the people who circulate this text to match it with a warning specifying that the democratic law must prevail on the injunctions which would be contrary to it. 

The legal principle exists, in other words, which would require that those seeking to fund, build or preach in Mosques can be asked to sign a document stating that they know that some elements in the Koran and Islamic law are contrary to the laws of democratic western society, and that they are accountable for any violations. Consumers of Islam have a right to know that following ALL of its edicts may lead to imprisonment or death.

The Precautionary principle has the added benefit of being the darling legal principle of certain leftist environmentalists, which creates an enjoyable irony. It also benefits from the established principle of free speech in that you are free to speak, but you are also responsible for the results of that speech. (Such that those who cry fire in the theater may be sued by the relatives of those trampled in the insuing panic, for example.) This is different from the free speech restrictions proposed by the Islamists’ useful idiots, which restricts speech on the basis of its giving rise to offense.  Further, the burden is on the Islamists and their apologists to prove their oft repeated assertion that Islam is a religion of peace. And when they cannot prove it, as we know they can’t, than perhaps room will be opened for those who might seek to create a Jihad-Free Islam.