In the Washington Times today I discuss the ongoing attempt to silence Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld.
One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic — and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance.Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz sued Miss Ehrenfeld in the U.K. for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Mr. bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.
Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases — rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007, British journalist Stephen Glover wrote: "Mr Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn't."In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss Ehrenfeld must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there — thus preventing important information from reaching the public.
Miss Ehrenfeld countersued in New York, asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals for a declaration that the British judgment was contrary to the First Amendment and hence unenforceable on an American citizen. And on June 8, the appellate court handed down a landmark decision, ruling that Miss Ehrenfeld's case was valid, and that she could appeal for relief from American courts in order to keep the British court order from being carried out in this country. Said Circuit Court Judge Wilfred Feinberg: "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state." He also declared that the case had implications for all writers — since they, like Miss Ehrenfeld, could be subjected to harassment. This decision could also have great impact on the September 11 victims lawsuits, in which Mr. bin Mahfouz is also a defendant.
Lost, meanwhile, amid the legal wrangling surrounding Miss Ehrenfeld's case has been the release of a September 13, 2001, note from France's foreign intelligence agency, the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE). The French news site Geopolitique.com obtained the note in late June 2007, and has revealed that already in 1996 Mr. bin Mahfouz was known as one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the report claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew this. This is just the latest addition to the mountain of evidence from which Miss Ehrenfeld constructed her case in "Funding Evil." Even if this evidence is all mistaken, the British libel judgment against Miss Ehrenfeld appears all the more fantastic and unjustifiable in light of the fact that French intelligence agents had documents allowing them to came to the same conclusion she did.
This calls for open and thorough investigation, unhindered by legal intimidation. If Saudis or others who have indeed supported the global jihad are able cover their tracks using British libel laws to silence investigators, the only winners are the jihadists. "The British legal and political leadership's constant appeasement of the jihadists," says Miss Ehrenfeld, "facilitated the rise of terrorism." She sees consequences for both the United States and Britain in her legal struggle: "My fight against bin Mahfouz is not only to prevent the extension of that influence here — to defend our First Amendment from British laws. My success here would deter other jihadists from using the British courts to silence U.S. writers and publishers especially since it would — in similar situations — render U.K. court decisions useless."
For that reason, all who wish to remain free and resist the encroachments of global jihadism and Islamic supremacism should hope and pray that she prevails.
For the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals countersuit, see 'Rachel Ehrenfeld vs. Khalid Salim A Bin Mahfouz' at http://www.binmahfouz.info/pdf/judgment20060425.pdf
For a comprhensive list of books & articles which include links to Bin Mahfouz Khalid, see
http://www.namebase.org/main3/Khalid-Bin-mahfouz.html
hhhmmm, another tactic. This is a 'war on censorship'. It is just as inane as 'war on terror', or "war on da'wa", or 'war on taqiyya'. The true enemy is not defined.
Since our politicians are ok with censorship - especially are lefty leaning ones - they are probably ok with all of this. If they even have a clue it is happening. Do politicians live in our world? Do they read? They obviously don't read their own bills, or Intelligence reports, or else we wouldn't get the 'Bush lied people died' rant from them and their spewing their nonsense they didn't know the same things that Bush did since they had access to the same reports - especially Kerry who was on the Intelligence Committee. Oh well, I digress (when talking about Senators I always digress - and some of them want to be our president! gag)
The Left have infiltrated the British legal system as much as they have infiltrated the media and government.
We have seen endless rulings in the courts here which fly in the face of common sense. One of the worst cases was the one in the link below, which describes how a bogus asylum seeker from Somalia who had a conviction for child rape was awarded compensation:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=421230&in_page_id=1770
If this fails in the UK, he'll be able to switch from country to country until he wins.
I wonder however even if he wins how he would collect the judgement given that the author is in the USA?
A few years back thair was a suit in France agaist a writer who called the Quran poorly written. The suit clamed he was disterbing public fraternity.
Europe is not free, it's a politicaly correct wonderland.
You can support Dr. Rachel Eherenfeld by donating here;
http://www.public-integrity.org/support.php
The French writer was Houellebecq; he called Islam the "most stupid of religions." Those who sued him lost.
It is outrageous & unconscionable that Rachel Ehrenfeld was successfully sued and her book “Funding Evil” banned in Britain. The British Gov has made Britain a top jihadist support haven and the most dangerous country to the USA & the British people in terms of Jihadist activity. How can the British stand this? Could this case be a wake up call to the please-kick-our-tolerant-asses British Gov to make changes to at least their libel laws? Nah.
Britain is going down the tubes and the Brits lack the cahones to fight for their once great country. They let the ruling classes and the Beeb and the socialists screw them.
Henry VIII, Richard III, Wellington, Nelson, and Churchill are turning over in their graves.
You let a puke from Saudi Arabia muzzle the truth.
The muslim scum can see that our South Park culture defends the vilest things as freedom of speech. Vile being their stock in trade, they have come to manipulate our system by censoring us (we offend their religion) or demanding that our institutions accommodate their heresy...
No one wants to rile these people and suffer the consequences. BUT, we should (any Christian or Jew) take public offense against a late-comer cult that rewrites our holy books to demean our beliefs and us (you know, pigs and monkeys).
A muslim wearing a CAIR t-shirt was in front of us in line and my son began to verbalize what "CAIR" stands for...Controlling America Isn't Religion, Cancel All Islamic Rhetoric, etc. The guy got upset, but my husband is 6'8" so he fumed quietly. Then we followed him out of Costco and talked on our cellphones in the parking lot, writing down his license no.
The French writer was Houellebecq; he called Islam the "most stupid of religions." Those who sued him lost.
Posted by: Hugh at July 20, 2007 12:35 PM
I think we need to redefine what is called a "religion". I certainly don't classify Islam as a religion. There is nothing in it about love, love for or by our Creator, love He has and value of all life for His creation, from man all the way down to the lowest life forms, for example (speaking of the value of human beings) "Do not two sparrows sell for a coin of small value? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's knowledge. Therefore have no fear you are worth more than many sparrows" Matthew 10: 29, 31. There is nothing in Islam about putting your fellow man's interests above your own and being of service to others. To me these are the hallmarks of true religion. Islam lacks all these characteristics. It is all about domination, war, superiority over others, killing and brutality. It is diametrically opposed to all these values.
If the oxymoronic "fairness doctrine" (by far, the biggest STFU law ever passed before, short of outright purge) is reinstituted, we're next...all of us.
That was an excellent editorial; thank you.
This is an important case. I find it beyond belief that this suit could have taken place in England.
I heard on the radio recently that half of England's laws have been replaced with EU laws. England is losing the right to rule itself.
I have always believed in keeping the monarchy for Canada but now I am afraid of what would happen if and when Charles ascends to the throne. Could Canada somehow become part of the EU without wanting to? Almost all of Canada's land belongs to the monarch.
British libel laws are a long standing scandal and a joke.
the UK is losing to the EU and bush is trying to end us with the SSP/ North American Union. Damn all the one-worlders.
There is nothing surprising at all about this case. Have you ever noticed that when a celebrity is hit with a vicious rumor that gets splashed all over the tabloids, only the UK rags get sued?
I do not know the UK laws, but in the U.S. the 1st Amendment holds sway in these matters. If Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz were to be treated by the court as a public figure, he would have to prove that the author knew the statements were false, yet maliciously published them anyway. He would also have to show that he suffered 'damages'; in the U.S. that is basically a financial loss as a result of the publication. The claim would never make it to a court. It would be dismissed as without cause. Maybe the UK needs a little tort reform.