It is already outside the bounds of polite discourse to speak about the jihad ideology and its supporters, and before too long it will probably be illegal to do so as well. But Rachel Ehrenfeld is still fighting the fight.
By Dominic Kennedy in the Times (thanks to Sr. Soph):
A US academic is fighting to stop an English judge silencing her suspicions that a Saudi sheikh may have bank-rolled al-Qaeda.Although Rachel Ehrenfeld’s book Funding Evil was published only in America, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz turned to the London courts to bring a successful libel action against the author. She, in turn, is asking a New York judge to defend her right to freedom of speech by making Mr Justice Eady’s order unenforceable in the US.
The wealthy banker and philanthropist, who owns a country estate, Elk Meadows, near Slough, Berkshire, and a large condominium in Park Lane, has won so many defamation claims that he publishes an anthology of apologies on his website. This year alone, Cambridge University Press pulped 2,300 copies of Alms for Jihadand apologised to Sheikh bin Mahfouz at the High Court in London. Profile Books of London destroyed Unknown Soldiers by Matthew Carr after receiving a letter from the sheikh’s solicitors.
Sheikh bin Mahfouz and his sons were awarded £30,000 against Dr Ehrenfeld in 2005, although only 23 copies of her book entered England and one chapter had been posted on the internet. Mr Justice Eady ruled that it was false to say that Sheikh bin Mahfouz: supported terrorism; contributed millions of dollars to al-Qaeda; deposited tens of millions of dollars into accounts held by terrorists implicated in the US embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; and sponsored Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.
Read it all.
Some Jihad Watchers may not know that the long-running satirical fortnightly magazine 'Private Eye' has recently been running an occasional column called 'Sheik Watch' in the UK. This has covered the Mahfouz story; about Ehrenfeld and the other books such as 'Alms for Jihad'.
They have focused on the role of Judge Eady, as well as the apparent cowardice of various editors in Fleet Street who have spiked a number of stories exposing this 'libel tourism' for fear of a writ.
See private-eye.co.uk.
So far, the 'Eye' seems to be the only periodical to have covered this in the UK.
Also, OT, the Telegraph has an attribution to Robert Spencer today, while discussing Cherie Blair's understanding of certain Koranic verses! Interesting.
I'm sure the good sheik is absolutely indignant that a woman has stood up to him and has had the gall to continue fighting against him. You go, Rachel!! No matter how much money he has, he'll never hold a candle to your guts, nerve, resolve and class.
"What profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul."
I am admittedly uneducated about the law, among many other things. But I don't understand how the law in another country can be enforced within our own. If British libel law will be the rule of our land, then why not shop the case around to Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, where they can probably not only win a case of libel against her, they can probably also win a case of blasphemy (depending on how she quotes the Qur'an and ahadith in her book, irregardless of whether Muslims have used those same quotations to make the same points) against her? Why not go for broke, and have her extradited to Saudi Arabia for Chop Chop Fridays? After all, all religions are the same, all people want the same things, all laws are the same, it's just us petty provincialists who want to keep putting up walls between all the indistinguishable peoples of the world.
I thought the U.S. Court had already ruled in her favor?
Foreign law cannot interfere with U.S. law, unless there is a specific (usually economic) treaty which tacitly "amends" the Constitution for focused international dealings (the currently-notorious "Texas murder & rape case" -being argued up to the White House- has a treaty root, because the American-living [?]Mexican citizen and convicted killer/rapist, was not advised, during his trial, that he could contact his embassy, which a treaty legally "requires" him to be told).
But there is no treaty that can abrogate the First Amendment.
And only books going into England could be prohibited, not any published and sold anywhere else.
The "Spycatcher" book case, circa 1985-90, demonstrated this kind of censorhsip by the U.K., and was more understandable, since it dealt with a security matter that troubled the British intelligence services.
Ohmigahd, did I say "irregardless"?
OHMAHGAW! You did.
Anyone who wants to read Alms for Jihad, there are still some available. Check your libraries and local shops. I have found and borrowed one.
Cheers.