The Islamaniacs catch on quickly. Now they'll search the world for the most favorable courts for their own junk lawsuits in libel and slander. What a wonderful time to be a lawyer-they'll probably place ads in the Muslim media and rake in piles of dough.

Islamaniacs and attorneys-the new axis of evil.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 9, 2006 11:07 AM

Yes ISLAMSFORLOSERS, they do learn rather quick don't they? Mark Steyn in his new book talks about how canny Muslims are learning how to us or laws and technology againest and how they are this weird mix of the primitive and the sophisticated.

Indeed Lawyers,both liberal types and greedy and amoral types and Muslims are a new axis of evil. I would support finding ways to greatly restrict the access to Western courts by non-citzens. They will use what is ours to go after us, if we don't fight back. Trial Lawyers and so-called human rights lawyers are the scum of earth, may they roil in the deepest reaches of hell.

And may Ms. Ehrenfield win. Saudi Arabia is one of the viliest,scummiest countries on planet earth and if this creep succeeds in silencing this journalist, it is bad,bad news.

Posted by: abdulalshirk at November 9, 2006 11:37 AM

Nothing but nothing chills my American soul like any kind of foreign legal jurisdiction over American citizens (though American troops in 'peacekeeping' missions under foreign commanders is almost as soul-sickening).

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 9, 2006 11:39 AM

So does this mean any one who writes a non fiction book or paper or column, say on Ted Bundy or J.W. Gacy (their families could do the suing) are at risk of being sued for saying the truth?

And that's the key word, truth. Would this mean Robert could be sued for writing the truth about ole mo?

I hope our judges do the right thing.

Posted by: freewoman at November 9, 2006 11:39 AM

It is my understanding that in a British Court, TRUTH is not a defense.

What was the American Revolution all about? I thought we had told the Brits to stick it.

We can do that again. Freeze all of their commercial accounts in this country. Seize all their monies that happen to travel through via wire transfers.

Posted by: SCV at November 9, 2006 11:50 AM

Why do I think France will be the scene of a lot of these junk lawsuits?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 9, 2006 11:51 AM

Well, all I can say is thank God for the Americans. At least there's some spine left in the world given that dhimmified Europe and its multiculti lunacy is now protecting a murderous ideology.

Here's an interesting link: http://www.csi-int.org/islamic_violence.php I came across earlier today. This little organisation pays Sudanese Arab slave traders and owners for slaves - and then set them free.

Just like the European governments of the 17 and 18 century buying their citizens from berber slave traders.

i wonder how karen armstrong and esposito would defend this practise?

Posted by: Jerusalem at November 9, 2006 11:55 AM

i have allways thought
Islamaniacs and attorneys were evil but i think this arab is more pissed off because a mear woman has goten upity and since he cant beat her into silence(women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.Men are in charge of women, because Allah made men to be better than women. Refuse to have sex with women from whom you fear rebellion, and scourge them. 4:34
so he;s trying to use the courts here and in the uk to try and beat her into scilence i hope he does not suceade it would be one more step towards dhimmitude for all mind you i think imo the systers would be one of the first groups to convert to islam

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 9, 2006 12:08 PM

Jerusalem,

There were several organisations buying back slaves in Sudan about 10yrs ago.

This little one is the only one left because it refuses to see that it is now being conned and its money is going straight into the hand of those islamists to use against the blacks.

I may be wrong but that is my understanding of why other organisations stopped buying back slaves.

I think at first it was a legitimate action to buy back legitimate slaves but, as usual, the islmaists adapt quicker to turn things round to their advantage than the forces of good do.

Posted by: exposesithlords at November 9, 2006 12:34 PM

islamisforlosers:

Could the outcome of the defamation suit brought by Charles Enderlin and France2 against Philip Karsenty re: who shot Mohammed Al-Dura be what gives you that impression?

The fact is that the US is rather unique when it comes to definition, in that telling the truth, however unflattering, IS a defence. For most other legal jurisdictions, whether code-based or British common law, it's defamation if you say something that harms the reputation of a person or entity, even if what you are saying is true.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 9, 2006 12:55 PM

I'd like to apologize to this Saudi worm, with my size 12 upside his hams.

Posted by: DCWatson at November 9, 2006 1:34 PM

waterdragon52:

Re: "For most other legal jurisdictions, whether code-based or British common law, it's defamation if you say something that harms the reputation of a person or entity, even if what you are saying is true."

This is incorrect. A statement, if true, cannot be considered defamatory - at least in The UK, Canada or the U.S. I assume the same applies elsewhere there is British derived common-law. Where the U.K. (and Canada to an extent) differs from the U.S. is how such cases are treated in court. The U.K. libel law requires the writer to prove what was written was true; the same pretty much applies in Canada. In the U.S., the opposite is the case. The person defamed must prove the writer is incorrect.

There are many references to this and quite a few subtleties within the law. As expected, the Quebec situation is somewhat different from the rest of Canada.

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/slander-and-libel
http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/ca-defam.aspx

Posted by: johnb at November 9, 2006 1:58 PM

US Courts have a problem with Tort and have twisted it so much that corporations go through ludicrous cases and get millions of dollars in damages for the most frivolous cases. That is how US lawyers get very rich.

Well in England (not Britain) England it is Libel Courts that bring rich lawyers. It is a farcical system which should have been reformed long ago - only rich people have reputations and only rich people can afford barristers on $2000-3000/day - if you want to read the most ludicrous case ever it is McDonalds Corporation

http://www.mclibel.com/film/

http://www.mclibel.com/film/vdo/index.htm

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

The McLibel Trial is the infamous British court case between McDonald's and a former postman & a gardener from London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). It ran for two and a half years and became the longest ever English trial. The defendants were denied legal aid and their right to a jury, so the whole trial was heard by a single Judge, Mr Justice Bell. He delivered his verdict in June 1997.

Posted by: Voyager at November 9, 2006 2:06 PM

One judge on the panel, Jose Cabranes, seemed worried that a ruling in the researcher's favor could open up American courts to suits challenging the judgments of other courts across the globe.

We wouldn't wanna cut into your golf time, eh Jose? This displays a total lack of concern over justice being served.

Libel laws and hate crime statutes both are powerful tools to put into Moslem hands.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 9, 2006 2:38 PM

This is disgusting. A Saudi Arabian can sue an American journlist in a British court? This is justice???

Posted by: Josephine at November 9, 2006 2:59 PM

Sorry - journalist. I was so mad I forgot to "preview". Gack.

Posted by: Josephine at November 9, 2006 3:00 PM

Does Saudi financier, Khalid bin Mahfouz continue to do business in the US? Has the IRS taken a close examination of his tax record? Is he on a no-fly list? Certainly with the name 'bin Mafouz' popping up in various meetings dealing with national security there must be some government interest in this case.

From Ms. Ehrenfeld's book (pg 35 with footnotes):

Laurent Murawiec of RAND Corporation presented his findings to the PENTAGON's DEFENCE POLICY BOARD: "The Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain, from planners to financiers, from cadre to fot-soldier, from ideologist to cheerleader."15 Despite recent denials from Saudi Arabia that it has been a major source of funding for the Islamists, the December 2002 report to the president of the UN Security Council stated that, over the past decade alone, Saudis contributed at lease $500 million to al-Qaeda. Moreover, "Most of this financial backbone is still at large and able to support fundamentalist organizations." 16 Much of the funding for al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups is widely alleged to come frmo two of the biggest banking and business families in Saudi Arabia: the al Rajhi and bin Mahfouz families. (Both families deny theat they funded terrorist organizations; both claim they gave to charity.) Both manage the intricate global infrastructure of businesses, investments, and charities, an the movement of money for Islamist groups.17

15: Laurent Murawiec, "Taking Saudi Out of Arabia" presentation to the Defense Policy Board, briefing in Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's private conference room, July 10, 2002

16: These contributions represent "about 20% of the Saudi GNP." Jean-Charles risard, "Terrorism Financing: Roots and Trends of Saudi Terrorism Financing" (December 19, 2002 report prepared for the president of UN Security Council), 3. Brisard, the French investigator who authore this report, lost a libel case brought against him in London by Khalid bin Mahfouz, based on allegatinos made against the Saudi bilion-aire in Brisad's report. However, Brisard told the author that the judgement was by default, since he didn't have the financial means to defend himself against the Saudi billionaire.

17:David Armstrong. "An Investigation of Saudi Charitable Efforts," presentation at the World Anticrime and Antiterrorism Forum, Washington Forum, September 24, 2002.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 9, 2006 3:21 PM

his is incorrect. A statement, if true, cannot be considered defamatory - at least in The UK,

It is an English Common Law offence

The UK does not have jurisdiction - it is ENGLISH Courts we are speaking of not Scottish Jurisprudence which is a different system

One very important distinction today is that European and Commonwealth jurisdictions adhere to a theory that every publication of a defamation gives rise to a separate claim, so that a defamation on the Internet could be sued on in any country in which it was read, while American law only allows one claim for the primary publication.

British Common Law " presumes in the plaintiff's favour that the words [ in suit ] are false, unless and until the defendant proves the contrary." Along with the burden of proving truth comes the threat of being assessed with aggravated damages if the defendant's attempts to prove truth fails.

Truth is an absolute defence to the charge of libel

Posted by: Voyager at November 9, 2006 3:27 PM

johnb:

Quebec Civil Code is no doubt different from Canadian common law provinces, but a litigator of excellent reputation advised me on a matter that even if you can prove that something unflattering about a person is true , if it is said with the intent to harm that person's reputation to their financial detriment, etc., you risk being found liable in tort. I can't comment on the various jurisdictions within the UK, but I suspect this is likely why Galloway was successful against the newspapers that accused him of improprieties with the Miriam fund, among other things.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 9, 2006 4:02 PM

In the State of Victoria, Australia there is a well known case involving anti vilification laws - http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,20240491-25717,00.html
One of the lawyers in this case said "Truth is not a defence, its irrelevant to contravention of the Act." Outrageous!!

Posted by: cathkins at November 9, 2006 4:05 PM

There's no question that this is a look into the next battle ground.

Depending on the outcome of this farce, this could mean a flood of law suits across the world in order to stop the truth.

Political correctness and hate laws need to be stricken from the books now, laws that were created with good intentions are being used against us now.
This is another example of how these insidious criminals adapt to their environment, Islam truly is a virus and we need to inoculate ourselves quickly.

Niv

Posted by: The fanatic at November 9, 2006 4:47 PM

Much of the funding for al-Qaeda and other Islamist terror groups is widely alleged to come frmo two of the biggest banking and business families in Saudi Arabia: the al Rajhi and bin Mahfouz families. (Both families deny theat they funded terrorist organizations; both claim they gave to charity.)

Which charities? Follow the money.

Ms. Ehrenfeld should not be battling this alone. I'm furious.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 9, 2006 4:57 PM

waterdragon52-

Sorry for the late response. I figure France will be a prime location for junk lawsuits because anyone claiming to be defamed will most likely think he'll win a case in such a Muslim friendly country.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 9, 2006 5:40 PM

Let's not go overboard with this. No, Robert can't be sued for libelling Mo. No, it does not mean libel is used to supress truth - it is a law intended to stop careless journalism reproducing harmful gossip and innuendo. It is a problem, in that generally only rich people can really afford it (just like American healthcare).

And, yes - one jurisdiction reachng out and interfering in another country is a real concern. Thinks about the "Nat West Three" and the amazingly unbalanced UK:US extradition treaty.

I am as concerned about the islamofascist menace as the next guy - and while one might not like this use of the UK libel laws, they are pretty simple to deal with. Be careful about what you write, and be clear that if you write something, you can back it up. Decent journalism in the UK has been doing that for years.

Posted by: Obelisk1 at November 9, 2006 6:11 PM

Nothing but nothing chills my American soul like any kind of foreign legal jurisdiction over American citizens (though American troops in 'peacekeeping' missions under foreign commanders is almost as soul-sickening).

Posted by: poetcomic1 at November 9, 2006 11:39 AM

Unfortunately, American public servents don;t share your pride or patriotism. Here it just one of the many examples:

http://www.republicanandproud.com/warning.htm

Posted by: Alert at November 9, 2006 6:35 PM

.. and here: http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Embracing%20Islam%20selling%20out%20children.htm

Posted by: Alert at November 9, 2006 6:39 PM

In English courts (note: not UK courts, the UK is several countries each with its own separate legal system)) the defense against being accused of libel is that what you said was true and that you can, will and do prove it to be so.

Rachel Ehrenfeld failed, to the satisafction of an English court, to prove that what she said was true in its entirety - therefore, she was found guilty of libel. This is not a question of whether or not what she said was/is true but that she failed to prove the truth of her assertions to the satisfaction of a duly constituted English court.

If a court in the USA now seeks to overturn the verdict of an English court either a lower standard of proof must be involved or new evidence of proof has been introduced. If a lower standard of proof is involved then that would be regrettable; if there is new evidence then why did she not pursue her case through the various appeals processes open to her in England?

Of course, as a citizen of the USA she may have felt that she did not get justice from a foreign (i.e. English) court and, therefore, is perfectly entitled to pursue the matter in the courts in the USA but, and I repeat this, given that in English law the defence against an accusation of libel is to prove the truth of one's assertion(s) and that she failed to do so, is she now introducing new evidence; or saying, stupidly, that what she said was/is true but that she can't prove it; or saying that the standards of proof in England are too high and that she could have proved her case in a court in the USA which might have had lower standards of proof.

No matter what, it has to be realised by all here on this site, that the laws of the USA do not run in the UK. We, here, have our own legal system and it works. If courts in the USA decide to overturn the verdicts of English (or any other courts in the UK) on the spurious grounds that a citizen of the USA has been adversely affected by the ruling (no matter how valid the said ruling might be as law) then we have a right to feel aggrieved by such a decision.

Ms. Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein, switched strategies yesterday, seeking to convince the court it has jurisdiction because aspects of the British judgment amount to "intrusion into New York." "

In fact, quite the reverse is true. If a New York court sought to overturn, alter or waive the judgement of the English court in this case then that would amount to an intrusion by a USA court into English law - an unwarranted, unjustifiable and arrogant intrusion of USA law where it, quite simply, has no right or jurisdiction.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 9, 2006 8:39 PM

waterdragon52 & ISLAMSFORLOSERS?

Thank-you for the insult - "junk law suits". It is so gracious of you to once again remind the world of how superior the legal system of the USA is. I absolutely love your legal system and the absolute certainty of its verdicts; such certainty as leads your courts to pronounce the death sentence upon some of its citizens despite the fact that the sytem that leads therto is man made and fallible - not that the death sentence is wrong, I must admit, but because the systems that lead to its imposition are, quite simple, everywhere, crap ( and the USA is no exception).

But, getting back to "junk law suits". Once again, thank-you for the insult. USA law is so overwheeningly correct, so perfect, so right that all other legal systems can only entertain "junk law suits". Great. Gee, thanks. So much for 2,700 years of European law!

Go boil your heads until you feel better!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 9, 2006 10:00 PM

I consulted with a copyright attorney who provided two points to ponder:

1. without comity a US court cannot enforce this judgement.

2. Unless Ms. Ehrenfeld has assets in Britain, and without US enforcement of the judgement against Ms. Ehrenfeld, Khalid bin Mahfouz cannot collect.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 9, 2006 10:19 PM

Dominic states:

"No matter what, it has to be realised by all here on this site, that the laws of the USA do not run in the UK."

Surely then, you understand that the laws of the UK do not run in the USA.

Rachel Ehrenfeld published her book in the USA (Bonus Books of Chicago IL). It is the British Court that is imposing it's laws into the US jurisdiction.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 9, 2006 10:28 PM

But, getting back to "junk law suits". Once again, thank-you for the insult. USA law is so overwheeningly correct, so perfect, so right that all other legal systems can only entertain "junk law suits". Great. Gee, thanks. So much for 2,700 years of European law!

Go boil your heads until you feel better!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 9, 2006 10:00 PM

No insult intended. The US legal system is indeed certainly far from perfect-I'd prefer it to disallow junk lawsuits of all types. No court should bother with a suit filed by a customer who spills hot coffee on themself who then complains they were scorched. That is a junk lawsuit. Any terrorist who sues for libel because somebody writes that they beheaded someone likewise is a junk lawsuit. NO country's legal system should even bother with that.

The reason I mention France as a good site for junk lawsuits (terrorists filing libel suits) is because that country has obviously been soft on Islam. If I'm Bin Laden and I want to sue for libel I would prefer to take my chances in a French court rather than an American one for a better shot at a win.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 9, 2006 11:11 PM

heroyalwhyness/

And the book was distributed here in the UK under our copyright laws, our libel laws, our responsibility laws and our publication laws (completely different from your laws as the USA has failed to ratify international copyright conventions, publication protocols, intellectual property agreements, libel conventions and responsibility protocols for more decades than I, or anyone else in Europe, can count - one of the big problems is intellectual property theft by USA publishers, but, of course, that goes unreported stateside doesn't it?) and such distribution or publication is the basis for the court case in England.

English law has primacy because the case was first ACTIONED here - yet another international convention which the USA (alone) refuses to recognise. Everyone is out of step but your little soldier boy, eh?

This is not a matter of moslem versus free westerner - it's about how far America will go in imposing its view of the world on its friends. It seems to some of us that there is no limit and that our legal systems and the international conventions, laboriously worked out between many legal systems world-wide throughout the better part of the last century-and-a-half, and with which the USA refuses to join (and has so refused for almost a century), are in danger of being ridden over rough-shod by an arrogant and insular American system which refuses to acknowledge that we exist as separate systems, and countries, in our right. Is this really the way you want to treat your friends?

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 9, 2006 11:43 PM

"and such distribution or publication is the basis for the court case" - Dominic

Publication is in America. By your standard, any book written in America is subject to England's libel laws simply because it may be read in England even if purchased in the USA.

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at November 10, 2006 12:29 AM

Well said Dom.

Posted by: 1666 at November 10, 2006 3:04 AM

Publication is in America. By your standard, any book written in America is subject to England's libel laws simply because it may be read in England even if purchased in the USA.

He stated DISTRIBUTION and as I recall that would cover Amazon - it simply obtains an Injunction that Amazon inter alia may not sell the book to anyone in the UK.

I can buy Cuban cigars anywhere outside the United States...............

I can buy certain radio receivers from Yaesu or Yupiteru or AOR anywgere but the USA because of the FCC

Different lands have different customs.............something that US education fails to note

Posted by: Voyager at November 10, 2006 3:08 AM

waterdragon52 & ISLAMSFORLOSERS?

Thank-you for the insult - "junk law suits". It is so gracious of you to once again remind the world of how superior the legal system of the USA is. I absolutely love your legal system and the absolute certainty of its verdicts; such certainty as leads your courts to pronounce the death sentence upon some of its citizens despite the fact that the sytem that leads therto is man made and fallible - not that the death sentence is wrong, I must admit, but because the systems that lead to its imposition are, quite simple, everywhere, crap ( and the USA is no exception).

[...]

Go boil your heads until you feel better!

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 9, 2006 10:00 PM

Dom: Could you please point out where I used the expression "junk law suits" or anything like that?

My point, which seems to elude you, is that the overwhelming burden in defamation suits outside of the US is on the defendant and not the plaintiff. Hence, although Philip Karsenty produced ample evidence that Charles Enderlin knew that the Mohammed Al-Durra story stunk, he and his employers continued to defend its' veracity and the French courts somehow managed to find Karsenty to have defamed Enderlin and France2.

In Dr. Ehrenfeld's case, I understand that there was a default judgement; she did not bother to contest in the UK, but rather brought a counter-action in the US courts that failed at a low level over whether it had jurisdiction and is being appealed. The disgraceful George Galloway, however, managed to successful sue a UK paper over allegations of his corrupt conduct to the tune of 20,000 pounds or thereabouts. I am not sure where that one sits at the moment, but I have vague memories of another British MP, Jeffrey Archer having successfully sued for defamation only to end up revealed as having lied in court and sent to jail for his purgery. May Galloway enjoy a similar fate.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 10, 2006 8:31 AM

outside of the US is on the defendant and not the plaintiff

Not true. Check the situation jurisdiction by jurisdiction before making sweeping statements.

If Jeffrey Archer lied and perjured himself prison is a forwarding address, as with Jonathan Aitken MP. It is however a case that English Libel Courts are a nightmare and few non-lawyers would defend it.

However US courts are not paragons of virtue either, and too many lawyers live far too well for it is to be satisfactory. Noone can tell us that suing over hot coffee at McDonalds is anything but vexatious litigation - and interviewing jurors in trials is outrageous.............but that is why there is the Atlantic Ocean between us.

The point is that Libel is a Common Law Tort - not a Statute

Posted by: Voyager at November 10, 2006 11:25 AM

Amazon.com has interesting reviews of her book - worth reading.............this nuggett was in one of them

Among those supporting Ehrenfeld in an amici filing with the U.S. District Court in New York are Amazon.com and the American Society of Newspaper Editors. Her legal expenses are expected to top $300,000--although she has to date received no financial backing from the publishing industry. According to the friends of the plaintiff,

Posted by: Voyager at November 10, 2006 12:31 PM

As much as it pains me to do so, I have to agree with the US court's reluctance to intrude here.

If a British official tried to enforce this judgment in the US, then the author would have the right to go to a US judge and block the attempt on 1st amendment grounds.

But US courts do not have jurisdiction outside the US.

If a British court has books seized and burned once they enter Britain, then you must go to the courts in Britain for redress.

Posted by: Kristopher at November 10, 2006 12:42 PM

This goes to show all of us that the saudis control england. Sad state of affairs for the english though. They were such a proud people once.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at November 11, 2006 9:13 AM

Has anyone have any information about the 1 trillion dollar lawsuit that the 9/11 victims families have against the Saudis? There is no reporting in the news about this ongoing lawsuit.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at November 11, 2006 9:16 AM

If a British official tried to enforce this judgment in the US, then the author would have the right to go to a US judge and block the attempt on 1st amendment grounds.

Sorry it is not for the Court to enforce the Judgment by the plaintiff................it is a Civil action not a criminal one.

This goes to show all of us that the saudis control England. Sad state of affairs for the english though. They were such a proud people once.

That is presumably why that famous Saudi film director Roman Polanski won £50.000 libel damages against Vanity Fair in a London court in July 2005

Conde Nast was ordered to pay £175,000 costs within 14 days, and faces a legal bill which could top £1m.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4687247.stm

"I find it amazing that a man who lives in France can sue a magazine that is published in America in a British courtroom," said Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter at the end of the trial.

Posted by: Voyager at November 11, 2006 11:23 AM

I think that there is too much quibbling in foregoing posts over issues of jurisdiction and so on. The main fact is that a Saudi evildoer is trying to squelch Rachel Ehrenfeld, to shut her up. Now, whether or not UK law supports the Saudi's efforts, the main fact remains. Hence, maybe the UK law ought to be changed if it does indeed support the Saudi. I recall another case where a noxious personality tried to shut up a critic by using the British courts and UK libel laws. That was the suit by David Irving against Prof Deborah Lipstadt. Fortunately Irving failed in that attempt to shut up Prof Lipstadt, who brought overwhelming proof that she had written the truth about him.
Nevertheless, the UK law and the French law used against Philip Karsenty give unfair advantage to powerful persons and institutions that don't want to be criticized.
Karsenty realized the fraud of the "Muhammad al-Durah" myth, and called for resignation or removal of Enderlin the offending journalist, and the news director of France2 for not admitting the fraud, etc. France2 is a state TV station, by the way. The law used by France2 in suing Karsenty was the same law, I have read, that was used against Emile Zola's criticism of the courts and prosecution in the Dreyfus Case [J'accuse...]. If so, then the same anti-Dreyfusard law is still being used to defend official lies. And that's an outrage.

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 12, 2006 4:21 PM

Hence, maybe the UK law ought to be changed if it does indeed support the Saudi.

There is a) NO "UK" Law - it does not exist under the British Constitution

b) There is NO Law on Libel

c) There is NO Statute on Libel

d) It is English COMMON LAW which predates Parliament itself as with the Offence of Murder

Anglo-Saxon Countries use COMMON LAW

Posted by: Voyager at November 13, 2006 2:20 AM

necessitasnonhabetlegem writes:

And the book was distributed here in the UK under our copyright laws, our libel laws, our responsibility laws and our publication laws [...] and such distribution or publication is the basis for the court case in England.

But Ehrenfeld's book was not distributed in the U.K. A grand total of 26 people in Britain ordered copies over the Internet from Amazon.com. The first chapter was also posted on the Internet as a teaser, which Britons could theoretically have read (though no one tried to prove that they had). On those bases, the British court claimed jurisdiction. (Parenthetically, Amazon.com submitted a brief for the defense.)

Ms. Ehrenfeld did not appear in court to contest, so judgement was rendered for the plaintiff, who as others have noted did not have to prove that the contentions in Ms. Ehrenfeld's book were false.

There are two problems here. The first is that the British court (or English or whatever ...) is claiming that any book sold over the Internet, regardless of where it is published or who it is sold by, is subject to British libel law. Either that, or anything written on the Internet, anywhere in the world, is subject to that law. Either claim is outrageous. The second problem is the chilling effect on free speech of placing the burden of proof on the speaker to establish his truthfulness according to some legal standard. If I say that Michael Jackson is guilty, could he sue me in Britain for libel because I can't prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt? Maybe not the best example, but it is preferable for freedom of speech to place the burden on the plaintiff, as American law does.

Ms. Ehrenfeld has been injured in two ways. First, she had the burden of either travelling to Britain and retaining counsel to contest a claim that should never have been in British court in the first place, or remaining in the U.S. and being subjected to a default judgement. Second, she has had problems now of finding an American publisher for her subsequent books, because of that publisher's reasonable fear that its British subsidiary could be held liable for the judgement against Ms. Ehrenfeld in this case. It is on that basis that she asks the American courts to intervene and declare that the British judgement should not be upheld.

Now, I don't think she will win, but I don't think what was done to her is right, either. The U.S. should either negotiate some treaty granting immunity to American writers and publishers under these circumstances, or (preferably) Britain should change its libel law - for the sake of its own citizens.

I'm not going to defend the American legal system; it's horrible. But in this particular case, it's not the American legal system that's at fault, it's the British one.

Posted by: tvdog at November 13, 2006 1:52 PM

There is not enough alarm over the threat to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., represented by these libel suits in English courts. The inclination of some American judges to bend to British precedents is also threatening to the Americans. Maybe legislation in the US Congress could tell judges how to treat such cases.
Past cases in which American authors were sued in British courts are a recent one against Prof Deborah Lipstadt brought by Holocaust denier, David Irving [who did not like being called a Holocaust denier] and a case years ago against Leon Uris in which he identified a German or Austrian physician practicing in the UK as a collaborator in war crimes. As I recall, Uris was able to prove that he was right, although the plaintiff was awarded a tiny damages amount. These suits are meant to shut up critics and stifle debate. Isn't it very very curious that the so-called ACLU [amer civil liberties union] has not taken up the case in favor of Rachel Ehrenfeld?

Posted by: Eliyahu at November 14, 2006 6:18 AM