Islam vs. Free Speech

by Jed Babbin

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom
of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed
them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are
using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First
Amendment rights in America.

Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British
libel laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about
Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are
funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark
Steyn prove the point.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How
Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim
bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National
Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded
terrorism directly and indirectly.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and
she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the
Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen
copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz
sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the
opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what
is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it
is false.

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political
writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment
a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to
prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public
figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he'd not only
have to prove that what was written was false, he'd also have to prove
it was published maliciously.

Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The
First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find
objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the
Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate
speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.

Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no
jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for
₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment
also requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published
in England and Wales.

In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's
lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check
her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her
mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness,
the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."

"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech,
especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The
"legal lights" Mahfouz's lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the
Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is
extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."

In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a
highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi
funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of
Islamic "charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" --
like Ehrenfeld's book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to
terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a
libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from
stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners
won.

Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the
US. Ehrenfeld told me she's unable to get book publishers to contract
for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have
turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have
substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis' involvement in funding it.

If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or
someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be
banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the
publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using
British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has
apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case
is another instance of Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."

Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points:
first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in
Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second
that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this
religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in
fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism,
Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is
historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag
violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.

Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the
Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in
Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference.
That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic
Relations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The
complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings
entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted
100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with
probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends
Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means
that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for
exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American
publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may,
like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in
contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would
or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US
courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both
authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or
"human rights" decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot
be enforced.

Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly
-- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment.
Anyone who doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign
infringements on Americans' Constitutional rights should receive neither
our confidence nor our votes.

What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are
doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups
such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is
purportedly corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and "…educate(s) the
media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other
aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide
as a set of rules against "harmful journalism." And those who write
about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance
and racism should they violate them.

We don't yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it
from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy
nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people
who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they
will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law
students to preclude what they believe is "harmful journalism."

Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy
undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's
administration. He is the author of "In the Words of our
Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why
China Wants War with the United States" (Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the
Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" (Regnery,
2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.

Islam vs. Free Speech

by Jed Babbin

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights in America.

Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism directly and indirectly.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writings -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he'd not only have to prove that what was written was false, he'd also have to prove it was published maliciously.

Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.

Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for ₤10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published in England and Wales.

In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's lawyers gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check her facts, defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."

"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech, especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The "legal lights" Mahfouz's lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."

In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a highly detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic "charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" -- like Ehrenfeld's book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to terrorism, including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a libel suit by bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.

Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US. Ehrenfeld told me she's unable to get book publishers to contract for another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial terrorist ties -- and the Saudis' involvement in funding it.

If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case is another instance of Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."

Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points: first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that Islam is a political system, not just a religion:

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact, an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can almost certainly be justified.

Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100% of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that. No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should make it clear that foreign libel judgments or "human rights" decisions that conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.

Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly -- against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans' Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.

What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and "…educate(s) the media and disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other aspect -- which I and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide as a set of rules against "harmful journalism." And those who write about terrorism, Saudi Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they violate them.

We don't yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude what they believe is "harmful journalism."

It becomes wearisome

No I've not tired of blogging in the few days since I got my laptop back from the cowboys technicians who fixed it.

No, the wearisome thing is the extent to which writers with whom I am in agreement are suffering from the scrutiny of the law.

I mentioned Susan Ehrenfeld a while back- a lady who cannot publish in or visit the UK after being landed with a GBP250,000 libel order from a British judge. Ehrenfeld was just among the most vocal in a line of victims of Islamic terrorist conduit sewer suer-in-chief, Khalid bin Mahfouz.

As I mentioned below, Mark Steyn is now in the line of fire, predictably- through his Canadian publishers Macleans. I've had a read of the muslim lawyers' complaints document and they are predictably lacking in substance and long on generalities- but perhaps the law relating to "Islamophobia" is too.

Stanley Kurtz makes a valid point when he says "the anti-free-speech attacks on Steyn and Maclean's, by Western-trained lawyers, no less, show that Steyn's concerns about poorly assimilated Western values are more than justified."

The only problem with that is that it isn't Steyn's viewpoint- he sees such lawyers as understanding all too well the lessons of their education. I think he's right. Arguing in generalities laced with a vague scent of human rights is about the level of public discourse, and I would say not so far from the standard of legal discourse, today. The whole incitement of religious hatred thing is a vague nonsense open to abuse from day one- and so it is proving.

Originally published on the Talking Hoarsely blog

Roger’s Rules: Libel Tourism, coming soon to a town near you

If you haven't heard, a Saudi subject by the name of Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy banker, has gotten into the lucrative habit of suing people in British court for stuff they've had published that he doesn't like. And usually what he doesn't like is anything that bashes jihad and jihadists. In short, Mr. Mahfouz hates criticism of terrorists and has a thin skin and deep pockets

Author Rachel Ehrenfeld recently won the right to seek relief in U. S. Federal court against the British judgement against her, on the grounds the British judgement violates U. S. law. Other incidents in which American authors were affected by actions in British courts are also related in the article linked above.

Libel tourist use the British courts because Britain has a huge hole in their system of laws. There is no formal right to free speech in the British system of justice. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would certainly help.

Formalize the right to free speech, and tighten the requirements for bringing a libel action for what somebody writes. The positive, definitive establishment of truth as an absolute defense would help as well.

But, in the long run the British establishment needs to grow a pair. British apparatchiks are just too ready to cave in to jihadist demands. The professional bitchers need to learn that they can't have everything their way. Your kid goes to a school where a teacher has a piggy bank on her desk, you have no right to demand the piggy bank be destroyed. And if I ever get a cat, I'm naming him Mohammed.

How valid the complaint is is what matters, not how loud the complaining is.

(Via Instapundit.)

Libel Tourism as a Tool of Jihad

by Baron Bodissey

One of the preferred methods utilized by Islamic front groups to silence critics of Islam is the lawsuit. The deep pockets of the Saudi regime, along with the successful penetration of the governments and legal systems in most Western nations, make it relatively easy for Islamist lawyers to put the fear of Allah into their opponents.

Even if the writers themselves are courageous — and there is no denying the courage of people like Robert Spencer — publishing houses are all too eager to assume the dhimmi position. Since publishers are responsible to their shareholders, and bear the brunt of any legal expenses incurred in a court fight, it's understandable that they tend to fold in the face of Wahhabi litigation.

Of all the Western nations, British libel laws the most generally favorable to the plaintiff. As a result, several recent successful libel cases originated in the British courts when attempting to target the writers' works in the United Sates and other countries.

Roger Kimball, writing in his Pajamas Media column, has a fascinating insider's look at the nature and extent of this "libel tourism":

Last summer, Cambridge University Press announced that it would pulp all unsold copies of its 2006 book Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World by Robert O. Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California, and J. Millard Burr, a retired employee of the State Department. Why? Because Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi banker, filed a libel claim to quash the book. According to a story in The Chronicle for Higher Education [reg req'd], Cambridge instantly capitulated, paid "substantial damages" to Mr. Mahfouz, and even went so far as to contact university libraries worldwide to ask them to remove the book from their shelves. They seem to have been successful in their request: I have searched high and low for the book in academic libraries and public libraries and have found that, although it is listed as "not checked out," it is nowhere to be found.

Suppressing books he doesn't like seems to be a hobby of Mr. Mahfouz's. His web site lists successful actions against three other books Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden and Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It. As Robert Spencer explained in The Washington Times, one notable feature of Mr. Mahfouz's legal actions is that he has sued various American authors in Britain, where libel laws favor the plaintiff.

- - - - - - - - -

Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection [e.g., the fact that a book may be available through Amazon.com] 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 [Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of the above-mention Funding Evil] 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.

Mr. bin Mahfouz is not the only player in the libel tourism game, not by a long shot. Just yesterday, I heard that a complaint (scheduled to be heard in June in British Columbia) had been filed against the Canadian magazine Macleans. "London lawyer Faisal Joseph," reports the London Free Press, "is leading a human rights complaint against Maclean's magazine for publishing an article he says submits Muslim Canadians to "contempt and hatred." And what article would that be? Why, an excerpt from Mark Steyn's brilliant and terrifying book America Alone. Kenneth Whyte, the editor of Macleans, published 27 responses to Steyn's article, but he was quite right to reject a demand that he publish, unedited, a five-page article by Muslim students. "I told them I would rather go bankrupt than let somebody from outside our operations dictate the content of the magazine." Let's hope it won't come to that.

Mr. Kimball goes on to detail the campaign mounted against Mark Steyn's writings in Canada. He includes this quote from Mark Steyn.

I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn't have to.

If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post's national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian "human rights" tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.

As I say, I find it difficult to imagine. But not impossible. These "human rights" censors started with small fry — obscure websites, "homophobes" who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus — and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to sit in judgment on the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old "libel chill" over critical areas of public debate. The "progressive" left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don't know they're riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.

Mark Steyn's bestseller status will insulate him from this kind of mau-mauing, but less well-known authors and smaller publishing houses are more likely to cave in.

Mr. Kimball concludes his essay with this:

While everyone is busy humming "Let's Not Be Beastly to the Muslims," it is worth noting the word "Islamophobia" is a misnomer. A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia — it's a phobia I experience frequently — we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia.

Now that fear, I submit, is very well founded, and it extends into the nooks and crannies of daily life. Libel tourism is only one face of the phenomenon. It wasn't so long ago, for example, that I read in a London paper that "Workers in the benefits department at Dudley Council, West Midlands, were told to remove or cover up all pig-related items, including toys, porcelain figures, calendars and even a tissue box featuring Winnie the Pooh and Piglet" because the presence of images of our porcine friends offended Muslims. A councilor called Mahbubur Rahman told the paper that he backed the ban because it represented "tolerance of people's beliefs." In other words, Piglet really did meet a Heffalump, and it turns out he was wearing a kaffiyeh.

[…]

Here is the novelty: Our new enemies are not political enemies in any traditional sense, belligerent in the service of certain interests of their own. Their belligerence is focused rather on the very existence of an alternative to their vision of beatitude, namely on Western democracy and its commitment to individual freedom and economic prosperity. Our new enemies are not simply bent on our destruction: they are pleased to compass their own destruction as a collateral benefit. This is one of those things that makes Islamofascism a particularly toxic form of totalitarianism. At least most Communists had some rudimentary attachment to the principle of self-preservation. In the face of such death-embracing fanaticism our only option is unremitting combat.

The problem with maintaining "unremitting combat" against Islam is that we are mainly fighting a cold war. The "hot" part of the war — IEDs in Iraq, Iranian nukes, bombs on buses, sarin in the shopping malls — is easy to see, and we can actually win some of those battles.

But the "cold" part of the war is the information component. Most people are unaware of the depth and scope of that aspect of the conflict, and that we are mostly losing it.

The enemy has penetrated our governments, our security agencies, our media, our lobbying organizations, and our school boards.

Political correctness has acted like the AIDS virus in the immune system of the Western world, leaving us open and vulnerable to the miscellaneous deadly strains of Islamic infection.

There is some cause for optimism, however: "libel tourism" can only silence professional writers. The pajama-clad amateurs, who make no money for their efforts, are immune to this threat.

Eventually other means will be used to shut us up — "hate speech" laws, state control of the internet, the acquiescence to the Islamic agenda by the major commercial blogging hosts, etc.

But we're not there yet. There's still a little time left.

Originally published on the Gates of Vienna blog

Where Terrorism & Censorship Meet

It has become popular for those with competing political agendas to allege threats to free speech, whether real or imagined. Yet, there is a very real threat to free speech that has received little attention in the public sphere. It's called libel tourism and it has become a major component in the ideological arm of the war on terrorism.

At question is the publication of books and other writings that seek to shed light on the financing of Islamic terrorism. Increasingly, American authors who dare enter this territory are finding themselves at risk of being sued for libel in the much more plaintiff-friendly British court system in what amounts to an attempt to censor their work on an international level.

The latest case of libel tourism to rear its ugly head involves the book "Alms for Jihad", which was published by Cambridge University Press in 2006. Co-written by former State Department analyst and USAID relief coordinator for Sudan J. Millard Burr and UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus of history Robert O. Collins, "Alms for Jihad" delves into the tangled web of international terrorist financing and, chiefly, the misuse of Muslim charities for such purposes.
Billionaire strikes back

Among those the book fingers for involvement is Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, the former chairman of Saudi Arabia's largest bank, National Commercial Bank. Bin Mahfouz has come under similar scrutiny on previous occasions, including being named a defendant in a lawsuit filed by family members of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He even has a section of his Web site devoted to trying to refute such charges.

With this in mind, Cambridge University Press lawyers looked over the manuscript for "Alms for Jihad" carefully before giving it the go-ahead. According to Collins, the passages involving bin Mahfouz are, in fact, quite "trivial" compared to the wealth of information contained in the book on how such funds are used to finance conflicts around the globe.

Yet, it is bin Mahfouz's inclusion in "Alms for Jihad" that has proven to be the most problematic, for he soon threatened Cambridge University Press with a libel lawsuit. Before the suit could commence, Cambridge University Press capitulated and announced in July that not only was it taking the unprecedented step of pulping all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad," but it was asking libraries all over the world to remove the book from their shelves. Cambridge University Press issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz and posted a public apology at its Web site. It also agreed to pay his legal costs and unspecified damages, which, according to bin Mahfouz, are to be donated to UNICEF.

Authors Burr and Collins, however, did not take part in the apology, nor were they a party to the settlement, and they continue to stand by their scholarship. As Collins put it, "I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat of a billionaire Saudi sheik ... I think I'm a damn good historian." The authors were aware that Cambridge University Press' decision was based not so much on a lack of confidence in the book as on a fear of incurring costly legal expenses and getting involved in a lengthy trial. The British court system is known as a welcoming environment for "libel tourists" such as bin Mahfouz. The Weekly Standard elaborates:
Bin Mahfouz has a habit of using the English tort regime to squelch any unwanted discussion of his record. In America, the burden of proof in a libel suit lies with the plaintiff. In Britain, it lies with the defendant, which can make it terribly difficult and expensive to ward off a defamation charge, even if the balance of evidence supports the defendant.

Bin Mahfouz has indeed availed himself of the British court system on many occasions, having either sued or threatened suit against Americans and others at least 36 times since 2002, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld, author and director of the American Center for Democracy.

Ehrenfeld book also targeted

Ehrenfeld should know, as her own book, "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed -- And How to Stop It", was also targeted by bin Mahfouz through the British court system. Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in 2004, soon after her book's publication in the United States, even though only 23 copies ever made it to the United Kingdom.

Ehrenfeld would not, as she put it in the New York Post, "acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book published here" and a trial was never held, but the court ruled in favor of bin Mahfouz by default. It also awarded bin Mahfouz $225,913 in damages and ordered Ehrenfeld to apologize publicly and to destroy all unsold copies of the book.

Instead, Ehrenfeld chose to fight back. No doubt aware of the larger implications at work, she took her case to the United States and, giving bin Mahfouz a taste of his own medicine, sued him in a New York federal court on the basis that "his English default judgment is unenforceable in the United States and repugnant to the First Amendment."

Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate has described her case as "one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years" and sure enough, in June of this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it deserved a hearing. The court will begin hearing arguments this fall in what could turn out to be a pivotal case involving the clash between First Amendment rights and foreign libel rulings.

Ehrenfeld may indeed have a strong case. She maintains that bin Mahfouz has a long history of involvement in terrorist financing. The bulk of it, she wrote in 2005, revolves around the now-defunct Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation, which was founded by bin Mahfouz and "identified by the U.S. Treasury Department as providing logistical and financial support to al Qaeda, HAMAS, and the Abu Sayyaf organizations." Ehrenfeld recapped her concerns more recently:

The data in both "Alms for Jihad" and "Funding Evil" is all well-documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts, Treasury Department and other official statements. Further corroboration comes from French intelligence officials at the General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), as reported in the French daily, Le Monde. For example, the DGSE reported that, in 1998, it knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew it, too.

For this reason, and also to create a precedent, Ehrenfeld has been the only defendant so far not to settle with bin Mahfouz. And she refuses to "acknowledge the British Court and its ruling" to this day.
Price of book skyrockets

Ehrenfeld's success thus far countering bin Mahfouz mirrors other indications that libel tourism may be backfiring. The largely Internet-based furor over the attempt to squelch "Alms for Jihad" and what is widely seen as Cambridge University Press' cave-in has caused the book's price to skyrocket. A copy of the book sold on eBay this month for $538. As noted at the blog Hot Air, "By suing publisher Cambridge University Press into submission, Khalid bin Mahfouz has turned an obscure scholarly book on the financial workings of terrorism into a prized, rare book."

In addition, the American Library Association is rising to the occasion. Rather than going along with the Cambridge University Press settlement stipulation that American libraries remove "Alms for Jihad" from their shelves, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom issued the following statement earlier this month:
Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British settlement is unenforceable in the United States, and libraries are under no legal obligation to return or destroy the book. Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies, and it is the library's property to do with as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users.

Reportedly, Collins and Burr got the publishing rights to the book back from Cambridge University Press and, according to the Library Journal, have had "several offers from U.S. publishers." It appears the "Alms for Jihad" saga is far from over and free speech may yet win the day.
Charity implicated

In another victory for free speech, as well as an instructive example of what such libel suits look like when attempted in the United States, a recent case involving Yale University Press proves useful. It involved a book written by Matthew Levitt, the director of the Stein Program on Terrorism, Intelligence and Policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, titled "Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad."

In his book, Levitt disputes the notion, popular among Hamas apologists, that the group's terrorist and social service pursuits can be seen as separate. In the process, he implicates the Dallas charity KinderUSA, which allegedly raises funds for Palestinian children, in terrorist financing. The group has personnel connections to the now-closed Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which has been under investigation by federal authorities for funding Hamas. KinderUSA has also come under investigation and as a result, in 2005 suspended operations temporarily.

All of this information is available to the public and the book was thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication. Levitt, who is a witness in the ongoing trial of the Holy Land Foundation, explained further that he "conducted three years of careful research for Hamas, and the book was the subject of academic peer review."

But this didn't stop KinderUSA and the chair of its board, Dr. Laila Al-Marayati, from filing a libel suit in California in April against Levitt, Yale University Press, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They disputed a particular passage from the book, as well as alleging that Yale University Press did not subject it to fact-checking. But, in filing the suit in California, they were faced with a formidable challenge: the state's anti-SLAPP statute. According to Inside Higher Education:

KinderUSA asked the court for an injunction on its request that distribution of the book be halted, and also sought $500,000 in damages. But in July, Yale raised the stakes by filing what is known as an "anti-SLAPP suit" motion, seeking to quash the libel suit and to receive legal fees. SLAPP is an acronym for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," a category of lawsuit viewed as an attempt not to win in court, but to harass a nonprofit group or publication that is raising issues of public concern. The fear of those sued is that groups with more money can tie them up in court in ways that would discourage them from exercising their rights to free speech. Anti-SLAPP statutes, such as the one in California with which Yale responded, are tools created in some states to counter such suits.

Not only did Yale University Press stand by its author, but, in the end, its aggressive response to KinderUSA paid off. It was announced this month that the libel suit has been dropped and no changes to the book or payments to the plaintiffs will be forthcoming. KinderUSA claims that it dropped the suit because of the costs involved, but it's more likely it felt that it could not win. If the case had been brought in the United Kingdom, the outcome could have been far different.

This is why Americans must be vigilant about protecting their free speech rights, even when the threats at hand do not fit into the politically correct playbook. Certainly not all Muslim charities and Saudi businessmen are involved in financing terrorism, but the overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to existing links deserves attention, as do the fervent attempts by interested parties to silence those trying to bring the truth to light. It is crucial that they not succeed.

Posted by Ricardo Valenzuela

Long-Arming the Libel Tourist

by Jacob Sullum Reason Magazine

Last week the New York Court of Appeals heard arguments in a case that pits freedom of speech against British libel law. Israeli-American criminologist Rachel Ehrenfeld is challenging a libel judgment against her obtained by Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, whom she identified in her 2003 book Funding Evil as a source of financial support for terrorism. Last June the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allowed her lawsuit to proceed, but the case hinges to some extent on issues of state law, one of which the New York Court of Appeals is now considering: whether New York's "long arm" statute can reach a defendant such as Bin Mahfouz who is outside the U.S.

Calling Bin Mahfouz to account before a U.S. court seems only fair, given his strategy in trying to shut Ehrenfeld up. Although her book was published in the U.S., Bin Mahfouz sued her in London to take advantage of England's pro-plaintiff libel rules, which he has used to intimidate other critics into silence. The excuse for suing Ehrenfeld in the U.K. was that people there (possibly cronies of Bin Mahfouz) had bought 23 copies of the book online. In 2005 a British judge issued a default judgment against Ehrenfeld, ordering her to apologize, pay Bin Mahfouz about $230,000, and destroy all copies of her book. Jared Lapidus, a fellow at the Moving Picture Institute ("Promoting Freedom Through Film"), has produced an eight-minute documentary about the case, which the prominent civil libertarian (and reason contributor) Harvey Silverglate calls "one of the most important First Amendment cases of the past 25 years." Although Lapidus gets a little distracted by how awful the Saudis are, the video does communicate the dangers of libel tourism pretty well.

I mentioned the Ehrenfeld case on Hit & Run last month. Silverglate considered the implications in a 2006 Boston Globe op-ed piece co-authored by Samuel Abady. Katherine Mangu-Ward interviewed Rob Pfaltzgraff, the Moving Picture Institute's executive director, in the October issue of reason.

Britain and the US are not shoulder to shoulder over defamation

When it comes to libel, the US disagrees with the high court - and one American author is hoping to take advantage of it

English libel law itself could face scrutiny in a US court, in a case brought by a US author in New York.

Rachel Ehrenfeld's Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It was published in 2003, and alleged that Saudi businessman Sheikh Kalid bin Mahfouz, among others, financed terrorism, a serious defamatory allegation. The book was published in the US, but 23 copies were made available for sale in the UK.

In 2004, Mahfouz won a default defamation claim against Ehrenfeld in the high court from the libel judge Mr Justice Eady. Ehrenfeld is seeking to resist the enforcement in New York of that English libel judgment.

In the past, US courts have refused to implement libel judgments obtained in England. The high court in England has been a popular venue for libel claimants - and English judges have been obliging in hearing cases not obviously related to this jurisdiction, including actions brought against US-based defendants. In 2000, for example, the House of Lords allowed a claim by Russian businessman Boris Berezovsky (at the time still resident in Russia) against the US Forbes magazine.

One crucial issue is often whether there is significant circulation of the material in question within the UK. With information posted on the internet essentially available everywhere immediately - and English law taking the view that material is published where it is read - the propensity for material to be actionable in England is all the greater.

But though it may be possible to bring a claim in libel in the English court against a foreign defendant and obtain judgment and an award of damages, if the defendant has no assets within the jurisdiction (such as a bank account or a house), that award can be fulfilled only if it can be enforced where the defendant does have assets. That is almost invariably in his or her home jurisdiction.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz, who has always vehemently denied the allegations in Ehrenfeld's book, chose to sue her not in the US where the libel laws favour the defendant but in London, where the libel laws are notoriously tilted in favour of the claimant.

In response, Ehrenfeld (who had no assets in the UK) decided not to contest the claim - allowing Sheikh bin Mahfouz quickly to obtain judgment from the English court and an award of £30,000 in damages - but instead elected to bring an action against Mahfouz in New York, hoping for a declaration that the claim would not succeed if it were brought within the jurisdiction of the New York court, and that the judgment from the English court was unenforceable in the US.

If Ehrenfeld's action is successful, it will not only insulate her from the effects of the English libel award, but it might also constitute an effective retort to the implicit criticism of her from the English judgment and undermine the vindication Mahfouz obtained from it.

Will it work? In the past, the US judiciary has taken a dim view of the law of defamation in the UK. For example, in 1995 Vladimir Telnikoff, a Soviet-born writer living in Israel, sought to enforce in a court in Maryland in the US a libel award obtained in England against Vladimir Matusevitch, another former Soviet writer.

Courts in one country usually enforce judgments granted by courts in another under a rather homely principle known as "comity", that is the mutual respect to be accorded between judicial authorities. However, in considering the case, the Maryland court of appeals undertook a review of the law of defamation in the UK from the oppressive censorship of the Star Chamber under the reign of Henry VIII to the present day - and essentially decided that little had changed.

For this reason, the court decided that enforcement of the English libel award would be repugnant and contrary to public policy in Maryland, and refused to allow Mr Telnikoff's claim.

Although Dr Ehrenfeld may well succeed in her claim, her hopes that this might inspire a significant change in the English law are probably overly optimistic. The British media have long battled for more lenient libel laws and have already achieved a degree of success with the so-called "Reynolds defence". This confers protection to a defamatory publication which is in the public interest and has been produced as a result of responsible journalism, even if the defendant media organisation cannot prove that the allegations in question are true. This still falls short of the equivalent defence in the US which, in light of the right to free speech under the first amendment of the US constitution, is more generous to the media. But the defence represents the settled view of the judiciary and there is unlikely to be any significant movement in the foreseeable future.

Dan Tench is a media partner at Olswang
Originally published in the UK Guardian

Like Sheep to the Slaughter

The First Amendment's Freedom of Speech and of the Press was intended to give broad protections to those who wish to speak out about political issues, and especially about government. In the realm of international affairs, the policies and politics of foreign nations and their governments need to be discussed, as well.

In recent years, nation-states have avoided the consequences of their policies by seeking terrorist groups as proxies for their violence, beginning a trend away from governments as the only actors in the international arena.

However, what we are seeing increasingly, as I addressed in posts on the 'Ndrangheta earlier this month (see 'Ndrangheta and The Major League) and in my series entitled The Shadow Realm (see sidebar), is non-governmental players influencing international affairs. A perfect example of this is the case of Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror.

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's legal battle against Sheikh bin Mahfouz continued in court on the 15th. This case is incredibly significant -- it is quite possible that upon its outcome hinges our legal protection to speak out about terrorism.

Despite the significance of this legal battle, the media is either so foolish that they do not understand the ramifications, or so cowardly that they do not wish to risk Sheikh bin Mahfouz's wrath by covering it, and so, they do not use their Constitutionally-protected freedoms to defend against infringements of their Constitutionally-protected freedoms, but rather, they leave that task to others.

The Constitution means nothing without the will to abide by it, and to defend and enforce its provisions. If we do not defend and enforce its provisions through peaceful, legal proceedings now, then the day is fast approaching when we will have to regain our freedoms through force of arms, just as we established them on this continent early in the third quarter of the Eighteenth Century.

"If the freedom of speech is taken away
then dumb and silent we may be led,
like sheep to the slaughter."

George Washington

There is now a movie wherein Dr. Ehrenfeld speaks out for the first time on film.

About the film:

    "The Libel Tourist" is a short-form documentary film produced by the Moving Picture Institute. MPI's short film program seeks to provide filmmakers with the opportunities to display their filmmaking skills while making an impact on behalf of human freedom.

    Though it addresses one of the gravest subjects of contemporary political life, it is only 8 minutes long. In those 8 minutes, our eyes are opened to a new and chilling threat: the story of how Saudi petrodollars have cowed, silenced, and almost broken freedom of speech in the West.

    The film documents the true story of how an American-Israeli author Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld was ordered to destroy all copies of her book in a country where it had never been published- England—after a notoriously litigious Saudi billionaire sued her in a British court. Ehrenfeld's book Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, accuses the Saudi billionaire of funding of terrorism.

    Now Ehrenfeld is fighting back, counter-suing him in the New York, to defend her and our First Amendment rights. She speaks on film for the first time in "The Libel Tourist."

    "This film is an eye-opening exposé," says Jared Lapidus, the film's director. "It deals directly with the issues of terrorism, Islamo-fascism, and how it is infringing on our rights in the West, and the U.S. in particular."

You can learn more about Dr. Ehrenfeld's case by reading the other posts I have done, which are linked in a special widget in the sidebar.

More importantly, I encourage you to visit Rachel's website, The American Center for Democracy, and learn about her important work and this legal battle there. In particular, you can read some of the only media coverage of the November 15th proceedings (NewsDay.com also ran a story).

While at The American Center for Democracy, you can make a financial contribution to this legal battle that Dr. Ehrenfeld is fighting for all of us.

Don't wait for the mainstream media to speak out in defense of our rights -- they long ago traded in their souls for ratings and profits....

Originally published on Stop Islamic Conquest  by Yankee Doodle
Sunday, November 18, 2007

US author mounts 'libel tourism' challenge

by David Pallister

A ferocious attack on the "chilling effect" of the English law of libel and its use by wealthy "foreign tourists" will be mounted in a top US court today, with backing from organisations that represent a majority of the world's media.

The case is being brought in the New York state court of appeals by an American academic, Rachel Ehrenfeld, against one of the richest men in the world, the Saudi investment banker Khalid bin Mahfouz. Her lawyers describe it as the most important first amendment - free speech - case in the past 50 years.

Ehrenfeld's 2003 book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed - and How to Stop it, alleged that Mahfouz and his two sons financed al-Qaida through the family's ownership of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia and through connections with Islamic charities. In 2004, Mahfouz won a default defamation judgment against her in the high court by the leading libel judge, Mr Justice Eady. He awarded damages and costs against her estimated at £110,000.

Since the September 11 2001 attacks, Mahfouz, with a fortune estimated by Forbes at $3bn (£1.45bn), has successfully used or threatened to use the English courts on 29 occasions against similar allegations. He insists that he abhors terrorism and has never knowingly provided money to al-Qaida.

Today's hearing in the state capital, Albany, is initially about whether the New York courts have jurisdiction over Mahfouz. Ehrenfeld wants declarations that under US law Mahfouz could not prevail in a claim of libel against her and that Eady's judgment is unenforceable there.

The possibility he might seek enforcement - a sword of Damocles, according to her lawyers - has stimulated a formidable array of journalistic support. In a consolidated amici curiae (friend of the court) brief - backed by every major newspaper group in the UK, including the Guardian - the court will be urged to recognise the "growing and dangerous threat of 'libel tourism' - the cynical and aggressive use of claimant-friendly libel laws in foreign jurisdictions..." which "has chilled and will continue to chill Dr Ehrenfeld's exercise of her free speech".

She claims that "Mahfouz's systematic course of aggressive litigation is really a form of intellectual terrorism, an extreme type of literary censorship". US publishers, she says, are wary of using her work.

Although the book sold only 23 copies in the UK at the time of the original trial in 2004, Mahfouz denies he is a libel tourist.

His lawyers say he has a substantial reputation in England, and that Ehrenfeld's claims about the impact of the English judgment are alarmist and untrue.

"To the contrary, she has used this case and her legal conflict with Mr bin Mahfouz to promote a new edition of her book as 'the book the Saudis don't want you to read', to present herself as a victim of repressive English law, and to further publicise her false claim that Mr bin Mahfouz is a supporter of terrorism," the lawyers said.

Originally published the Thursday November 15, 2007 Guardian Unlimited

Dr Ehrenfeld Fights For 2nd Amendment Rights Tomorrow

Funding EvilIs the U.K. beginning to become a key player in global law enforcement due to their E.U. sympathetic repressive justice system? Will Muslim-friendly law in the U.K. be able to reach citizens of other countries, like yours, for example?

Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, the author of the book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed -- and How to Stop It, is going to court tomorrow, November 15th. She is fighting in a New York court for protection against a cash-greased Saudi bully for her constitutional right to freedom of speech in her own country, the U.S., over a book that she wrote and published in the U.S.

There has been a campaign of legal intimidation carried out against her, dealt with in detail in our previous post here. In her book she exposes the Saudis including one Khalid Salim a bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire. By doing this, she's taking on a behemoth who has successfully silenced many a critic through a process known as 'libel tourism'.

Wikipedia has a fairly decent description of it here:

    Libel tourism refers to the practice of intimidating writers or commentators and their publishers by filing libel suits against them in countries with plaintiff-friendly libel laws, notably the United Kingdom. Noteworthy cases have been of wealthy Saudis suing or threatening to sue American publishers of American writers in British courts [1].

    United States law favors freedom of speech. The United States Supreme Court ruled in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that public figures who sue media defendants must demonstrate that defamatory statements were "made with actual malice." Outside of the United States, truth is not a defense against allegations of defamation.

    As an example, Saudi Billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened suit in the UK 33 times against those who linked him to terrorism. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have settled with him, and he has a Web site boasting of his victories According to a Boston Globe editorial, "Bin Mahfouz and fellow libel tourists have made the English libel bar rich, leading The Times to declare the United Kingdom the 'libel capital of the Western world.' ... This trend has produced a succession of rulings, settlements, and damage awards against English and American media defendants costing millions of pounds"[2]. Though the phenomenon is most closely identified with Saudis, it is not limited to them. A Russian businessman successfully sued Forbes magazine, not in its home country the United States, but in London's High Court. And in 2002, George W. Bush advisor Richard Perle threatened to sue investigative reporter Seymour Hersh in London, because of a series of critical articles Hersh had written about him. [3]

So basically the laws in the United Kingdom are tilted in favor of the plaintiff (Mahfouz) rather than the defendant (Dr Ehrenfeld). A bully like Mahfouz under U.K. law can basically do as he pleases by punishing anyone who exposes him.

How is it, that a woman who wrote and published a book in the United States can be accountable outside the U.S.? He has already defeated her in the U.K. courts. And now she owes $221,000.00. She is appealing to the U.S. to protect her first amendment rights to freedom of speech by declaring the ruling unenforceable in the United States.

Consider this. This is a push to take the citizen out of the protections of their own nation and to try them in an internationally reaching court. In the past an international judiciary only applied to despots who had violated human rights, but now it is being broadened. A global judiciary undermines national sovereignty. Previous posts on European courts overreaching their boundaries can be found here and here.

Libel tourism must be resisted or we are one more step down the road of global dominance and repression by bodies that we DID NOT ELECT into power.

Via Stop Islamic Conquest (where you can find details on helping Dr Ehrenfeld).

[Originally published on The Freedom Fighter's Journal ]

Ehrenfeld vs Mahfouz

Dr.Rachel Ehrenfeld's court date for her appeal against billionaire saudi terror financier khalid bin mafouz begins Thursday in New York. She seeks a judgement from federal court declaring that mafouz's UK libel suit, which she lost, is unenforceable in this country under our constitution and New York law. At stake is our freedom of speech, not to mention the ability of investigative journalists to uncover and publicize the nefarious activities of wealthy muslims using fake charities to finance terrorism against us. And while the likes of Walt and Mearsheimer and their supporters falsely claim of a Jewish and pro-Israel cabal silencing critics of Israel, the reality is that Arabs, using their vast wealth and lobbying power, are the ones who are doing the silencing regarding their own misdeeds. The blog Stop Islamic Conquest has a detailed account of Dr.Ehrenfeld's case. Also go to her own website and help out this heroic and courageous woman financially in her important fight, as she is facing a very wealthy, powerful and dangerous foe. And I do mean dangerous. This sounds an awful lot like a physical threat against Dr.Ehrenfeld to me:

In connection with his UK case, Mahfouz has communicated with and served litigation papers on Dr. Ehrenfeld in New York. On one occasion, in March 2005, Mahfouz sent an agent to Dr. Ehrenfeld's home in New York who told her menacingly: You had better respond. Sheikh bin Mahfouz is a very important person, and you ought to take very good care of yourself." A 56. On five occasions, Mahfouz's agents have mailed letters and documents relating to the UK case to Dr. Ehrenfeld's home in New York. A 56-58. On five occasions, Mahfouz's agents have intrusively sent e-mails relating to the UK case that Dr. Ehrenfeld read at her home computer in New York. A 56-58.

Rachel Ehrenfeld must prevail over this filthy, vile thug. Our enemies cannot be allowed to manipulate our own court system to get away with financing and plotting attacks against us.

[Published on Fiery Spirited Zionist]

Amici Curiae

[Originally posted on Stop Islamic Conquest]

This post presents excerpts of briefs filed in Dr. Ehrenfeld's case. If you are not familiar with the case, I have a whole list of posts in the sidebar where you can learn about it, although this very post is not a bad place to start!

Here are excerpts of a brief filed by the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum; they help explain the impact of Ehrenfeld's case:

    3. The Amicus respectfully submits that it is uniquely suited to assist the Court in the resolution of this appeal. Dr. Ehrenfeld is just one of many researchers and analysts who have become victims of forum shopping and intimidation tactics used by Mahfouz and others, aimed only at punishing those who are working to engage in dialogue about terrorism and its sources of financing. The Legal Project is very familiar with the type of "lawfare" being used by the Defendant, who has tactfully chosen a foreign court with radically difference libel laws to create a looming, chilling effect on the exercise of free speech by Dr. Ehrenfeld and other American authors in the field.

    4. American researchers and analysts are on the front lines of the war on terrorism as they work to educate the public and brief the U.S. government about the various threats posed to civil society. Unfortunately, legal action by individuals and organizations seeking to silence their critics in the United States is an ascending phenomenon. Such lawsuits are often predatory and undertaken as a means to bankrupt, distract, intimidate, and demoralize defendants. There is a grave need for American courts to provide a forum within which American authors can preemptively challenge the effects of this tactic.

    5. For the reasons stated in the proposed amicus curiae brief, the Amicus believes it is vital that this Court address the merits of the issue at hand, and recognize that Rachel's case is not unique nor will it be the last attempt at stifling free speech within our borders, from without. We think that this case is one of the most important First Amendment cases the Court has seen in the past 25 years, and has the ability to serve as a valuable precedent for thousands of American authors and analysts. Moreover, we feel that this case will have an extremely important impact on how our citizens are able to respond to the war on terrorism. We beg the Court to afford the Plaintiff an opportunity to defend her constitutional rights against inequitable foreign libel laws, and to address the greater issues at hand.

    [snip]

    I. The Growing Threat of "Lawfare" to American Researchers, Analysts & Authors

    A viscous and particularly dangerous form of offensive "lawfare" is being carried out by the enemies of the free world, with the strategic goal of intimidating, bankrupting and ultimately silencing those who dare speak out against their actions. Those who preach hate and destruction of the West, as well as those who finance terrorism, have been targeting media outlets, book publishers as well as innocent researchers and authors who have dedicated their lives to exposing the sources of terrorism, with a series of expensive and destructive lawsuits. These lawsuits aim to silence critics of radical Islam and terrorism, and are usually based on frivolous claims ranging from defamation, to workplace harassment, to conspiracy to violate civil rights. While the prosecution in these cases have the full support and financial backing of wealthy domestic and foreign charities as well as states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt to the tune of millions of dollars, the defendants simply do not have adequate funds or resources to turn to for ample support.

    Civilians throughout American history have always been the government's "first responders," especially against terrorism, but lawsuits by wealthy financiers, radical clerics and the organizations that support them, are frightening people into silence as their victims seek to avoid the nightmare of being named as defendants, being labeled as bigots and having their assets garnered in accordance with foreign libel judgments. In the words of noted attorney Jeffrey Robbins, "this is an attempt by folks who apparently have massive financial resources to dress up as a conspiracy [legitimate questioning protected under the First Amendment], and it has a distinctly McCarthyite aspect to it." Due to the threat of suit, people are becoming afraid to report mosques that proliferate hate to the government. Newspapers, magazines and think-tanks are afraid to publish reports and articles about the problem of violent radicalization within our borders, and book publishers are rejecting meritorious works for fear of being sued.

    This form of "lawfare" is quickly gaining momentum with a ripple effect, has succeeded in intimidating civilians, the media and non-profit organizations from exercising their freedom of speech, and has incurred a cost burden of thousands of dollars while the list of innocent victims against whom suits have been wrongfully filed is considerable and growing.

    Central to defeating this assault on the free flow of accurate information within the United States is an environment in which American authors and researchers feel comfortable exercising their right to free speech. Dr. Ehrenfeld's case could prove one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years. It is time for a precedent to be set against libel tourism and unfair threats against innocent American citizens to lose their chilling effect.




These excerpts are from a brief by a laundry list of organizations associated with the media and publishing; the brief helps explain how the case developed and the ramifications of Sheikh bin Mahfouz's actions:

    A. The Facts Presented in This Appeal Powerfully Illustrate the Danger Libel Tourism Poses to Free Expression in New York

    Rachel Ehrenfield, a United States citizen, resident of New York, and the director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, wrote Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It. The book was published in 2003 by Bonus Books, a United States publisher, solely in the United States. The book alleges that defendant Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, a subject of Saudi Arabia, financially supported Al Qaeda in the years preceding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Al2-15.1

    Mr. Bin Mahfouz has alleged that the statements concerning him in Funding Evil are false and defamatory. In October 2004, he brought a libel action against Dr. Ehrenfeld. He filed suit in England, and not in the New York, where Dr. Ehrenfeld works and lives, or anywhere else in the United States, where the book was for sale. Al2, A16-22, A53-54.

    Mr. Bin Mahfouz and.his agents had substantial contacts with New York in connection with the English defamation action. On four separate occasions, his agents came to Dr. Ehrenfeld's home to deliver papers related to the English court action to her. A55. On eight separate occasions, Mr. Bin Mahfouz's attorneys sent letters, emails and packages to Dr. Ehrenfeld's home in New York or to her email address, where she read the emails from her computer located in New York. A56-58. These contacts included a letter sent by Mr. Bin Mahfouz's attorneys to Dr. Ehrenfeld in New York demanding that she take certain steps, including the destruction of copies of her book in New York and the taking of steps to prevent leakage of the book into the United Kingdom. A56-57. See also Ehrenfeld, 489 F.3d at 548-49.

    It is clear that Mr. Bin Mahfouz, a Saudi national, filed suit in England to avoid application of United States libel law and the protections that the First Amendment provides to libel defendants. The differences between the two countries' libel laws are significant, with English law favoring plaintiffs in a number of critical respects and not affording defendants the constitutional protections that American authors, journalists and news organizations take for granted. For example:

        English law does not distinguish between private persons and those who are public figures or are involved in matters of public concern. None are required to prove falsity of the libel or fault on the part of the defendant. No plaintiff is required to prove that a media defendant intentionally or negligently disregarded proper journalistic standards in order to prevail.

        The defendant has the burden of proving not only truth but also of establishing entitlement to the qualified privilege for newspaper publications and broadcasters....



    [snip]

    Under English law, "a libel defendant would be held liable for statements the defendant honestly believed to be true and published without any negligence. In contrast, the law in the United States requires the plaintiff to prove that the statements were false and looks to the defendant's state of mind and intentions."

    [snip]

    Dr. Ehrenfeld did not appear in the English action, and Mr. Bin Mahfouz obtained a default judgment against her. A7. By avoiding the First Amendment, and thereby not having to prove falsity or actual malice, Mr. Bin Mahfouz was able to obtain "substantial damages," as he has described it on his website,2 against Dr. Ehrenfeld, an injunction against Dr. Ehrenfeld "publishing, or causing or authori[z]ing the further publication" of the disputed statements in Funding Evil in the United Kingdom, and a "declaration of falsity" in which the court determined (without the benefit of the views of Dr. Ehrenfeld, her publisher or any other witnesses) that the challenged statements in Funding Evil are false and defamatory. A7-8, A33- 36.

    The value of the default judgment to Mr. Bin Mahfouz's campaign against Dr. Ehrenfeld and other journalists who have also linked him to the funding of terrorism is obvious, even if– indeed especially if – he takes no further actions to enforce it. The English judgment, as well as the English court's "declaration of falsity" and its injunction against publication, has chilled and will continue to chill Dr. Ehrenfeld's exercise of her free speech rights. It likely will compromise her ability to find publishers in the future. Publishers, who carry insurance policies imposing obligations to review the liability risks of works they consider for publication, may well shy away from an author subject to such an outstanding judgment. In fact, some already have: after Mr. Bin Mahfouz posted his account of the English judgment on his website, two publications that regularly featured Dr. Ehrenfeld's work rejected an article she wrote about a Saudi-owned company and have declined to provide Dr. Ehrenfeld with reasons for their decisions. A61.

    By subjecting Dr. Ehrenfeld to liability based on the content of Funding Evil, the English judgment deters her from making any future statements about Mr. Bin Mahfouz, or any other of her research subjects, that might be alleged to be defamatory under English law. The outstanding English default judgment – particularly because it includes a "declaration of falsity" – harms Dr. Ehrenfeld's reputation as an American author and researcher. Further, unless Dr. Ehrenfeld is afforded an opportunity to challenge the English judgment, she is exposed to the ongoing risk of domestic enforcement proceedings and is potentially compromised in her ability to borrow funds and acquire property. Thus, Dr. Ehrenfeld has already begun to tailor her writing to more restrictive English libel standards in order to avoid future suits like Mr. Bin Mahfouz's English action. A61- 62.

    Dr. Ehrenfeld is not the only one being chilled by the English default judgment. Increasingly, publishers are being subject, based on de minimis availability of their works abroad, particularly through the internet, to the jurisdiction of foreign courts that apply laws that do not comport with the constitutions and public policies of New York or the United States. As a result, media organizations have begun to curtail speech that would be protected in their home country out of legitimate concern that they will be subject to judicial actions in countries with fewer protections for free expression.

    [snip]

    Mr. Bin Mahfouz alone has sought to silence his critics by threatening to sue or by actually suing for defamation at least 29 times in the United Kingdom. See A26. This phenomenon is especially troubling where, as here, the challenged publication occurred solely in the United States, where the First Amendment requires libel plaintiffs to meet a much more demanding burden of proof. See Bachchan, 154 Misc.2d at 231-32, 585 N.Y.S.2d at 663; Matusevitch, 877 F. Supp. at 4.

    This broad chilling effect not only jeopardizes the individual rights of members of the media, but also stunts the crucial free flow of information and ideas to the people of New York and the American public on matters of public concern. Mr. Bin Mahfouz's English judgment provides compelling evidence of the ease with which the subjects of critical investigative journalism are able to punish American authors by using the courts of another country to avoid the protections of the First Amendment, while also evading American judicial review of those foreign judgments.


You are encouraged to go to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, read the legal papers that she has posted there, and while there, contribute monetarily to her battle against Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a multibillionaire, who is one of the world's richest men, and who has been consistently identified by many scholars as a Financier of Holy Terror.

American Libraries Refusing To Remove Banned Book On Jihad Financing

(Plus: The WSJ's Fight Against Libel Tourism) courtesy of Mere Rhetoric

Last month we blogged a conference call with Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who's had to endure professional, financial, and potentially physical threats and harassment because of her book Funding Evil, Updated: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, which identified Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz as a node of international terrorist financing. Bin Mahfouz had the book imported into Britain, enabling Ehrenfeld to be sued her for libel in British courts (caveat: it might not have been Bin Mahfouz - you have to be careful with accusations like this - it might just have been someone who coincidentally did exactly what Bin Mahfouz needed to enable a suit in Britain). Since the burden of proof in Britain is on the author to prove her allegations and since Ehrenfeld refused to reveal her sources, Bin Mahfouz won and now she can't travel to Britain for fear of arrest. The Anglo tradition of freedom of speech.

Ehrenfeld's literal persecution gets bound up with another controversy about Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World,, the 2006 book by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins that also identified Bin Mahfouz as a financial sponsor of jihad and that was also the subject of a lawsuit in Britain. In fact, all of Bin Mahfouz's lawsuits have taken place in Britain, even though he keeps threatening other lawsuits. The publisher of Alms For Jihad settled out of court, and then undertook one of the most dramatic suppressions of speech in the history of commercial publishing. After the jump: a description of the literally Stalinist suppression of Alms, the qualified good news about its potential republishing, and the Wall Street Journal's fight to challenge Britain's absurd libel standards.

    A press release by Bin Mahfouz's lawyers at Kendall Freeman[4] announced that, in addition to publishing a comprehensive apology, paying substantial damages, and pulping unsold copies of the book, "Cambridge University Press is taking the almost unprecedented step of … writing to over 200 libraries worldwide which carry the book telling them of the settlement and asking them to withdraw the book from their shelves." Two weeks later, Cambridge Intellectual Property Director Kevin Taylor followed through with a letter to libraries known to hold the book, asking them to remove it... Alms for Jihad quickly disappeared from U.S. bookstores and online suppliers....

    Cambridge University Press is the self-described "oldest printer and publisher in the world." Yet this distinguished firm agreed to a virtually unprecedented insult to free inquiry: a request to academic libraries to be complicit in the suppression of a published work. Some wondered if Cambridge's request might portend more aggressive attempts at redress in future cases. In previous suits no settlement had included an attempt to suppress library copies. Some also worried about the potential chilling effect of these cases on lesser publishers who may become reluctant to accept manuscripts on terrorism issues. While questions are regularly raised about books in school or public libraries, challenges to books in academic collections are rare. A request to remove a book initiated by its publisher is virtually unheard of.

    When Little, Brown withdrew Kaavya Viswanathan's novel... after the author confessed to plagiarizing portions, it did not ask libraries to suppress their copies... Knopf stopped printing Michael Bellesiles' discredited Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, but did not advise libraries to remove it... Libraries were not asked to remove Antoni Gronowicz's God's Broker, even though the publisher denounced its own book as "fraudulent"... The prestigious academic journal Science editorially retracted two fraudulent cloning articles by South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk, yet did not purge the pieces from its article database... Publishers, generally, and academic librarians, certainly, do not suppress the printed record, even when that record contains acknowledged fraud and error, never mind disputed claims.

The rest of the article goes on to point out that American Universities are having none of that. There's apparently near unanimity on saving the book, which is definitely heartening from an area that has not exactly been careful in choosing sides in the battle against political Islam. Apparently there are still some values and habits that thuggish intimidation and suppression of speech has trouble getting to.

The other piece of good news in the article is a link to a to a NYT report from earlier this month saying that Burr and Collins have reobtained the copyright to Alms. And though several American publishers have expressed interest in publishing it, they reserve the right to "just delete Mahfouz the 11 times he appears." Which is, of course, Mahfouz's broader goal. He's not really interested in apologies for past revelations of his terrorist financing - what he wants is to chill the potential for new ones. And as long as Britain has the libel laws that they do, he'll always be able to hold the threat of lawsuits over publishers' heads.

Ehrenfeld's direct pushback is one part of standing up to Mahfouz's intimidation. Another is the way that the Wall Street Journal pushed back against libel laws in their 2006 case against the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, an international trading conglomerate
based in Saudi Arabia that has interests in everything from cars to shipping to property to electronics. James Dorsey had written an article for the Journal in 2002 called "Saudi Officials Monitor Certain Bank Accounts" and had mentioned both the Jameel group and Bin Mahfouz as potential sponsors of terrorism. Bin Mahfouz did not sue but the Jameel group did, taking WSJ Europe to British court. The WSJ lost the case and their initial appeals. They kept appealing, and after 4.5 years and 4 million pounds they won their appeal and gained some small measure of protection for journalists and writers in the UK - although as Dorsey points out, certainly not enough. Still, between that and the republishing of Alms it's something. Although Rachel Ehrenfeld still can't travel to the UK and Bin Mahfouz can still hold the threat of British libel law over small publishers, so it's not like things are exactly copasetic. But it's nice to see a media outlet actually standing up for the values that journalists are supposed to stand up for, even if it means pointing out that either our friends the Saudis - and their friends the Wahhabists - don't exactly share those values.

References:

• CJHSLA Conference Call: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld And The Saudi Attack On American Free Speech [MR]
• Funding Evil, Updated: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It by Rachel Ehrenfeld [Amazon]
• The Libel Tourist Strikes Again [Weekly Standard]
• Alms for Jihad [FrontPage Mag]
• American Library Association: Zionism Is Racism [MR]
• Libel Without Borders [NYT]
• UK Law Lords in landmark ruling in Wall Street Journal Europe libel case [FinFacts]

British PC Police Can't Censor Truth in the US

Courtesy of  Yid with a Lid

Last July a Saudi Sheikh brought a libel suit to a British Court, because a book written by Americans (Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins). The book proved that the Saudi Sheikh was funding Terrorism. The book's British Publisher, Cambridge University Press, settled the suit by apologizing and recalling all copies of the book. And even sent out letters asking libraries across the world to destroy the book. Thankfully American libraries told Cambridge to shove it--and rushed out to buy more copies of the book before it was gone forever.

The Sheikh Bin Mahfouz has an interesting history. He was was a non-executive director of Bank of Credit and Commerce International, a huge financial conglomerate later convicted of money laundering, bribery, support of terrorism, arms trafficking, and many other crimes. Mahfouz personally owned a 20% stake in BCCI. He was indicted by a New York state grand jury for fraud but denied any culpability. The fraud charges were dropped after Mahfouz agreed to pay $225 million in lieu of fines.(Vardi, Nathan. "Sins of the Father?", The World's Billionaires, Forbes, 2002-03-18)

According to Craig Unger in his book House of Bush, House of Saud bin Mahfouz donated over $270,000 to Osama bin Laden's Islamist organization at the request of Osama's brother Salem bin Laden. Bin Mahfouz's lawyer stated: "This donation was to assist the US-sponsored resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and was never intended nor, to the best of Sheikh Khalid's knowledge, ever used to fund any 'extension' of that resistance movement in other countries."

Khalid bin Mahfouz has denied that NCB, his bank, was involved in funding an al-Qaeda group. According to reports, high-placed Saudi businessmen transferred millions of dollars through NCB to charities operating as fronts for al-Qaeda. Mahfouz states that he could not have been aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank, and that he would not have allowed such transactions had he known they were taking place. There is no evidence that Mahfouz was personally involved in any of these transactions.

Khalid bin Mahfouz helped set up a charity organization called the Muwafaq Foundation, Muwafaq being Arabic for "blessed relief". He funded this charity with $30 million, and put his eldest son, Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, on the board of directors. In October of 2001, the U.S. Treasury Department named Muwafaq an al-Qaeda front organization. Neither Khalid nor Abdulrahman were accused of funding terrorism by the United States; however Yasin al-Qadi, a Saudi national hired to run the charity, was named a supporter of terrorism by and had his assets frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department.
Yet with all this going on around bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press folded its tent at the first sign of controversy. It is precisely this kind of cowardice that one day may have us all wearing burkas and speaking Arabic.

Alms for Jihad    
    By Robert L. Houbeck, Jr.
    FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 12, 2007

    In 1989, former Conservative Party chairman and retired British officer, Lord Aldington, won a libel suit against Count Nikolai Tolstoy for allegations of complicity in war crimes which Tolstoy had made in his 1986 book, The Minister and the Massacres. Following up on his U.K. court victory, Aldington had his lawyers write to "… public libraries throughout Britain threatening further legal action if they continued to make [the book] available …. Even today, the book is virtually unavailable in Britain …."[1] Out of print, it is easier to find in New Zealand libraries than in the U.K.[2]

    András Riedlmayer, a bibliographer at Harvard's Fine Arts Library, sees a family resemblance between the Tolstoy case and the current dust-up about Alms for Jihad. In both cases, an attempt was made by influential elites to intimidate libraries into suppressing a book.

    In late July, Cambridge University Press settled a U.K. libel suit brought against it by Saudi businessman, Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz. Bin Mahfouz had disputed statements in Cambridge's 2006 book, Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, that he had been involved in financing terrorist groups.[3] A press release by Bin Mahfouz's lawyers at Kendall Freeman[4] announced that, in addition to publishing a comprehensive apology, paying substantial damages, and pulping unsold copies of the book, "Cambridge University Press is taking the almost unprecedented step of … writing to over 200 libraries worldwide which carry the book telling them of the settlement and asking them to withdraw the book from their shelves."

    Two weeks later, Cambridge Intellectual Property Director Kevin Taylor followed through with a letter to libraries known to hold the book, asking them to remove it.[5] Cambridge, apparently recognizing that librarians would almost certainly not comply, included an errata sheet with the letter. If libraries would not remove the book, Cambridge insisted that they insert the errata page.

    Alms for Jihad quickly disappeared from U.S. bookstores and online suppliers.[6] What about the shelves of U.S. libraries?

    Cambridge guessed right—librarians did not remove the book. To the contrary, they seem to have gone out and bought up the last elusive copies. More copies of Alms for Jihad were on library shelves in mid-September than before Taylor sent his August 15 letter.[7] U.S. holding libraries range from Harvard and Yale to Dearborn's Henry Ford Community College.

    The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom issued a statement encouraging librarians to stand firm. "Libraries," ALA noted, "are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies, and it is the library's property to do with it as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep the book available for their users."[8]

    A quick poll of library directors at Michigan academic libraries brought similar responses: We paid for the book, we own it, we're going to keep it. "The book itself," one director noted, "has now become part of the conversation." A commentary had become an artifact.

    These librarians were affirming the profession's commitment to preserving and disseminating the "Great Conversation" of recorded knowledge. Academic libraries don't adjudicate debates, but on their shelves preserve and foster them.

    On the substance of the Bin Mahfouz case, librarians had mixed views. One former library director observed that, to agree to such dramatic settlement terms, Cambridge must have concluded it was "dead-on wrong." Others were not so sure. "The … reaction of CUP to the pressure brought forward by Mahfouz," observed Mark Herring, Dean of Libraries at Winthrop University, "only serves to show just how powerful and influential money is, even in the face of intellectual freedom."

    Others found it significant that the U.S. authors of Alms for Jihad were standing by their scholarship.[9] Bin Mahfouz had not brought action against them. Moreover, while the Saudi businessman has, since March 2002, initiated or threatened suit 36 times,[10] he has taken legal action only in the U.K., where libel cases favor the plaintiff. The matter, in the view of many librarians, remains a legitimate topic for examination.

    The examination will go on not only in U.S. colleges and universities. Copies of Alms for Jihad are in the collections of many federal agencies, including the Library of Congress, the Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI Academy, the Air Force and Naval academies, and U.S. Special Operations Command. Did Cambridge send letters to federal libraries, too? If so, a search of the WorldCat database reveals that they aren't removing the book, either. It's hard to imagine Nancy Pelosi pressing Congress to surrender its copy, never mind Condoleezza Rice or Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

    Librarians have been taking steps to protect this suddenly rare book. Charles Hamaker, Associate University Librarian at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, reports that "my library, like many academic libraries, has placed Alms for Jihad in a reserve collection to keep it available for current and future users." The University of Michigan recalled its two circulating copies and put both on reserve—housed, as an added precaution, in separate locations. A search of their online catalogs reveals that Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, as well as the University of California-San Diego, have also placed their copies on reserve. Ohio State and Cornell put Alms for Jihad in non-circulating rare book collections. Prudent moves: the $30 book now has a market value of more than $500.[11]

    Jonathan Rodgers, head of the University Michigan's Near East collections, reports that the message traffic among Middle East Librarians Association members has been uniformly supportive of protecting copies and resisting any request to return the book. Riedlmayer of Harvard and others believe it would be reasonable to insert the errata page. But the consensus view among U.S. librarians is to resist any request to remove Alms for Jihad from library shelves.

    No librarians interviewed objected to Cambridge University's settling the lawsuit. Some accepted the firm's explanation[12] that the book contained erroneous statements which defamed Bin Mahfouz. Most understood Cambridge's reluctance to spend money on a suit it was likely to lose. Cambridge, too, recently announced plans to expand sales in the Gulf region and perhaps feared that any defense of the book would alienate potential customers.[13]

    But librarians do object to the terms of the settlement. Cambridge University Press is the self-described "oldest printer and publisher in the world."[14] Yet this distinguished firm agreed to a virtually unprecedented insult to free inquiry: a request to academic libraries to be complicit in the suppression of a published work. Some wondered if Cambridge's request might portend more aggressive attempts at redress in future cases. In previous suits no settlement had included an attempt to suppress library copies. Some also worried about the potential chilling effect of these cases on lesser publishers who may become reluctant to accept manuscripts on terrorism issues.[15]

    While questions are regularly raised about books in school or public libraries, challenges to books in academic collections are rare. A request to remove a book initiated by its publisher is virtually unheard of.[16]

    When Little, Brown withdrew Kaavya Viswanathan's novel, How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life after the author confessed to plagiarizing portions, it did not ask libraries to suppress their copies.[17] The book remains in many academic collections. Similarly, Knopf stopped printing Michael Bellesiles' discredited Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, but did not advise libraries to remove it.[18] Libraries were not asked to remove Antoni Gronowicz's God's Broker, even though the publisher denounced its own book as "fraudulent" and voluntarily destroyed the unsold remainder of its 35,000 volume print-run.[19] The prestigious academic journal Science[20] editorially retracted two fraudulent cloning articles by South Korean scientist Hwang Woo-Suk, yet did not purge the pieces from its article database.

    Publishers, generally, and academic librarians, certainly, do not suppress the printed record, even when that record contains acknowledged fraud and error, never mind disputed claims. It's not that either is indifferent to fraud and error. But, given "the endless twistiness of the human mind,"[21] the consensus has been that less mischief will be done by leaving the sorting out to readers. Caveat lector.

    Harvard's Riedlmayer could recall one example of attempted mischief by a publisher. In 1953, the publisher of the second edition of The Great Soviet Encyclopedia sent a letter to subscribing libraries asking that they remove from Volume Five the article on Lavrentiy Beria and replace it with a piece on the Bering Sea. Beria, the brutal head of Stalin's state security police, had been liquidated. Purged from life, the Soviets attempted to purge him from memory. Clumsily helpful, they enclosed a razor blade.[22] Librarians did not remove the Beria article, but tipped-in the Moscow letter along with the replacement piece. No reports on what became of the razor blades.

    Taylor of Cambridge didn't enclose razor blades with his letter. Nor did he advise librarians what to do with Alms for Jihad, should they remove it. Cambridge pulped its 2,340 unsold copies.[23] Some librarians are taking a page from their predecessors in 1953 and plan to tip-in, along with the errata sheet, the Taylor letter. It is now part of the record of the controversy and will be part of the ongoing Conversation.

    If the Cambridge edition of Alms for Jihad has now become rare, its contents will not be so for long. Authors Burr and Collins have re-secured their copyright to the manuscript,[24] and several U.S. publishers are interested. Soon an even wider circle of readers will have the opportunity to evaluate the authors' arguments for themselves—without having to travel to New Zealand.

    Mr. Houbeck is a former chair of the Michigan Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee. He writes occasionally for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


    [1] Corsellis, John, and Marcus Ferrar. Slovenia 1945: Memories of Death and Survival After World War II. (London: I.B.Tauris Publishers, 2005), p.188. See also Mitchell, Ian. The Cost of a Reputation: Aldington versus Tolstoy: The Causes, Course and Consequences of the Notorious Libel Case. (London: Canongate, 1997); and Rayment, Tim. "The Massacre and the Ministers." The Sunday Times (London) April 7, 1996. http://www.serendipity.li/hr/mm.htm

    [2] Twenty libraries in New Zealand own The Minister and the Massacres, just 17 in the U.K. For library holding statistics, search titles at: http://www.worldcat.org/ .

    [3] For a summary of the controversy, with links to related articles, see Stillwell, Cinnamon. "Libel Tourism: Where Terrorism and Censorship Meet," http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/08/29/cstillwell.DTL . For Mr. Bin Mahfouz's views, see his website: http://www.binmahfouz.info/ . For background by one of the book's authors, see Robert O. Collins, "The Saudi Billionaire vs. Cambridge University Press." http://hnn.us/articles/42436.html . See also Rachel Donadio, "Libel Without Borders." New York Times, Sunday Book Review, 7 October 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/books/review/Donadio-t.html?_r=2&ref=books&oref=slogin&oref=slogin .

    [4] http://www.kendallfreeman.com/news/sheikh+khalid+bin+mahfouz+receives+comprehensive+apology.asp

    [5] Author's copy of Cambridge letter.

    [6] A record of the print copy of the book even disappeared from the online edition of Books in Print.

    [7] On August 2, University of Richmond library director, Jim Rettig, reported that the OCLC database indicated approximately 325 institutions worldwide held at least one copy of the book. http://keillor.richmond.edu/blojsom/blog/jrettig/intellectual+freedom/?permalink=Cleanse-libraries-of-books-containing-errors-of-fact.htmlhttp://worldcat.org . . By early October, the number had increased to 337. Nearly 300 of those libraries, mostly academic collections, were in the U.S. Only four U.K. libraries reported holding the book. Readers can search the OCLC database at:

    [8] "Can They Do That?" 8/14/07, http://blogs.ala.org/oif.php?cat-194 .

    [9] See Stillwell and Collins pieces.

    [10] Duncan Currie, "The Libel Tourist Strikes Again: How to Kill a Book You Don't Like." Weekly Standard, v.12, no.46, 20 August 2007, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=13987&R=1149BF4

    [11] Stillwell reports that a copy sold on eBay for $538. Booksellers have offered Collins $500 for a copy, presumably to sell them for considerably more. See Albanese, Andrew, and Jennifer Pinkowski. "ALA to Libraries: Keep Alms for Jihad, Pulped in UK", Library Journal, 8/23/2007. http://www.libraryjournal.com/index.asp?layout=articlePrint&articleID=CA6471402 .

    [12] Kevin Taylor, "Why CUP acted responsibly." The Bookseller, 8 August 2007. http://www.thebookseller.com/blogs/43397-page.html .

    [13] See "Middle East and North Africa" section at http://www.cambridge.org/about/world.htm , where the Press notes that it is pursuing "a strategic Joint Venture with the Obeikan Group of Saudi Arabia which focuses on publishing for schools in the Gulf area." Cambridge has offices in Cairo, Dubai, and Riyadh. An article by Katherine Rushton, Information World Review, 28 September 2006, adds that Cambridge "is targeting swift expansion in other Arab territories." http://www.infomaticsonline.co.uk/articles/print/2165276 .

    [14] http://www.cambridge.org/about/

    [15] On this point see comments by Emory University professor, Deborah Lipstadt, in Gary Shapiro, "Libel Suit Leads to Destruction of Books." New York Sun, 2 August 2007, http://www.nysun.com/article/59706.

    [16] Of 6,364 reports by librarians of challenges to books, as submitted to the American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom from 1990-2000, 71% occurred in schools and school libraries, 24% in public libraries. Less than 1% occurred in college or university settings (during 2000-2005, about 2.4% of reported formal challenges occurred in higher education settings). If ALA received any reports of publisher-initiated challenges, there were not enough to warrant an "initiator" category. See http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#backgroundinformation . See especially the "challenges by institution" and "challenges by initiator" reports.

    [17] Motoko Rich and Dinitia Smith, "Publisher Decides to Recall Novel by Harvard Student." New York Times, 28 April 2006, p.A16.

    [18] See chapter 2, "The Noble Lie: 'Arming America' and the Right to Bear Arms", in Ron Robin, Scandals & Scoundrels: Seven Cases that Shook the Academy." (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), pp.57-84.

    [19] McDowell, Edwin. "Publisher to Withdraw a Book on Pope's Life." New York Times, 30 July 1984, p.C19.

    [20] See articles by Hwang Woo-Suk et al., in the 12 March 2004 and 17 June 2005 issues of Science. The database in which I found the articles was ProQuest, http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=22&did=592965751&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1189800130&clientId=16043&aid=2http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5759/335b . For a discussion of the problem of labeling retracted or suspect articles in the medical literature, see Harold C. Sox and Drummond Rennie, "Research Misconduct, Retraction, and Cleansing the Medical Literature: Lessons from the Poehlman Case." Annals of Internal Medicine 144:8 (18 April 2006) http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/0000605-200604180-00123v1 . . For the magazine's formal retraction, see

    [21] A characteristically pungent phrase of the formidable Elizabeth Anscombe, late of Cambridge University, in Ethics, Religion and Politics. The Collected Philosophical Papers of G. E. M. Anscombe, v.3. (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), p.60.

    [22] See http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/02/1217censorship.html for recollections of University of Illinois librarians about the razor blade. Nor is Beria mentioned on any page of the 31 volumes of the English translation of the encyclopedia's third edition.

    [23] See Collins http://hnn.us/articles/42436.html .

    [24] Donadio.