Banned books to be on display at library

Sept. 28, 2007

David Poe/Lariat staff These are just some of the books that will be on display during Banned Books Week starting Sunday at the Moody Memorial Library. The display will last through Oct. 6.

By Christine Bolanos
Reporter

From Sunday through Oct. 6, Baylor will host Banned Books Week for the first time. The celebration was established by the American Library Association 26 years ago to promote awareness of and appreciation for the First Amendment.

Library book content can be challenged by anyone. If the book is removed from a library as a result of such challenges, it is considered banned. Books can be banned for a variety of reasons, including sexual content, homosexuality, violence, or abuse of children for instance.

Pattie Orr, vice president for information technology and dean of university libraries, values Noam Chomsky's statement that "if we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

It is a perfect example of what intellectual freedom means to her.

The university libraries will have a Brown Bag Lunch Read-out on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from noon to 1 p.m. at the Harvey Garden of Moody Memorial Library. Faculty, students and staff will read selections from their favorite banned books. Orr will be reading a selection from Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World on Monday.

Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World was published by Cambridge University Press and was the subject of a British libel lawsuit brought by Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz.

According to the Office for Intellectual Freedom's Web site, blogs.ala.org, Mahfouz has filed similar lawsuits against books which claim the Saudi government has used Islamic charities to fund terrorism. The site goes on to say that critics are convinced Mahfouz is attempting to silence critics by using British libel law.

Instead of risking a large damage award at trial, Cambridge University Press agreed to pulp unsold copies and asked libraries to return the book to the publisher or destroy it. Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British settlement is unenforceable in the U.S.

"Over my dead body will they remove this book from our library unless it's court order," Orr said repeatedly when discussing the book.

The American Library Association Web site lists the top 10 most challenged books of 2006. These books have been challenged for a variety of controversial issues, including sexual content, homosexuality, abuse of children and violence. Baylor libraries will soon house all 10 of these books.

"Just because we may not promote these lifestyles doesn't mean we can pretend these issues don't exist," acquisition Librarian Kathy Hillman said. "Social work, education and psychology majors will deal with people who do have these lifestyles once they are in the work force, and so we have to make them aware of that."

Hillman was surprised that In the Night Kitchen, a children's picture book by Maurice Sendak, made it to the top 100 most challenged books of 2006.

In the Night Kitchen is about a 3-year-old named Mickey who loses his pajamas when he enters the Night Kitchen and spends most of the story naked. Despite the controversy surrounding it, Sendak won the 1971 Caldecott Honor Book Award for it.

Deanna Toten-Beard, a theater historian with research interests in early 20th-century American theater, was equally surprised that Huckleberry Finn, Tom Sawyer, Of Mice and Men and human development books have been banned.

"Plays such as Spinning into Butter that the theatre department presents raise the iron," Toten-Beard said.

Spinning into Butter is about racism at a predominantly white college campus in a contemporary setting. It's based on the book Little Black Sambo by Helen Bannerman.

"It raises some hard questions. Instead of avoiding them, though, these questions should be discussed," Toten-Beard said.

"There is a dead-on conception that Baylor wouldn't want to hang out in messy things. A college has to have intellectual engagement of the world though; it's a university, not a church," Toten-Beard said. "Students need to understand that they do not have to choose between becoming intellectually engaged or being Christian."

Beth Tice, assistant director for university libraries and resources and collection management, said students should be able to find out the truth on their own terms, and the best way for the student to find truth is at the library.

"What if someone was telling you not to read a book? How would that make you feel?" Tice asked. "Fortunately though, university libraries don't have to deal with censorship as much as public and school libraries do, where there's lots of parent involvement."

She said Baylor's collection of books is not perfect though.

Fighting Financial Jihad

by Rachel Ehrenfeld, Pajamas Media, September 23, 2007

    Of the 36 writers and publishers that Saudi billionaire — and terror financier — Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue in England for libel, only Rachel Ehrenfeld the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It has not backed down. She explains how and why she is fighting back.

Since March 2002, Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued or threatened to sue in England at least 36 writers and publishers - including many Americans - who have documented his financial contributions to al Qaeda and other Islamic terror groups, through his Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) foundation, and the Saudi National Commercial Bank he owned. Everyone settled with bin Mahfouz, - except me.

England's libel laws favor the individual's rights over the public. They allow bin Mahfouz and other terror financiers, known as "libel tourists," to veil in secrecy their funding of al Qaeda, other Islamic terror organizations and global propagation of radical Islam. British laws earned the U.K. the label—"libel capital of the Western world"—and rained wealth on Britain's libel bar.

Bin Mahfouz's legal "victories" in London had the desired affect he and other Saudi terror financiers sought – silencing of the media even in the U.S. where the First Amendment protects writers and publishers. But American book and newspaper publishers are not willing to risk expensive lawsuits in London. Most refuse to publish even the most comprehensively documented reports on alleged wealthy Middle Eastern funding terrorism.

Bin Mahfouz sued me in London in January 2004, shortly after the U.S. publication of my book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It. I refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a British court over a book published here; the court then ruled for bin Mahfouz by default, enjoined British publication of Funding Evil, awarded bin Mahfouz $225,900 in damages and expenses and ordered me to publicly apologize and destroy the book. I refuse to acknowledge the British Court or its ruling. Bin Mahfouz would not enjoy success were he to sue me for libel in U.S. The facts in Funding Evil are well documented by the media and the U.S. Congress, courts and other official statements.

On October 12,2001 the Treasury Department designated as a terrorist, the director of bin Mahfouz's Muwafaq foundation, Yasin al-Qadi. The Treasury report described the direct support from Muwafaq to bin Laden, quoting the latter's statement that "The bin-Laden Establishment's aid…comes in particular from the Human Concern International Society [based, and operating in Gloucester, Ontario]… [and] includes Muwaffaq Society in Zagreb." The report continues, …"$3 million from the National Commercial Bank, which was run by Khalid bin Mahfouz, [were deposited] into the accounts of the Blessed Relief and other charities that serve as a front for bin Laden."

Further corroboration comes from the French General Directorate of External Security (DGSE), as reported last summer in the French daily, Le Monde. 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. Strangely, neither bin Mahfouz nor his foundation were designated by U.S. authorities as supporting terrorism.

Since British libel law favors suits such as bin Mahfouz's, and the First Amendment protects U.S. journalists reporting on public issues, I chose to fight his false claims in America. I sued in a New York federal court, for a declaration that bin Mahfouz' English default judgment is unenforceable in the United States, because it violates my First Amendment rights.

Prominent civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate described it as "one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years."

On June 8, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously declared my case is "ripe" for hearing in a U.S. court, noting that the case has implications for all U.S. authors and publishers, whose First Amendment rights are threatened by foreign libel rulings.

The ruling thus established that all U.S. writers and publishers sued for libel in other countries, can ask U.S. courts to rule the foreign decisions unenforceable here - provided they have jurisdiction over the person who sued for libel overseas. In my case, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments on November 15.

This important legal decision weakened bin Mahfouz' ability to threaten or sue U.S. authors and publishers. Shortly afterwards, bin Mahfouz threatened to sue Cambridge University Press (CUP), the publisher of Alms of Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World, but refrained from including the book's two American writers, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins.

Facing the mere threat of a lawsuit from Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, Cambridge University Press — the world's oldest publishing house — agreed in Britain's High Court on July 30, to pulp all the unsold copies. When the American authors rightfully refused to join, CUP issued a public apology, which in fact defamed the authors. CUP also paid substantial undisclosed damages, a huge "contribution" to a charity of bin Mahfouz' choice, and sent letters to more than 200 libraries worldwide, asking to pull the book off their shelves. CUP's capitulation handed an important victory to the Saudis' financial jihad against free speech.

Winning my case against bin Mahfouz will not change the British ruling against me. But judging by the impact my case has had already one can hope that U.K. writers and publishers would demand changing their libel laws, to allow the freedom of responsible publications without the fear of intimidating, expensive lawsuits.

• If foreigners wish to sue Americans for exposing threats to our national security, they are welcome do so in the U.S., under the First Amendment laws. But Congress should terminate this form of Financial Jihad – silencing the media by intimidation – and costly foreign libel suits on matters governed by U.S. jurisdiction.
• To better protect our freedom of speech, Congress could reinforce the First Amendment with a new statute prohibiting enforcement of foreign libel judgments in the U.S., whenever American authors and publishers report responsibly on terror -related and other national security threats.
  

We are at war with enormously wealthy and determined enemies. We should prevent their use of their tremendous wealth to deprive American writers from exposing actions that threaten our safety and freedoms.

Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy ,
and member of the Committee on the Present Danger.

Terror funds on Dalal Street?

IndiaTimes.com

Saudi businessman Khaled bin Mahfouz is believed to have made investments in the Indian stock markets

India's premier intelligence agency, the RAW has warned securities and exchange board of India to watch out for investments made by a Saudi businessman called Khaled bin Mahfouz, in the Indian stock markets.
 
Mahfouz, the RAW believes is linked with Al Qaeda. Mahfouz first came under the scanner when he allegedly began siphoning off funds from a prominent bank that he controlled in Saudi Arabia, the National Commercial Bank and transferring the money to terror outfits.
 
SEBI is now being asked to probe if Khalid has been investing in Indian markets and possibly raising funds to finance terrorism. The Saudi businessman has aggressively denied any links with Osama in the past. However, he has not been able to shake off the suspicion of intelligence agencies that he could be raising funds for Al Qaida and Taliban.

Though the finance ministry has sought to downplay the apprehensions, the assessment of intelligence agencies has been backed up by independent investigations by the US which has, post-9/11, moved aggressively to choke the flow of funds to terrorists.

The suspicion is borne out by investigations by the US as well. If the intelligence is true, India would need to move fast to trace such funds, as blocking funding to terror outfits is one of the strongest tools for weakening them.
 
It was in February, this year, that India's National Security Advisor M K Narayanan warned of terrorist organisations investing in Indian stock markets. M K Naraynan had revealed that there have been isolated cases of terror outfits doing business on the stock exchanges in Mumbai and Chennai.

"Isolated instances of terrorist outfits manipulating the stock markets to raise funds for their operations have been reported. Stock exchanges in Mumbai and Chennai have, on occasions, reported that fictitious or notional companies were engaging in stock market operations," Narayanan had said.

Who is Khalid Bin Mahfouz?

• Saudi businessman of Yemeni origin.
• One of the wealthiest people in the world.
• Net worth estimated at $3.2 bn.
• Also holds Irish citizenship.
• Has interests in real estate.
• Holds investment in Thuraya Satellite.

Reports of inflow of terror funds in the Indian stock markets has been a matter of concern for the security estbalishments in the country. Intelligence sources have told TIMES NOW, since the past three to four years, ever since the stock markets started booming, there have been instances where concerned agencies like the SEBI were told to keep an eye on investments flowing in from certain regions.

Though the finance ministry has sought to downplay the apprehensions, the assessment of intelligence agencies has been backed up by independent investigations by the US which has, post-9/11, moved aggressively to choke the flow of funds to terrorists. An international vigil is on against Saudi-based Islamic charities.

Terror funds in Dalal Street?

Sidhartha,TNN

NEW DELHI: When national security advisor MK Narayanan first spoke of terror syndicates investing in Indian stock markets at an international conference, it was dismissed as a paranoid policeman ringing alarm bells.

A few months down the line, sleuths from intelligence agencies like the Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) have alerted the government and the Securities & Exchange Board of India (Sebi) about investments by Khalid bin Mahfouz — a prominent Saudi businessman alleged to have links with Osama bin Laden — in Indian companies through the stock market.

Sebi is now being asked to probe if Khalid has been investing in Indian markets and possibly raising funds to finance terrorism.

The Saudi businessman has aggressively denied any links with Osama in the past. But, he has not been able to shake off the suspicion of intelligence agencies that he could be raising funds for Al Qaida and Taliban.

Khalid first came under the scanner following strong suspicion that he was siphoning off money from the National Commercial Bank, which was founded by his father, a money-changer, and transferring it to trusts engaged in funding terror outfits.

The Saudi tycoon of Yemeni origin got to control the National Commercial Bank and ran it till 1999. In 1997, he sold off his 20.7% stake. The entire clan had existed the bank by 2002, selling the remaining stake to a Saudi government investment fund.

The sudden severance of links triggered fresh suspicions. Khalid's website, however, said that he stepped down due to ill health.

Khalid has been dogged by suspicions of illegality throughout his career. He was also a director of BCCI International, a bank that acquired an unsavory reputation because of involvement in shady dealings before suddenly going bust. The circumstances leading to the shuttering of BCCI, which had allegedly become the conduit for Pakistan's ISI as well as crime syndicates, had raised suspicion of diversion of funds.

The adverse publicity he attracts has forced even members of the Mahfouz clan, well known in Saudi Arabia, to distance themselves from Khalid, who has an estimated wealth of around $3 billion.

Khalid's business interests, according to his website, include real estate, investment in Thuraya Satellite and a portfolio quoted on the Saudi stock market.

Intelligence agencies have often expressed fears of terror outfits investing in India through a web of transactions, using instruments like participatory notes, to conceal the identity of investors. The fears were also expressed in a note prepared by the National Security Council Secretariat which had proposed an umbrella legislation to check the credentials of foreign entities investing in India.

Though the finance ministry has sought to downplay the apprehensions, the assessment of intelligence agencies has been backed up by independent investigations by the US which has, post-9/11, moved aggressively to choke the flow of funds to terrorists. An international vigil is on against Saudi-based Islamic charities.

EXCLUSIVE - Oscar Wyatt’s Address Book Shows Close Ties to Top Iranians, Libyans, Saddam-niks ... and Saudi Qaeda Financier Bin Mahfouz

by Papa Mike @ 2:26 pm on September 20, 2007.

By Debbie Schlussel

An interesting exhibit is scheduled to be admitted into evidence, today, in the ongoing federal trial of The Coastal Corporation CEO, billionaire and oilman Oscar Wyatt: His Little Black Book.

But at least one person has already seen what's in it: Me. And I'm about to tell you the contents, which I've known for some time. The document dates back only a few years.

Not On Blackberry: From the First Page of Oscar Wyatt's Address Book

Oscar Wyatt's address book has been the subject of much speculation and failed objections by defense attorneys in Wyatt's ongoing trial for illegally doing business with Saddam Hussein and taking kickbacks in the oil for food scam.

And since I've long known what was in the book, I can see why. Home phone numbers and addresses for top Saddam officials, such as Tariq Abdul Aziz (Saddam's loyal Prime Minister and second in command) populate the book. Ditto for Abdul Al-Takriti [sic] of Saddam's Ministry of Oil and a cousin of his (Al-Tikriti, as it is actually spelled, means "The Tikriti" or from Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown). Saad Al-Takriti [sic], another Saddam cousin and top Oil Ministry official, is also listed. Saddam's U.N. Ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, has all of his home and business contact info prominently listed in a long entry in the Wyatt address book.

Gen. Amir Rashid, Saddam's Minister of Oil, is in the book. Then, there is Saib B. Majid, the contracts manager and consulting engineer of Saddam's Ministry of Oil. And there are many other top Iraqi oil officials listed. There is also a Saddam Hassein listed, though it's not clear if it's a typo and, indeed, the guy now rotting in hell, or just another Ba'athist Iraqi with a similar name.

Just as troubling are the many addresses and home phone numbers of top Iranian officials, including H. Ghanimi Fard, Director of International Affairs for the National Iranian Oil Company in Tehran, S. M. Hosseini, Director of Exploration for the same company, and Dr. A. Honardoost, also of Tehran. That hints that Oscar Wyatt was also doing business with Khomeini's Iran and post-Khomeini Iran–both in apparent violation of the Iranian embargo.

And then there are the Libyans listed. Top guys like Musa El-Arbi and Dr. Ahmed A. Frejani, both with Tripoli, Libya business addresses and phone numbers. It sure looks like Wyatt was violating our then-embargo on doing biz with Libya.

Notable in the book are entries for Mohammed Saidji and Carlos "Catalina" Miguel, both of Switzerland, with whom Wyatt allegedly deposited millions into a Jordanian National Bank account in Amman controlled by Saddam, as a "surcharge" paid in the Iraqi oil-for-food scam.

Very disturbing to me is the presence of the name Richard L. Crocker, U.S. Customs Service, at a Sterling, Virginia address. A 24-hour number is listed for him. Why did Wyatt need a contact on-call 24 hours a day from the then-U.S. Customs Service? Was he trying to get something into the country or out of it that he shouldn't have been?

I'm told that Mr. Crocker is now the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Assistant Special Agent in Charge for Memphis. He worked at the U.S. Customs Service headquarters in 1999 and 2001. At the time of the listing, Sterling, VA was the location of a U.S. Customs Service Resident Agent in Charge office. It is now the location of the Washington, DC Customs Special Agent in Charge office for ICE, and ICE's Cyber Crimes Section is located there, too.

Then, there is the presence of Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz in the Oscar Wyatt directory. Bin Mahfouz, a top Saudi financier accused of funding Al-Qaeda, has silenced and obtained questionable retractions from many writers regarding what is well-documented involvement in a suspicious chain of money, including his Muwafaq Foundation, which the Treasury Department designated as an Al-Qaeda front.

Bin Mahfouz has been cited as part of the "Golden Chain"–the Al-Qaeda finance network–and was part of the scandal-ridden BCCI. He was once married to and then divorced from Osama Bin Laden's sister. Despite this, he repeatedly denies the claim and has obtained fraudulent retractions from the Wall Street Journal and others on this. And he sued noted author and terrorism-financing expert Rachel Ehrenfeld, trying to silence her book in Britain, since he could not get away with doing so here. She turned the tables on him and sued him here.

What was Oscar Wyatt doing with him? Was he paying off Al-Qaeda? Would love to know the details of those deals.

And amidst the parade of Gulf State royalty in the Wyatt phone book– the ruling Al-Khalifa family of Bahrain, Al-Sabah family of Kuwait, and Al-Thani family of Qatar all made the book, as did Saudi billionaire Prince, Islamofascist, and major FOX News shareholder Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal (listed as Prince Tallal)–is the questionable American "royalty":

* The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy and his nephew, the Honorable Patrick J. Kennedy, are the only Members of the Senate and Congress in the book. Did they know about Wyatt's illegal dealings with Saddam? Did they help facilitate it? We don't know for sure, but it's suspicious . . . especially since their direct phone numbers, and home addresses and phone numbers are listed. Even Ted Kennedy's many paramours–like the waitress en flagrante delicto on the floor of La Brasserie–don't get that kind of information. Illegally dealing with Saddam apparently has more cache than pillow talk at Club Ted.

* The Rev. Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow PUSH Coalition made the book. And strangely, in addition to Jackson's "Business" number, "Business Fax" number, and "Home" telephone number, there is a phone number listed as "Other." Is it the number of his extramarital girlfriend with whom he fathered an illegitimate kid and to whom the Rainbow PUSH Coalition made illegal, fraudulent pay-offs? Don't bet against it.

* ABC celebrity interviewer and "The View" Hostess Barbara Walters and her home address and phone number are in the Wyatt book. Other than a Kuwaiti journalist's contact info, she is the only other "journalist" so noted. Why? Did Ms. Walters know about Mr. Wyatt's illegal dealings? Clearly, with her home contact info, Mr. Wyatt knew her on far more than a professional, journalistic basis. Her close friendships with a lot of her potential interview subjects is troubling.

* Marc Rich–Remember him? That was Bill Clinton's fugitive friend, pardoned from millions in federal tax evasion, while he lived the high life and went skiing in Switzerland. He sold oil to Iran and Iraq in violation of our embargoes. Was Oscar Wyatt consulting him on how to get away with the same? Sure seems like it. Rich's Swiss mansion is listed, complete with phone number.

Others in the book: Henry Kissinger, Adnan Khashoggi (listed under Khasoggi), Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, Mrs. Pat Buckley (wife of William F.), designer Bill Blass, former Senators Lloyd Bentsen and Bob Dole, former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, James Schlesinger, Clark Clifford, media exec Barry Diller, Edsel Ford, Roger Smith, Robert Strauss, defense attorney Brendan Sullivan, Steve Forbes, H. Ross Perot, T. Boone Pickens, members of the Niarchos Greek shipping magnate family, and famed heart surgeon, Dr. Michael E. DeBakey.

Very interesting is a listing,

    Nigerian Scams c/o U.S. Secret Service Financial Crimes Division.

Just watch Wyatt's attorneys use this in his defense, claiming that his illegal trade with Iraq, Iran, and Libya was okay because he was "helping the government." I called it, first.

And finally, a notation under the name Carroll Groen:

    He has moved permanently to Arizona. If we need hunting licenses, he has a son and daughter who live in Colorado. Call him and he will let his son/daughter know we need licenses.

Hopefully, after the trial, Oscar Wyatt won't be in a place where he'll be needing a hunting license anytime soon.

  [link]

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.trinastich.com/wp-trackback.php?p=5432

The Saudi Billionaire vs. Cambridge University Press

By Robert O. Collins

Mr. Collins is emeritus professor of history at UC Santa Barbara and co-author (with J. Millard Burr) of Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World (Cambridge University Press, 2006). The authors have previously co-authored three books: Requiem for The Sudan: War, Drought, and Disaster Relief on the Nile (1995), Africa's Thirty Years' War: Chad, Libya, and the Sudan, 1963-1993 (1999), and Revolutionary Sudan: Hasan al-Turabi and the Islamist State, 1989-2000 (2003).

On April 3, 2007 Kevin Taylor, Intellectual Property Manager for the Cambridge University Press (CUP), contacted Millard Burr and myself that the solicitors for Shaykh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Kendall Freeman, had informed CUP of eleven "allegations of defamation" in our book Alms for Jihad: Charities and Terrorism in the Islamic World and requested a response. On April 20 CUP received our seventeen page "robust defence," but it soon became apparent that CUP had decided not to defend Alms for Jihad given "knowledge of claims from previous litigation" and that "the top-line allegations of defamation made against us by bin Mahfouz are sustainable and cannot be successfully defended …certainly not in the English courts, which is where the current action arises."

Of the eleven points of alleged defamation "we [CUP] could defend ourselves against some of his individual allegations…which, as you say could hardly be deemed defamatory on its own," but on pp. 51-52 where you use the phrase " 'The twenty supporters of Al Qaeda' followed by the Golden Chain references…is defamatory of him under English law.." The Golden Chain was a list of twenty wealthy Saudi donors to al-Qa'ida which included the name "Mahfouz" on a computer disk seized during a raid by the Bosnian police and U.S. security agents of the Sarajevo office of the Saudi charity, the Benevolent International Foundation (Bosanska Idealna Futura, BIF).

On May 9, 2007 CUP agreed to virtually all of the Shaykh's demands to stop sale of the book, destroy all "existing copies," prepare a letter of apology, and make a "payment to charity" for damages and contribute to legal costs. After further negotiations the press also agreed, on June 20, 2007, to request 280 libraries around the world to withdraw the book or insert an erratum slip. During these three months of negotiations Millard and I had naively assumed that, as authors, we were automatically a party to any settlement but were now informed we "are out of jurisdiction" so that CUP had to ask "whether of not they [the authors] wish to join in any settlement with your client [Mahfouz]." On 30 July 2007 Mr. Justice Eady in the London High Court accepted the abject surrender of CUP which promptly pulped 2,340 existing copies of Alms for Jihad, sent letters to the relevant libraries to do the same or insert an errata sheet, issued a public apology, and paid costs and damages.

The crux of this sordid and sorry saga lies firmly in the existing English libel law which is very narrow and restrictive compared to its counterpart in the Untied States with a long history and precedent of "good faith" protected by the First Amendment, absent in English jurisprudence. In effect, CUP was not prepared to embark on a long and very expensive litigation it could not possibly win under English libel law in the English High Court, known to journalists as the "Club Med for Libel Tourists." Laurence Harris of Kendall Freeman was quite candid. "Our client [Shaykh] Mahfouz chose to complain to Cambridge University Press about the book because the book was published in this jurisdiction by them" where he had previously threatened to "sue some 36 U.S. and U.K. publishers and authors" and in which Shaykh Mahfouz had previously won three suits for the same charges of his alleged financing of terrorism. Even Justice Eady's pious pronouncements about "the importance of freedom of speech" were of little relevance before the weight, or lack thereof, in English libel law he rigorously enforced.

This was the first time that Shaykh Mahfouz had brought suit only against the publisher that did not include the authors, for "our client [Shaykh Mahfouz] took the view that they [CUP] were likely to deal with his complaint sensibly and quickly, which they did," rather than include the authors who would not. As American authors residing in the U.S., we were "out of jurisdiction" and under the protection of the U.S. Courts, specifically the unanimous ruling by the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2007 that Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld could challenge in a U.S. Court the suit previously won against her by Shaykh Mahfouz in Justice Eady's High Court in London thereby establishing a defining precedent in U.S. jurisprudence. Dr. Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy in New York whose book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed—and How to Stop It, published by Bonus Books of Chicago in 2003, describes in greater detail than Alms for Jihad how Shaykh Mahfouz helped finance al-Qa'ida, Hamas, and other terrorist organizations. Although her book was not sold in Britain, Shaykh Mahfouz secured British jurisdiction by demonstrating that Funding Evil could be purchased or read on the Internet by British citizens. When she refused to defend the case in the London High Court, Justice Eady declared for the plaintive and ordered Dr. Ehrenfeld to pay $225,000 damages. She then chose to confront the Shaykh and seek redress in the U.S. Court system.

Millard Burr and I had adamantly refused to be a party to the humiliating capitulation by CUP and were not about to renounce what we had written. Alms for Jihad had been meticulously researched, our interpretations judicious, our conclusions made in good faith on the available evidence. It is a very detailed analysis of the global reach of Islamic, mostly Saudi, charities to support the spread of fundamental Islam and the Islamist state by any means necessary. When writing Alms for Jihad we identified specific persons, methods, money, how it was laundered, and for what purpose substantiated by over 1,000 references. I had previously warned the editor at CUP, Marigold Acland, that some of this material could prove contentious, and in March 2005 legal advisers for CUP spent a month vetting the book before going into production and finally its publication in March 2006. We were careful when writing Alms for Jihad not to state explicitly that Shaykh Mahfouz was funding terrorism but the overwhelming real and circumstantial evidence presented implicitly could lead the reader to no other conclusion. Court records in the case of U.S. vs. Enaam Arnaout, Director of the Benevolent International Foundation and close associate of Usama bin Ladin, accepted as evidence the "Golden Chain" which the British High Court later refused as evidentiary. The Mawafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation of Shaykh Mahfouz and its principal donor was declared by the U.S. Treasury "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" one of whom was the designated terrorist, Yassin al-Qadi who "transferred millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden through charities and trusts like the Muwafaq Foundation." It appears very strange that the founder of his personal charity and its major donor had no idea where or whom or for what purpose his generosity was being used.

Although the reaction to the settlement by CUP has been regarded by some, like Professor Deborah Lipstadt at Emory University, as a "frightening development" whereby the Saudis "systematically, case by case, book by book" are shutting down public discourse on terrorism and intimidating publishers from accepting manuscripts critical of the Saudis, there still remains the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and written text in the world of the Internet protected by the First Amendment. Ironically, the eleven points of the Mahfouz suit against CUP amount to little more than a large footnote, a trivial fraction of the wealth of information in Alms for Jihad that cannot be found elsewhere. The Shaykh can burn the books in Britain, but he cannot prevent the recovery of the copyright by the authors nor their search for a U. S. publisher to reprint a new edition of Alms for Jihad for those who have been seeking a copy in the global market place.

Published the the History News Network

The true cost of libel

Once again, UK libel is stifling free expression by Padraig Reidy

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz has made an academic publisher withdraw a controversial book. But it is the UK libel system that allows the rich and powerful to stifle investigation, writes Padraig Reidy

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi-born Irish passport holder, and one of the richest men in the world, is no stranger to the UK libel courts.

Since 2002, banker bin Mahfouz has used his considerable financial clout to garner apologies and damages through the courts from a variety of organisations, from tiny leftist political publisher Pluto to the Mail on Sunday, one of the UK's biggest newspapers.

Recently, bin Mahfouz's attention has been turned to respected academic publisher Cambridge University Press.

Bin Mahfouz's wrath was provoked by the CUP book Alms for Jihad by Robert O Collins and J Millard Burr, a wide-ranging study of the use of Islamic charities in siphoning funding to al-Qaeda.

Bin Mahfouz alleged that the book linked him, financially and through family, to Osama bin Laden, a claim which he has previously forced others to retract in the UK courts.

However, the authors firmly deny bin Mahfouz's specific claims. In a comprehensive response to the sheikh, Collins and Burr insist that they never once in the book name bin Mahfouz personally as a funder of bin Laden, or repeat the false claim that a sister of bin Mahfouz is married to bin Laden. There were nine other specific claims, all of which Collins and Burr addressed in a lengthy letter put together, they say, at the request of CUP.

This detailed defence was not enough to convince CUP (indeed, bin Mahfouz's law firm Kendall Freeman told Index: 'We were never presented with any defence prepared by the authors of Alms for Jihad'). On July 30, CUP issued an outright apology, displaying a sadly understandable lack of commitment to its authors, in the face of bin Mahfouz's personal wealth (estimated at $3.2bn) and his enthusiasm for litigation.

CUP declared that it would pulp all unsold copies of the book, and requested that library copies be returned, to meet the same fate. They also agreed to donate a sum (variously described as 'small' and 'significant') to Mahfouz's elected charity, Unicef.

In the apology Kevin Taylor, CUP's intellectual property director, went as far as to describe the claims made in the book as 'entirely and manifestly false'. One can only wonder how Cambridge, which in the same apology describes itself as a 'responsible publisher' would allow a book based on manifest falsehood get right through the editing process and on to bookshelves. The authors themselves refused to take part in the apology.

Robert O Collins told Index: 'Our defense was simply a facade on the part of CUP who had decided they could not possibly win under British libel law and sought to settle as quickly as possible at any cost and get on with the business of publishing books. Which they did. We of course refused to be a party to their settlement. CUP lawyers had spent a month in March 2005 vetting our book.'

It would most likely have been impossible for them to win the case, such is the nature of UK libel law, which would have obliged them to counter every single one of bin Mahfouz's claims about the book, unlike US law, where it would have been up to bin Mahfouz to counter the book's claims.

This is the third book-pulping Mahfouz can take credit for – having previously seen off Profile Books' Unknown Soldiers and Pluto's Reaping the Whirlwind.

Media lawyer Mark Stephens, of Finers Stephens Innocent, believes that personal wealth can give plaintiffs a huge advantage in the UK courts: 'The courts are predicated on the basis that each party has the wherewithal to bring to the court all the relevant evidence, and be represented by lawyers of equal ability. Vindication through contested trial is, in my view, a value that underpins the British libel system.'

He went on to say that as nobody has parity of arms with bin Mahfouz, 'the allegations about him have never been contested in trial. There have always been settlements or default judgements.'

Laurence Harris of Kendall Freeman says that bin Mahfouz resorts to the UK courts because 'he and his family travel to the UK, have friends here, own properties and do business here and consequently have significant reputations in the UK. Our client and his family adopted a policy of seeking to protect their reputations in the UK in 2002 when a major UK newspaper made similar defamatory allegations and our client brought proceedings, which were initially defended by the newspaper but ultimately settled by an apology and payment of damages. Since then, our client and his family have continued consistently to protect their reputations in the UK in respect of publications which appear in the UK and which make such allegations.'

Such is the fear of bin Mahfouz that even US-based Amazon is not selling Alms for Jihad, instead, somewhat disingenuously, offering a 557-word review for the knock-down price of $9.95. Unsuspecting punters, ordering what they thought was the book itself, were understandably upset to receive a small Word file. As one pointed out, not unreasonably: 'I haven't even read the d--- review they gave me - I've already read reviews of the book, which is why I wanted to buy it in the first place!'

Meanwhile, copies of the actual book are said to be changing hands for upwards of $500.

While he has so far been successful in the UK courts, bin Mahfouz may not find things so easy in the United States, where the First Amendment provides more protection for books such as Alms for Jihad. The American Library Association had already refused to comply with CUP's request to return copies for pulping. The ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom told members: 'Libraries are considered to hold title to the individual copy or copies. Given the intense interest in the book, and the desire of readers to learn about the controversy firsthand, we recommend that US libraries keep the book available for their users.'

This may only be the beginning of bin Mahfouz's American problems: Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is financed, was sued by bin Mahfouz in the UK in 2004. She chose not to contest the case, refusing to acknowledge the court's jurisdiction over a book which was being published in the US (only 23 copies ever made it to the UK). Consequently, the London court issued the first ever declaration of falsehood in a case that had not been contested by a judge and jury. Judge Eady ruled that Ehrenfeld should apologise to bin Mahfouz, pay damages and costs of $225,000, and destroy the book. Instead, Ehrenfeld is planning to contest the case in a US court, on the basis that the 'English default judgement is unenforceable in the United States and repugnant to the First Amendment.'

The New York Second Court of Appeals seems to think Ehrenfeld could have a point, and in June ruled that the case should be heard, possibly as early as autumn of this year.

Laurence Harris says that bin Mahfouz will argue the appeal through his US attorneys.

But Robert O Collins points out: 'Just as CUP did not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a long and costly suit in the English courts, it is doubtful that the good sheikh will come after us or Dr Ehrenfeld in the US courts where we are protected by the First Amendment, historical precedent [and] the recent unanimous decision of the 2nd NY Court of appeals.'

Meanwhile, answering critics on the Bookseller's website, Kevin Taylor hinted at his company's own difficulties with UK law, pointing out that 'Cambridge University Press is not in business to do ideological battle but to act responsibly as a publisher of scholarly material. It would not be a responsible use of our resources, nor in the interests of any of our scholarly authors, to attempt to defend a legal action [in this case] ... we are a global publisher with a duty to observe the laws of many different countries.'

Published in Index for Free Expression
   

Saudi Jihad On Free Speech

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Trail Of Terror: Many book houses and newsrooms across America have a
shadow editor: Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire who's
threatened to sue them for good press.

He's getting it in spades. But it wasn't always that way.

After 9/11, dozens of books and newspaper articles cited U.S. government
officials and other sources who alleged that bin Mahfouz was under
investigation as a "suspected terrorist financier." Namely, the
allegation that he helped fund Osama bin Laden's operations through
Saudi banks and charities.

The negative press hurt his family business in the West, and Mahfouz
marshaled a team of lawyers to threaten the publishers to retract the
allegations and print apologies. Those who didn't lie down were sued in
courts in the U.K., which has more lenient libel laws than the U.S.
In all, the sheik has sued or threatened to sue some 36 U.S. and U.K.
publishers and authors.

One by one, they've all backed down (see partial list, right) to his
well-oiled legal intimidation machine. (One notable exception is
journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld and the publisher of her book "Funding
Evil." They are fighting bin Mahfouz's legal terrorism in a New York
court after losing in London.)

Attack lawyers cost money, and bin Mahfouz has lots of money and
lawyers. And he has lots of truth-tellers running scared.

The latest to give in is the well-respected publishing powerhouse
Cambridge University Press.
It has agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp
them. The title is no longer available even on Amazon. In addition, it
has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove copies from
shelves.

"Cambridge University Press accepts that the entire bin Mahfouz family
categorically and unreservedly condemns terrorism in all its
manifestations, and that at no time has any member of the family
contributed to any terrorist organization," the publishing giant
groveled in its two-page apology.

"Nor has the family ever had reason to believe that funds it has given
over the years to a wide variety of charities, including the Muwafaq
Foundation, have been used other than for the charitable purposes intended."

The language is identical to other publishers' mea culpas, and amounts
to a blanket absolution and immunity from future criticism, regardless
of the facts, written by bin Mahfouz and for bin Mahfouz.

Problem is, bin Mahfouz's own lawyers admit on the sheik's Web site that
he was "the principal donor" to the Muwafaq Foundation (also known as
Blessed Relief), which the Treasury Department in October 2001 named as
"an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen."

Treasury at the same time listed a foundation trustee, Yassin Qadi, as a
specially designated global terrorist.

U.S. court documents allege that "(Qadi) and other well-connected Saudi
citizens transferred millions of dollars to Osama bin Laden through
charities and trusts like the Muwafaq Foundation."

The 58-year-old sheik's son, Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz, was a director of
the foundation. To be fair, neither has been blacklisted by Treasury as
a terrorist. But the implication is clear.
Bin Mahfouz's lawyers say that "to the best of their knowledge" he is
not on any government list and is not being investigated.

The sheik and his son were frequent visitors to Houston before 9/11. If
they're not on any U.S. terror lists, they can travel freely to the U.S.
Oddly, they've made themselves strangers in recent years.

Perhaps they've been too busy in Saudi Arabia and Britain carrying out
their jihad against free speech.