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