According to an email that we received today, Alms for Jihad authors
Robert O. Collins and J. M. Burr have gotten the publishing rights to
the book back from Cambridge University Press. They're in negotiations
with US publishers to have it published here in the US.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz
Ehrenfeld v. Mahfouz promises to be an interesting first amendment case
if it gets past some technical jurisdictional issues which are awaiting
decision1.
if it gets past some technical jurisdictional issues which are awaiting
decision1.
Briefly, Rachel Ehrenfeld is the author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism
is Financed -- and How to Stop It, which was published by Bonus Books in
2003 in the United States. (some copies were also sold over the internet
to our cousins in Britain.)
Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz is a billionaire Saudi Arabian citizen who was
formerly the president and chief executive officer of The National
Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia.
In Funding Evil, Ehrenfeld alleged that Mahfouz, among others,
financially supported terrorism. Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld in England for
libel on the basis of these allegations.
Mahfouz and many other public figures utilize the British legal system
to obtain libel judgments because its laws require the author or
publisher to prove the truth of the assertion.
Mahfouz could not obtain a libel judgment against Ehrenfeld in America's
legal system because it requires that a public figure prove the falsity
of the assertion and that the falsity was made with reckless disregard
for the truth - a very high standard and 180 degrees opposite from the
British legal system.
The fact that our government has stated that Mahfouz funded terrorists,
the basis for Ehrenfeld's statement in Funding Evil, means Mahfouz could
not directly prevail in America's legal system.
So, Mahfouz is trying to prevail indirectly by obtaining a judgment in
Britain's legal system then have the British judgment recognized under
American laws. Ehrenfeld rightly says that violates her American first
amendment constitutional speech rights.
In effect Ehrenfeld is arguing that if Mahfouz cannot obtain a libel
judgment through the front door he can't obtain it through the backdoor.
If Ehrenfeld get's past the technical jurisdictional issues she stands a
very good chance of prevailing and thereby preventing the circumvention
of America's loadstar - The First Amendment of our Constitution.2
Web: American Center for Democracy
-----notes-----
1. The technical jurisdictional issue relates to whether Mahfouz's
efforts to have his British libel judgment recognized in America, plus a
handful of correspondence contacts, is sufficient to confer personal
jurisdiction over Mahfouz by American courts?
As an aside, it would be nice if some or all of Mahfouz's
wire-transfers, which likely form the basis of our government's
allegations that Mahfouz funded terrorists, where available to Ehrenfeld.
If personal jurisdiction is established Ehrenfeld's first discovery
request will likely be for all of Mahfouz's money wire transfers.
Remember all those transactions by Society for Worldwide Interbank
Financial Telecommunication, (SWIFT) which our treasury department
secretly monitors?
2. For me this is a not even a close question. While comity between
nations should be encouraged, comity is based on the principle of
similar or same substantive legal systems. It's also an economy of
judicial resources question - if a similar or same legal system from
another nation has already taken the time and spent the judicial
resources to decide the issues it makes no sense for an American court
to do it again.
However, where the differences between the legal systems are so great,
as in the case of British libel law (also state secrets law), principles
of comity, judicial respect and judicial economy must give way to
ensuring our system of justice is not compromised.
Britain's libel laws are so different from America's that to recognize
Mahfouz's British libel judgment in America would compromise Ehrenfeld's
first amendment constitutional speech rights and our Constitution.
Let's hope the appellate court can get past the technical jurisdictional
issues because this is a very interesting case with far reaching
implications.
Saudis and Tension between US, UK Libel Laws
I came across an American blog commenting on the First Amendment to the US Constitution and its importance to the case of Rachel Ehrenfeld, her book Funding Evil, and Saudi financier Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz. Bin Mahfouz successfully sued Ehrenfeld in a British court which found her guilty of libel, assessed penalties, and prohibited the distribution of her book in the UK.
The First Amendment reads:
As the timeline linked above shows, the US understanding of freedom of speech has developed from British law. The two laws, however, diverged over time. Now, when it comes to a case of libel, US law requires the person who claims to have been libeled to prove a) that the statement made against him is false, and b) that it was made with malice. British law, conversely, requires that the one making the statement prove its truth.
While the blog piece discussing the issue (Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz) believes these two legal systems to be '180° opposite', I'm not sure. They certainly differ, but their purpose—to prevent a person's reputation from being damaged by false allegations—is the same.
In a footnote to the blog article, the author cogently discusses the issue of 'comity', a legal concept that means that one country will generally recognize the decisions of a foreign court, if the legal systems are sufficiently similar. The question is, are the US and UK systems sufficiently similar.
There's no question that an American trial would have worked differently. Would it have reached a different decision, though?
Ehrenfeld lost several court cases in the US seeking to have the British decision held null, or to at least prevent its having effect on her in the US. Her case in the New York courts,was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. She appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second District. That court's decision was to send the case to New York Court of Appeals, where it was accepted for argument on June 28 of this year.
You can read the brief made by Ehrenfeld's attorneys here [this is a 57-page PDF document]. Note that this is—properly—a one-sided telling of the story. It seeks to put forward the best arguments favoring Ehrenfeld. I cannot find on-line the equivalent brief from Bin Mahfouz attorneys, but am seeking one.
Ehrenfeld is not the first person to raise allegations that Bin Mahfouz and other members of his family have been supporters of terrorism. Bin Mahfouz has strenuously argued in various courts that he and his family condemn terrorism in all its forms. So far, he has won his cases. (See this page at the Bin Mahfouz website that links to the various decisions and apologies.)
US courts will have to decide about whether they have jurisdiction to affect a decision made in a British court. They will have to decide whether a British court's decision is enforceable in the US. To date, no US court has addressed the issue of the truth or falsity of the allegations against Bin Mahfouz. In all cases brought before British courts, Bin Mahfouz has been found to have been libeled. He does have the right to protect his name and reputation against false allegations.
Published on: Crossroads Arabia
The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.This amendment, the first in what is called the "Bill of Rights', has been interpreted by courts over the 200 year period in which it has been in effect. (See a good timeline of the development of the First Amendment here.) There has been a great deal of debate on the extent to which the First Amendment applies. Some believe it to be absolute, that is, that there can be no limit put on the freedom of speech. Others note that there are reasonable limits—the case of preventing 'falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater' is frequently used as an example of proper limitation.
As the timeline linked above shows, the US understanding of freedom of speech has developed from British law. The two laws, however, diverged over time. Now, when it comes to a case of libel, US law requires the person who claims to have been libeled to prove a) that the statement made against him is false, and b) that it was made with malice. British law, conversely, requires that the one making the statement prove its truth.
While the blog piece discussing the issue (Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz) believes these two legal systems to be '180° opposite', I'm not sure. They certainly differ, but their purpose—to prevent a person's reputation from being damaged by false allegations—is the same.
In a footnote to the blog article, the author cogently discusses the issue of 'comity', a legal concept that means that one country will generally recognize the decisions of a foreign court, if the legal systems are sufficiently similar. The question is, are the US and UK systems sufficiently similar.
There's no question that an American trial would have worked differently. Would it have reached a different decision, though?
Ehrenfeld lost several court cases in the US seeking to have the British decision held null, or to at least prevent its having effect on her in the US. Her case in the New York courts,was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. She appealed that decision to the US Court of Appeals for the Second District. That court's decision was to send the case to New York Court of Appeals, where it was accepted for argument on June 28 of this year.
You can read the brief made by Ehrenfeld's attorneys here [this is a 57-page PDF document]. Note that this is—properly—a one-sided telling of the story. It seeks to put forward the best arguments favoring Ehrenfeld. I cannot find on-line the equivalent brief from Bin Mahfouz attorneys, but am seeking one.
Ehrenfeld is not the first person to raise allegations that Bin Mahfouz and other members of his family have been supporters of terrorism. Bin Mahfouz has strenuously argued in various courts that he and his family condemn terrorism in all its forms. So far, he has won his cases. (See this page at the Bin Mahfouz website that links to the various decisions and apologies.)
US courts will have to decide about whether they have jurisdiction to affect a decision made in a British court. They will have to decide whether a British court's decision is enforceable in the US. To date, no US court has addressed the issue of the truth or falsity of the allegations against Bin Mahfouz. In all cases brought before British courts, Bin Mahfouz has been found to have been libeled. He does have the right to protect his name and reputation against false allegations.
Published on: Crossroads Arabia
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Libel Tourist Strikes Again
written by Duncan Currie
Washington (The Weekly Standard)
Vol. 012, Issue 46 - 8/20/2007
In late July, Cambridge University Press announced it was destroying all its remaining copies of Alms for Jihad, a 2006 book exploring the nexus of Islamic charities and Islamic radicalism. At the same time, Cambridge asked libraries around the world to stop carrying the book on their shelves. The reason? Fear of being sued in a British court by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire who ranks as one of the world's richest men--and whose suspected links to terrorist financing earned him a mention in Alms for Jihad.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cambridge issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz, and posted a separate public apology on its website. The latter read in part:
In 2006 Cambridge University Press published Alms for Jihad written by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins which made certain defamatory allegations about Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz and his family in connection with the funding of terrorism. Whilst the allegations were originally published in good faith, Cambridge University Press now recognizes that the information upon which they were based was wrong. Cambridge University Press accepts that there is no truth whatsoever in these serious allegations.
Therefore, "To emphasize their regret, Cambridge University Press has agreed to pay Sheikh Khalid substantial damages and to make a contribution to his legal costs, both of which Sheikh Khalid is donating to the charity UNICEF."
Neither Burr nor Collins joined the apology. Both American writers and U.S. citizens, they stand by their scholarship. "We refused to be a party to the settlement," says Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California-Santa Barbara. "I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat of a billionaire Saudi sheikh." What's more, he adds, "I think I'm a damn good historian."
According to Collins, Cambridge's in-house lawyers reviewed the manuscript of Alms for Jihad in 2005, prior to publication. They gave it a green light. But when faced with the specter of a costly legal battle, the publisher caved. "Cambridge, frankly, came to us and said, 'There's no way we can win this case.' And I had to agree with them," Collins says. "I'm disappointed in the Press, but I understand their position. I'm not angry with them." After all, "It's probably the cheapest way out," since U.S. and British libel laws "are as different as night and day."
Therein lies the deeper significance of this case. 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. Just ask Emory University historian Deborah Lipstadt, who found herself hauled into court in Britain when she tagged David Irving as a Holocaust denier. Lipstadt won the decision, but not before she incurred staggering legal bills.
In a case more relevant to the Alms for Jihad spat, bin Mahfouz sued Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, over her 2003 book Funding Evil, which painted a detailed picture of how money travels into the coffers of terrorist groups. Funding Evil, for which ex-CIA director James Woolsey penned the foreword, was billed on its cover as "The book the Saudis don't want you to read." Ehrenfeld fingered bin Mahfouz as a financier--whether deliberate or not--of al Qaeda, Hamas, and others.
He quickly sued her for libel in England, and Ehrenfeld chose not to contest it. A British judge then ordered Ehrenfeld to repudiate her statements, apologize to the Saudi magnate, pay him over $225,000 in damages--and destroy copies of her book. Instead, she chose to fight this ruling in the U.S. court system.
Ehrenfeld argues that the verdict cannot be enforced here because she is a U.S. citizen who published her book in America, where bin Mahfouz would not have won his libel case. (Bin Mahfouz's lawyers originally secured British jurisdiction by showing that Funding Evil could be purchased--and read--in Britain via the Internet.) In June, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Ehrenfeld could challenge the British libel decision in a U.S. court, thus setting an important precedent.
According to Ehrenfeld, there are "at least 36 cases" since March 2002 where bin Mahfouz has either sued or threatened to sue (mostly the latter) in England over the documentation of his alleged terror connections. He is the most prominent Saudi "libel tourist," the moniker given to those who exploit British law to silence critics. "It's had a tremendous chilling effect," Ehrenfeld argues, on those seeking to investigate bin Mahfouz and other Saudi bigwigs. She will not apologize for her book, having "not even a shadow of a doubt" that her accusations against bin Mahfouz are true.
There is not room here to fully examine them. But they include charges that through his former bank, the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, and through an Islamic charity he sponsored, the Muwafaq ("Blessed Relief") Foundation, bin Mahfouz either knowingly or unknowingly lent financial aid to terrorists. In October 2001, the U.S. Treasury Department described Muwafaq as "an al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen." Bin Mahfouz denies all such allegations on his website, www.binmahfouz.info, insisting his family "abhors violence as a way of achieving political or other objectives."
His allies point to a string of successful libel challenges as vindication. In May 2005, the London Times reported that "Sheikh bin Mahfouz has sued four times in London for statements concerning his alleged role in terrorism financing. He has never lost." But whether Burr and Collins--not to mention Ehrenfeld and others--are right or wrong about bin Mahfouz, does that justify pulping an entire book?
Burr told the New York Sun that "their book mentioned Sheikh Mahfouz 13 times, and in no place had they labeled him a terrorist." A May 2006 review in Toronto's Globe and Mail said that Alms for Jihad
provides the most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world: Afghanistan, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Indonesia and the Philippines. Burr and Collins, who together have written many books on Islam and Middle East politics, also offer a very good discussion of the philosophy behind and role of the various manifestations of charitable giving in Islam.
Many "charities," it seems, have fueled Islamic radicalization across the globe and given tangible assistance to terrorists. As Collins points out, the book is extensively referenced with hundreds of footnotes.
More than two years ago, the London Times warned that "U.S. publishers might have to stop contentious books being sold on the Internet in case they reach the 'claimant-friendly' English courts." So why hasn't this become a cause célèbre for American publishing firms and journalists?
"There's been very little mainstream media coverage" of the Alms for Jihad story, observes Jeffrey Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Bonus Books (which published Funding Evil). This lack of outrage is "absolutely appalling," Ehrenfeld says. "They are burning books now in England, and we are sitting here doing nothing." As for her own legal struggle, she says, "It's been a very lonely fight. It still is."
Duncan Currie is a reporter at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
Washington (The Weekly Standard)
Vol. 012, Issue 46 - 8/20/2007
In late July, Cambridge University Press announced it was destroying all its remaining copies of Alms for Jihad, a 2006 book exploring the nexus of Islamic charities and Islamic radicalism. At the same time, Cambridge asked libraries around the world to stop carrying the book on their shelves. The reason? Fear of being sued in a British court by Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a Saudi billionaire who ranks as one of the world's richest men--and whose suspected links to terrorist financing earned him a mention in Alms for Jihad.
ADVERTISEMENT
Cambridge issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz, and posted a separate public apology on its website. The latter read in part:
In 2006 Cambridge University Press published Alms for Jihad written by J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins which made certain defamatory allegations about Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz and his family in connection with the funding of terrorism. Whilst the allegations were originally published in good faith, Cambridge University Press now recognizes that the information upon which they were based was wrong. Cambridge University Press accepts that there is no truth whatsoever in these serious allegations.
Therefore, "To emphasize their regret, Cambridge University Press has agreed to pay Sheikh Khalid substantial damages and to make a contribution to his legal costs, both of which Sheikh Khalid is donating to the charity UNICEF."
Neither Burr nor Collins joined the apology. Both American writers and U.S. citizens, they stand by their scholarship. "We refused to be a party to the settlement," says Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California-Santa Barbara. "I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat of a billionaire Saudi sheikh." What's more, he adds, "I think I'm a damn good historian."
According to Collins, Cambridge's in-house lawyers reviewed the manuscript of Alms for Jihad in 2005, prior to publication. They gave it a green light. But when faced with the specter of a costly legal battle, the publisher caved. "Cambridge, frankly, came to us and said, 'There's no way we can win this case.' And I had to agree with them," Collins says. "I'm disappointed in the Press, but I understand their position. I'm not angry with them." After all, "It's probably the cheapest way out," since U.S. and British libel laws "are as different as night and day."
Therein lies the deeper significance of this case. 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. Just ask Emory University historian Deborah Lipstadt, who found herself hauled into court in Britain when she tagged David Irving as a Holocaust denier. Lipstadt won the decision, but not before she incurred staggering legal bills.
In a case more relevant to the Alms for Jihad spat, bin Mahfouz sued Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the New York-based American Center for Democracy, over her 2003 book Funding Evil, which painted a detailed picture of how money travels into the coffers of terrorist groups. Funding Evil, for which ex-CIA director James Woolsey penned the foreword, was billed on its cover as "The book the Saudis don't want you to read." Ehrenfeld fingered bin Mahfouz as a financier--whether deliberate or not--of al Qaeda, Hamas, and others.
He quickly sued her for libel in England, and Ehrenfeld chose not to contest it. A British judge then ordered Ehrenfeld to repudiate her statements, apologize to the Saudi magnate, pay him over $225,000 in damages--and destroy copies of her book. Instead, she chose to fight this ruling in the U.S. court system.
Ehrenfeld argues that the verdict cannot be enforced here because she is a U.S. citizen who published her book in America, where bin Mahfouz would not have won his libel case. (Bin Mahfouz's lawyers originally secured British jurisdiction by showing that Funding Evil could be purchased--and read--in Britain via the Internet.) In June, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that Ehrenfeld could challenge the British libel decision in a U.S. court, thus setting an important precedent.
According to Ehrenfeld, there are "at least 36 cases" since March 2002 where bin Mahfouz has either sued or threatened to sue (mostly the latter) in England over the documentation of his alleged terror connections. He is the most prominent Saudi "libel tourist," the moniker given to those who exploit British law to silence critics. "It's had a tremendous chilling effect," Ehrenfeld argues, on those seeking to investigate bin Mahfouz and other Saudi bigwigs. She will not apologize for her book, having "not even a shadow of a doubt" that her accusations against bin Mahfouz are true.
There is not room here to fully examine them. But they include charges that through his former bank, the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, and through an Islamic charity he sponsored, the Muwafaq ("Blessed Relief") Foundation, bin Mahfouz either knowingly or unknowingly lent financial aid to terrorists. In October 2001, the U.S. Treasury Department described Muwafaq as "an al Qaeda front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen." Bin Mahfouz denies all such allegations on his website, www.binmahfouz.info, insisting his family "abhors violence as a way of achieving political or other objectives."
His allies point to a string of successful libel challenges as vindication. In May 2005, the London Times reported that "Sheikh bin Mahfouz has sued four times in London for statements concerning his alleged role in terrorism financing. He has never lost." But whether Burr and Collins--not to mention Ehrenfeld and others--are right or wrong about bin Mahfouz, does that justify pulping an entire book?
Burr told the New York Sun that "their book mentioned Sheikh Mahfouz 13 times, and in no place had they labeled him a terrorist." A May 2006 review in Toronto's Globe and Mail said that Alms for Jihad
provides the most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world: Afghanistan, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Indonesia and the Philippines. Burr and Collins, who together have written many books on Islam and Middle East politics, also offer a very good discussion of the philosophy behind and role of the various manifestations of charitable giving in Islam.
Many "charities," it seems, have fueled Islamic radicalization across the globe and given tangible assistance to terrorists. As Collins points out, the book is extensively referenced with hundreds of footnotes.
More than two years ago, the London Times warned that "U.S. publishers might have to stop contentious books being sold on the Internet in case they reach the 'claimant-friendly' English courts." So why hasn't this become a cause célèbre for American publishing firms and journalists?
"There's been very little mainstream media coverage" of the Alms for Jihad story, observes Jeffrey Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Bonus Books (which published Funding Evil). This lack of outrage is "absolutely appalling," Ehrenfeld says. "They are burning books now in England, and we are sitting here doing nothing." As for her own legal struggle, she says, "It's been a very lonely fight. It still is."
Duncan Currie is a reporter at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
sheikh khalid bin mahfouz receives comprehensive apology from cambridge university press
Saudi businessman Sheikh Khalid Bin Mahfouz has accepted a comprehensive
apology together with substantial damages from well known publishers
Cambridge University Press in settlement of a libel action following
publication of a 2006 book Alms for Jihad, it was announced in the High
Court in London today.
apology together with substantial damages from well known publishers
Cambridge University Press in settlement of a libel action following
publication of a 2006 book Alms for Jihad, it was announced in the High
Court in London today.
Sheikh Khalid, for many years Chairman of Saudi Arabia's National
Commercial Bank, commenced libel proceedings against the Cambridge
University Press following the publication of Alms for Jihad, which made
a series of allegations including that Sheikh Khalid and his family had
supported Osama Bin Laden and funded terrorist activities. In today's
hearing at the High Court before Mr Justice [ ], the company
accepted that there was no truth whatsoever in any of these
allegations. Cambridge University Press acknowledged that neither
Sheikh Khalid nor any of his family had ever supported or funded
terrorist activities and that the allegations made in the Book were
wholly untrue and unjustified. Sincerely apologising for any distress
and embarrassment that these false statements caused to Sheikh Khalid
and his family, Cambridge University Press's solicitor confirmed that
the company was undertaking to the Court not to repeat the allegations.
Cambridge University Press is taking the almost unprecedented step of
pulping all unsold copies of the Book and 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. The company will be
publishing a detailed apology on its website, and paying substantial
damages as well as making a contribution to Sheikh Khalid's legal costs.
Laurence Harris, partner at Kendall Freeman, solicitors acting for
Sheikh Khalid said: "Sheikh Khalid welcomes this settlement. When this
book was published Sheikh Khalid had no choice but to issue proceedings
to put to rest these very serious and false allegations. He is pleased
that Cambridge University Press have recognised there was no truth
whatsoever in the allegations, and that his reputation has been
vindicated. He will be donating the substantial damages and costs paid
by Cambridge University Press to UNICEF".
© 2007 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com) Posted: 30-07-2007
CUP Apologizes to Bin Mahfouz Over Allegations
JEDDAH, 9 August 2007 — Saudi businessman Khalid Bin Mahfouz has accepted a comprehensive apology together with substantial damages from well-known publishers Cambridge University Press in settlement of a libel suit following publication of a 2006 book.
An announcement to this effect was made in the London High Court recently, according to a report reaching here yesterday.
Bin Mahfouz, for many years chairman of Saudi Arabia's National Commercial Bank, has been involved in defamation proceedings against the publisher following the publication of "Alms for Jihad" in which authors J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins made a series of allegations against the Saudi businessman.
The book alleged that Bin Mahfouz and his family supported Osama Bin Laden and funded terrorist activities. In the hearing, the publisher accepted that there was no truth whatsoever in any of these allegations.
Cambridge University Press acknowledged that neither Bin Mahfouz nor any of his family supported or funded terrorist activities and that the allegations made in the book were action ably false and defamatory. Sincerely apologizing for any distress and embarrassment that these accusations caused to Bin Mahfouz and his family, Cambridge University Press' solicitor confirmed that the company was giving an undertaking to the court not to repeat the allegations.
Cambridge University Press also announced that it would destroy all unsold copies of the book and would ask libraries to withdraw the book from their shelves. The company will be publishing a detailed apology on its website, and paying substantial damages as well as legal costs to Bin Mahfouz. The financial details were not available.
Laurence Harris, partner at Kendall Freeman, solicitors acting for Bin Mahfouz, said: "Sheikh Khalid welcomes this settlement. When this book was published Sheikh Khalid had no choice but to start proceedings to put to rest these very serious and false allegations. He is pleased that Cambridge University Press has recognized there was no truth whatsoever in the allegations, and that his reputation has been vindicated. He will be donating the substantial damages and costs paid by Cambridge University Press to UNICEF."
Published in ArabNews.com
An announcement to this effect was made in the London High Court recently, according to a report reaching here yesterday.
Bin Mahfouz, for many years chairman of Saudi Arabia's National Commercial Bank, has been involved in defamation proceedings against the publisher following the publication of "Alms for Jihad" in which authors J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins made a series of allegations against the Saudi businessman.
The book alleged that Bin Mahfouz and his family supported Osama Bin Laden and funded terrorist activities. In the hearing, the publisher accepted that there was no truth whatsoever in any of these allegations.
Cambridge University Press acknowledged that neither Bin Mahfouz nor any of his family supported or funded terrorist activities and that the allegations made in the book were action ably false and defamatory. Sincerely apologizing for any distress and embarrassment that these accusations caused to Bin Mahfouz and his family, Cambridge University Press' solicitor confirmed that the company was giving an undertaking to the court not to repeat the allegations.
Cambridge University Press also announced that it would destroy all unsold copies of the book and would ask libraries to withdraw the book from their shelves. The company will be publishing a detailed apology on its website, and paying substantial damages as well as legal costs to Bin Mahfouz. The financial details were not available.
Laurence Harris, partner at Kendall Freeman, solicitors acting for Bin Mahfouz, said: "Sheikh Khalid welcomes this settlement. When this book was published Sheikh Khalid had no choice but to start proceedings to put to rest these very serious and false allegations. He is pleased that Cambridge University Press has recognized there was no truth whatsoever in the allegations, and that his reputation has been vindicated. He will be donating the substantial damages and costs paid by Cambridge University Press to UNICEF."
Published in ArabNews.com
Ayoon Wa Azan (The Onus of Proof is On the Accuser)
Jihad el-Khazen Al-Hayat - 25/08/07
Before I start discussing today's subject, I should note that I do not
know Khaled Salem Bin Mahfouz, nor have I seen him in my life, nor did I
contact him or he contacted me. I also need to say that Al-Qaeda is a
terrorist and criminal organization, and all its members or supporters,
the verbal or financial ones, are partners in the terrorism it perpetrates.
Making this introduction is essential before I deal with a subject I
have been following up for over two years. It has to do with the
litigation involving Mr Bin Mahfouz, the former CEO of the Saudi
National Commercial Bank, and Rachel Ehrenfeld because of her vile book
Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop it that was
published in 2003. In this book the prominent Saudi banker is accused of
being a party to funding terrorism.
The reader may have noticed my description of Ehrenfeld's book as a vile
one. This is my opinion and I am free to hold it. Incidentally, I hold
the same low opinion on the Israeli government, army, settlers,
extremists, and those vindicating Israel's crimes, thus seeming like
partners in them.
Mr Bin Mahfouz filed a slander lawsuit against Ehrenfeld in Britain and
he won it, while she replied with a lawsuit in the United States under
the guise of the first amendment to the American constitution in whose
name evil's agents have committed crimes, the same way crimes were
committed in the name of freedom during the French Revolution. The first
amendment is part of the American Bill of Rights. It secures the freedom
of the press, the freedom of speech, and the freedom of peaceful
assembly. It also deals with the freedom of religion and the protection
against imposed religion, but what matters for us here is the freedom
of speech.
Ehrenfeld expects the American court to overrule the British decision. A
rightist website published a long report on her case, and upon reading
the report I stopped at the following statement made by her: 'In the
United States, he (ie Bin Mahfouz) does not have a case. As for England,
all you have to do is file a lawsuit. Then the suspected has to prove
that what he wrote is true and does not involve evil intention.'
What is wrong with this? The principle The Onus of Proof is On the
Accuser' is at the basis of each divine or positive law, including the
concerned laws all over the west.
The first amendment to the American constitution secures the freedom of
speech and not the freedom of lying. Mr Bin Mahfouz won his case in
England and he also won another case against the Cambridge Publishing
House and the book Alms for Jihad which is written by two American
professors, as Ehrenfeld did not submit documents proving that the man
financed terrorism as she alleges. Had she done so, the British court
would have convicted him. We are all against terrorism, but Israel's
supporters use it as a springboard to do harm to the Arabs and Muslims,
intimidate the opposition, and divert the attention from Israel's daily
crimes against the Palestinians.
Facing Khaled Bin Mahfouz whom I do not know there is Rachel Ehrenfeld
who seems to be a Jewish American with Israeli inclinations and who
holds a Ph.D in criminology from the Faculty of Law at The Hebrew
University. She certainly did not study about Israel's violation of laws
and human values by imprisoning 11,0000 Palestinians, and by killing day
after day to the extent that even the Israeli B'Tselem center says that
the number of Palestinian victims who are below 15 years of age is
seven times more than that of the Israelis killed by all the Palestinian
factions. We say, 'Who testifies for the girl? Her mother, her aunt and
seven people from her quarter.' The party that testifies for Ehrenfeld
is the American Center for Democracy that I place in the rank of
extremism against the Arabs and Muslims and that I consider pro-Israeli.
Frontpage is a rightist pro-Israeli website and some of its writers are
from among the deadliest enemies of the Arabs and Muslims. Daniel Pipes,
for instance, runs surveillance groups that watch Islamists and the
university campus. The website published an article by another Jewish
American named Lee Kaplan who stands by Ehrenfeld and the Weekly
Satandard, the mouthpiece of the neoconservatives.
The enemies of the Arabs and Muslims can fabricate lies as long as they
want, but they will not change the basis of the laws in question, which
simply means that the information has to be correct. As for a person's
opinion, it is a right enjoyed by its holder and making him accountable
for it is not permissible.
In my opinion, the Israeli government is a terrorist and so are the
Israeli army and the Mossad. Had I said that Ehrenfeld had received
money in return for publishing her book, it would have been my duty to
prove the accusation with an indicator or with evidence. Therefore, I
can not say this, but I rather say that the book is vile since this is
my personal opinion on it. Today, a full-time researcher can collect an
encyclopedia of publications that tackle the issue of funding terrorism
and the means to prevent it. This is a very important issue and all
parties must back every effort expended by the international community
with the aim of cutting off financial support offered to terrorists like
Al-Qaeda. But such efforts have become a pretext for Israel's supporters
who are talking about a real terrorism and another fabricated one with
the single objective of diverting attention from Israel's terrorism and
the financial, military, and political support it receives from the
United States and that enables it to persist in committing crimes.
The most serious threat is that Al-Qaeda first built its propaganda on a
lie according to which a war is waged on Muslims, and the extremists on
the other side of the spectrum are now convincing average people of the
plausibility of this lie. It is the duty of all of us to expose all the
extremists and to renounce them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
