 By Rachel Ehrenfeld & Millard Burr Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz died in Jeddah last Saturday. The 60-year-old former owner of the Saudi National Commercial Bank and banker for the Royal family also owned a charity, the Muwafaq (blessed relief) Foundation that funded al-Qaeda and Hamas, to name but a few. He should be remembered not only because of his involvement with the shady Bank for Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) aka “banks for crooks and criminals” and the illegal purchase of the First American Bank in Washington, DC, in the early 1990s, but mostly because inadvertently he led Americans to better protect their free speech rights. Using British libel laws that allow foreigners to sue other foreigners in British courts, a practice known as libel tourism, Mahfouz became a serial suer. The gay and drug addicted Saudi , sometimes together with his sons, sued more than 40 writers and publishers - mostly Americans - because he did not like their criticism. Singlehandedly, on behalf of his royal masters Mahfouz made libel tourism a multimillion-dollar industry for the British Bar, and London the “Libel Capital” of the world. Many will miss him. In Riyadh, the billionaire will be missed by the ruling members of the royal family who once used his National Commercial Bank as their own piggy bank, and often used him and his family members as fronts for their business and to fund their favorite organizations and terrorist groups. Likewise, those shady characters who run the Saudi-funded Muslim World League, the International Islamic Relief Agency, and the Rabita Trust of Pakistan will miss him. Read more ...Source: FPM
By Jamie Glazov
Today’s guest for Frontpage Interview is Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, Director of the American Center for Democracy.
A Ph.D. in criminology from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Ehrenfed focuses on the Saudi penetration of and influence on the U.S. economy, and on the economic warfare against the U.S. and the West. She has published hundreds of articles and three books on these issues. Her last book Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, also identified the funders of terrorism. The expose was not to the liking of Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, who sued Ehrenfeld for libel in London. Ehrenfeld is only one of more than 40 writers and publishers who were sued or threatened with a suit in London by Mahfouz. Ehrenfeld alone challenged him and countersued him in the U.S.
Ehrenfeld’s insistence the British libel laws cannot be enforced in the NY state led to new legislation in several states in the U.S. and to the Free Speech Protection Act 2009, now pending before Congress. Her actions shed light on the insidious efforts particularly in the United Kingdom, where plaintiff- friendly libel laws and judges made London into the Mecca of Libel Tourism and the hub from which to undermine American writers’ and publishers’ free speech rights Source: H/T:
 By Rachel Ehrenfeld Afflicted with one hazard of globalization - the spread of the swine flu epidemic -- California's state Senate took measures to protect its citizens from another less deadly, yet terrorizing hazard -- the chilling effects on their freedom of expression by foreign libel judgments. California is the world capital of the entertainment industry, which provides major revenues to the state. To protect it, Senator Ellen Corbett (D), the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, initiated California's Anti-Libel Tourism Act ( SB 320), which on April 28, 2009 unanimously passed in the State Senate. Today, people who could never win a libel lawsuit in United States or California are suing in libel-friendly countries like the United Kingdom, where they obtain costly judgments against Americans. International treaties require U.S. courts to recognize and enforce these judgments. But SB 320, "would prohibit state courts from enforcing a defamation judgment obtained in a foreign jurisdiction, unless the court determines the defamation law applied in the case provided at least as much protection for freedom of expression as offered by the U.S. and California Constitutions." Read more ...Source: The Terror Finance BlogSenator Ellen Corbett
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
 The net has extended the global reach of published material, but writers are finding their right to free speech has been curtailedBy Rachel Ehrenfeld Sitting at my desk on 23 January 2004, I was interrupted by an email from a law firm in London. It was a letter threatening to sue me for libel in a British court, for statements made in my book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed – and How to Stop It, about their client, Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz. The letter claimed Mahfouz denied allegations in my book that he "knowingly" funded al-Qaida and other Muslim terrorist organisations. Mahfouz's lawyers demanded my public apology, retraction, removing my book from circulation, legal fees and a donation to a charity of Mahfouz's choice. This was followed by further correspondence and then legal papers were served. As an American citizen, I refused to recognise the British court's jurisdiction over me. I did not believe that I had to defend myself in a country where I do not live, and where my book was not published or marketed. Besides the cost would have been prohibitive. Read more ... Source: The Guardian
By Afua Hirsch Pressure on the government to reform the domestic libel law intensified last week after American legislators told Congress that cases heard in London were causing "concrete and profound harm" to the American people. The Guardian has learned both the Ministry of Justice and the parliamentary committee on media, culture and sport are planning consultations on libel law reforms, as the US takes steps to protect Americans from the English courts. Earlier this month, an American congressional committee singled out "ridiculous lawsuits" permitted in London and heard that "foreign individuals are operating a scheme to intimidate authors and publishers". Called by US senators Peter King, Arlen Specter and Joseph Lieberman, the committee heard that among the effects of English libel law was the suppression of information critical to American national security. Read more ...Source: Guardian
Weak laws abroad threaten First Amendment freedoms here. Congress could step in to help.THE PROBLEM has lightheartedly come to be known as libel tourism, but the damage inflicted on the First Amendment and academic freedom is serious. Disgruntled subjects of articles or books produced and distributed almost exclusively in the United States file suit in foreign jurisdictions to get around the strong First Amendment protections afforded here to journalistic and academic works. In the United States, for example, a public figure or public official must prove that allegedly libelous material is false and that the author acted with actual malice in publishing the material. Britain, on the other hand, has become a favorite venue for unhappy subjects because the author must prove that the material is true. Plaintiffs win cases that would be thrown out by U.S. courts. Read more ... Source: Washington Post
 A House committee held an important hearing Thursday morning on the issue of "libel tourism." That's the practice of bringing libel suits against American authors in other nations, particularly the United Kingdom, where First Amendment protections do not apply and where the burden of proof is placed on the defendant rather than on the plaintiff. Saudi Arabian businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz has brought several such lawsuits, winning a default judgment against American researcher Rachel Ehrenfeld for her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, and forcing a Cambridge University Press to destroy copies of the book Alms for Jihad. Both works linked bin Mahfouz to financing terrorism. U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) submitted written testimony for the hearing, advocating legislation he has introduced to bar foreign libel judgments from being enforced in the U.S. without first meeting constitutional protections and established case law. King has been outspoken in fighting against any censorship caused by threats of radical Islamists. "The danger is that foreign individuals are operating a scheme to intimidate authors and publishers from even exercising" the First Amendment right to free speech, said King, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security. It becomes an urgent matter because the subjects often deal with terrorism and national security. "I receive regular classified briefings on dangerous plots to attack the United States, so I know just how grave these threats are. We cannot allow foreigners the ability to muzzle Americans for speaking the truth about these dangers," King said. Thursday's hearing was supported by Society of Professional Journalists. Read more ...Source: IPT NewsHon. Peter King
Latest recipient of The MASH Award
By Jamie Glazov Frontpage Interview's guest today is Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for the Democracy and author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed - and How to Stop It. She has written several other books and hundreds of articles. A frequent guest on radio and TV programs, she is the incentive for new legislation to protect Americans free speech rights from foreigners who sue them overseas, to silence them. Visit her site at acdemocracy.org. FP: Rachel Ehrenfeld, welcome to Frontpage Interview. RE: Thank you, Jamie. FP: We’re here today to discuss your success in getting "Rachel's Law" - The Libel Terrorism Protection Act - passed by the New York Legislature last May, and the Free Speech Protection Act, about to be introduced to Congress. In fact, Libel Tourism is the topic of a Congressional hearing being held this week by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN). Please remind us what Libel Tourism is. Read more ...Source: FrontPage Magazine
U.S House Takes First Step to Protect Free Speech Against "Libel Tourists" Washington, DC – The U.S. House of Representatives today passed H.R. 6146, crucial legislation that will protect American citizens from foreign libel judgments that undermine their fundamental First Amendment free speech rights. Dr. Ehrenfeld knows first-hand the effects of this destructive practice of forum shopping. She was sued in Britain, where the libel laws are plaintiff friendly, by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz for alleging in her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It, that he funded al-Qaeda.
Rep. Peter King, who initiated the federal legislation agrees with Dr. Ehrenfeld, stating that although he supports H.R. 6146, “this bill does not go far enough nor does it resolve the problem of “libel tourism.” Even Rep. Cohen, the author of H.R. 6146, acknowledged his bill is not enough to “ address libel tourism,” and stated on the floor of the House that he is “committed to working with Mr. King to push for a public hearing… which advances additional measures to address libel tourism.”
Indeed, the ACLU, the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, the PEN American Center, the Families of the 9/11 victims, and many others support the Free Speech Protection Act, 2008, sponsored by Senators Arlen Specter, Joseph Lieberman and Chuck Schumer, and Rep. Peter King. Source: Shariah Finance Watch
 By Adam Cohen When Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It," she assumed she would be protected by the First Amendment. She was in the United States. But a wealthy Saudi businessman she accused in the book of being a funder of terrorism, Khalid bin Mahfouz, sued in Britain, where the libel laws are heavily weighted against journalists, and won a sizable amount of money. The lawsuit is a case of what legal experts are calling "libel tourism." Ms. Ehrenfeld is an American, and "Funding Evil" was never published in Britain. But at least 23 copies of the book were sold online, opening the door for the lawsuit. When Ms. Ehrenfeld decided not to defend the suit in Britain, Mr. bin Mahfouz won a default judgment and is now free to sue to collect in the United States. The upshot is a First Amendment loophole. In the Internet age, almost every American book can be bought in Britain. That means American authors are subject to being sued under British libel law, which in some cases puts the initial burden on the defendant to prove the truth of what she has written. British libel law is so tilted against writers that the United Nations Human Rights Committee criticized it last month for discouraging discussion of important matters of public interest. Read more ...Source: The New York Times
 By Andrew C. McCarthy
Last spring, legislators in New York State joined with the governor, David Paterson, in passing a law entitled the Libel Tourism Protection Act. The act has a narrow focus. It empowers the state’s courts to invalidate a judgment of libel or defamation against a writer or publisher who resides or does business in New York, so long as that judgment was obtained in a country that affords writers and publishers a lesser degree of free-speech protection than does the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Though the law does not say so explicitly, it was passed without much controversy because a writer in New York State was in danger of being driven into penury by one of the world’s richest men—a Saudi banker with Irish citizenship who has undertaken to intimidate and silence writers, editors, and publishers daring to examine his role in the murky world of Islamic charitable giving. Over the past decades, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz has become the world’s foremost “libel tourist,” journeying beyond his own country to find a hospitable judge’s ear in Great Britain. According to the late Robert O. Collins—whose 2006 book Alms for Jihad, co-authored with J. Millard Burr, was one of bin Mahfouz’s targets—the tactic has been brilliantly successful. In three dozen cases in which legal action has been either threatened or carried through to trial, bin Mahfouz has succeeded in securing apologies and cash damages. Cambridge University Press, the publisher of Collins and Burr’s study, had every copy of their book put through a shredder and pulped. Source: Commentary MagazineH/T: Shariah Finance Watch
 By Clifford D. May Freedom of speech is under attack. Let us count the ways. The first and most obvious: Those who criticize militant Islamists -- from novelist Salman Rushdie to Danish cartoonists to memoirist Ayaan Hirsi Ali -- are routinely threatened with deadly violence. It would be black humor to say this is having a chilling effect. The second is "political correctness." On campuses and within Western governments, it is increasingly taboo to label terrorists who slaughter in the name of Islam "Islamist terrorists." In Canada, "human rights commissions" attempt to enforce this taboo by putting such writers as Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant on trial for the "crime" of expressing opinions that offend Islamic grievance groups -- and also for quoting Islamists accurately and thereby casting them in an unfavorable light. If that's not Orwellian, what is? But it is the third approach that could be most consequential for Americans. It's known as "libel tourism" and here's how it works: A book published in the United States names an individual abroad who supports terrorist groups. That individual -- for the sake of discussion, let's say he's a Saudi petro-billionaire with a home in London -- goes online and orders a few copies, which arrive in the mail. He takes those books to a British attorney who files a lawsuit complaining that his client has been libeled.The billionaire knows it will be much easier to prevail in the United Kingdom than it would be in an American court, where the First Amendment and decades of case law provide free speech protections. (Under English law, by contrast, the burden in a libel case is on the defendant to prove his innocence -- which can be impossible if he's been using confidential sources or even just sources who don't want to cross an ocean and take part in a courtroom battle.) Read more ...Source: Union Leader
  The undersigned organizations express their strong support for the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008 (S. 2977). Libel suits filed in foreign countries pose a grave danger to the free speech rights of American authors, journalists, publishers, and readers. S. 2977 provides authors with the weapons they need to protect their right to express themselves freely and ensures that the libel laws of countries that provide less protection for free speech will not undermine American laws or chill protected speech. Increasingly in recent years, individuals who challenge the accuracy of published materials have attempted to strike back at their authors by filing lawsuits in foreign countries, most commonly England. U.S. law requires the party alleging libel to prove that the statements objected to are actually false. To avoid this burden, libel plaintiffs have engaged in forum shopping - filing lawsuits in countries with either different burdens of proof or different definitions of libel. The most notorious recent example of this libel tourism is the lawsuit filed by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, who sued Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American expert on terrorism, over statements in her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. Despite the fact that the book was never published in England and that a mere 23 copies had been sold there by online booksellers, Bin Mafouz brought suit in an English court. Under British law, the burden of proof in the first instance is on the defendant to prove the truth of any allegedly libelous statement. Faced with enormous legal costs to satisfy this requirement, Ehrenfeld refused to defend the suit. The English court entered a default judgment, enjoined further distribution of the book in the United Kingdom and awarded substantial damages and legal fees. Bin Mafouz's English lawsuit had the predictable effect of chilling Ehrenfeld’s free speech rights and effectively silencing anyone else who might consider publishing similar statements. It sent the message that he is willing and able to challenge any investigation of his family’s, and the Saudi royal family’s alleged ties to the funding of terrorism. He has refused to disclaim an intention to attempt to enforce the judgment in the United States, further reinforcing its chilling effect. Read more ...Source: Shariah Finance Watch
Some commentators believe Mr Justice Eady is single-handedly creating a new, tougher, law of privacy in Britain.
But his actions are having the opposite effect in the U.S. - where there are plans for new laws to protect freedom of speech.
The spur was a 2004 case in which a Saudi billionaire used our courts to sue an author for libel over a book which was published in the U.S. and sold just 23 copies here.
In Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, the author Rachel Ehrenfeld alleged Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz helped fund Osama bin Laden.
Mahfouz could have sued in America, where almost all his books were sold - but instead chose Britain, where the libel laws are generally agreed to offer far less protection to writers.
Mr Justice Eady ruled against Dr Ehrenfeld, ordering her to pay £30,000 damages.
As a result, senators have introduced the Free Speech Protection Act to shield writers from libel suits brought in foreign courts. Source: Daily Mail
 Please send this letter to your lists, and to the addresses below. This will support "Rachel's Law" which is a very important bill to protect our First Amendment for all writers, speakers, bloggers, and in the end, all of us against the threat of being sued in England by the Middle East. This is THE ACTION OF THE DAY! Dear ...
PLEASE SUPPORT THE FREE SPEECH PROTECTION ACT (S-2977 & H.R. 5814), aka "Rachel's Law", now before the Judiciary Committees in the House and Senate.
New York’s new law and the proposed federal legislation grew from the court battles of New York journalist and terrorism investigator, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, whom a Saudi billionaire sued in Great Britain for Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed - And How to Stop It - although she is American and her book sold here, not in the U.K. But plaintiff-friendly British libel laws have made London a mecca for libel tourists wishing to intimidate authors worldwide. The suit against Dr. Ehrenfeld - like 40 previous cases that silenced many other American and New York authors - is an obvious attempt to dilute First Amendment protections of free press, and prevent investigations of terror-financing.
English libel law is an international menace, a national disgrace, a pre-democratic anachronism. It defends crooks, terrorists and tyrants from investigation. It threatens the free speech of people all over the world and causes untold damage to the reputation of this country.
In a tremendous victory for free speech rights and to provide legal protections from "libel terrorism" to New York authors and publishers, "Rachel's Law" adopted by the NY legislature and signed into law by Gov. David Patterson on April 30, 2008. Read more ...Source: Shariah Finance Watch
By Elizabeth Samson Several months ago I began an analysis of the misuse of foreign and domestic judicial systems for political purposes. At the same time it seemed as though there were frequently instances of strange happenings in the news. Taxi drivers not allowing passengers with seeing-eye dogs in their cars because it was inconsistent with their religious beliefs, imams being removed from a flight after acting suspiciously and then suing the airline for unspecified damages, citing "fear, depression, mental pain and financial injury", and one my personal favorites, the Oklahoma State Legislature practically coercing legislators to accept a personalized and state-seal embossed Koran as a gift, paid for with government funds, in honor of the state’s centennial. Read more ...Source: Global Politician
WASHINGTON, D.C. (May 7, 2008)—U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and U.S. Representative Peter King (R-NY), Ranking Member of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security, today announced the introduction of the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008. This bill would protect American journalists from libel suits brought in foreign courts that do not have the same protections for free speech that are found in the U.S. constitution. It mirrors H.R. 5814, legislation recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representative King. Read more ...Source: Shariah Finance Watch
 Albany, NY (May 1, 2008) -- New York State Governor David Paterson yesterday signed the "Libel Terrorism Protection Act" (S.6687/A.9652), which on March 31 passed the state's Assembly and Senate unanimously. Also known as Rachel's Law, the bill sponsored by Assemblyman Rory Lancman (D-Queens) and Senate Deputy Majority Leader Dean G. Skelos (R-Rockville Centre) will protect American journalists and authors from foreign lawsuits that infringe on First Amendment rights. The bill also received unprecedented support from Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Read more ...Source: Dhimmi Watch
 By Brooke Goldstein The Islamist movement has two wings - one violent and one lawful, which can operate apart but often reinforce each other. While the violent arm attempts to silence speech by burning cars when cartoons of Mohammed are published in Denmark, the lawful arm is skillfully maneuvering within Western legal systems, both here and abroad. Islamists with financial means have launched a "legal Jihad," filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits with the aim of abolishing public discourse critical of Islam and with the goal of establishing principles of Sharia law (strict Islamic law dating back to the 9th Century) as the governing political and legal authority in the West. Islamist Lawfare is often predatory, filed without a serious expectation of winning, and undertaken as a means to intimidate, demoralize and bankrupt defendants. The lawsuits range in their claims from defamation to workplace harassment and they have resulted in books being pulped and meritorious articles going unpublished. Forum shopping, whereby Plaintiffs bring actions in jurisdictions most likely to rule in their favor, has enabled a wave of "libel tourism." At the time of her death in 2006, noted Italian author Orianna Fallaci was being sued in France, Italy, Switzerland and other jurisdictions by groups dedicated to preventing the dissemination of her work. Read more ...Source: Family Security Matters
The state will protect authors against foreign libel judgments after a US journalist was sued by a Saudi businessman in London Politicians in New York have acted to protect the state’s writers and publishers from so-called libel tourism after an English libel judgment went against an American author. The Libel Terrorism Protection Act was given a unanimous passage in the state Senate in Albany, the New York Law Journal reported. The new bill was introduced after the New York Court of Appeals ruled in December that the state's laws did not protect Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author, from a possible bid by a Saudi Arabian businessman to enforce a summary judgment issued by the High Court in London. The bill is intended to amend New York's so-called "long-arm statute" in order to give the state's courts jurisdiction over a foreign libel claimant who won a judgment against an author or publisher with sufficient physical or financial ties to the state. It would allow New York's courts to declare that a foreign judgment was unenforceable if the courts decided that the libel laws in foreign jurisdictions did not protect freedom of speech and the press to the same extent as the laws in New York and the US. Read more ...Source: Times OnlineH/T: The Intelligence Summit
 |
|
|
Copyright Muslims Against Sharia 2008. All rights reserved.
E-mail: info AT ReformIslam.org
|
|
|
Posts
