Open Letter to Yankee Doodle

A friend of mine who blogs in the UK posted an Open Letter to Yankee Doodle.

Anticant asked me to reproduce it here, to see what my readers say. I will ask you, however, to go to Anticant's blog and read it and comment there.

While you are there, check out Anticant's blog -- familiarity with some of the posts there, as well as with some of Anticant's comments here, are at the heart of the matter.

Gina Khan Interview

Gina Khan has given an interview -- it is a must read!

For people who may not recall who Gina Khan is, you can read one of the very first posts I did, entitled Friends in the Muslim Community.

If you are not hearing Muslims speak out against terrorism, jihad and oppression of women, then maybe try taking your fingers out of your ears.

This is serious, too, because Muslims are especially targeted by jihadists, who feel a need to keep the faithful -- well, faithful! Women in most of the Islamic world are especially oppressed -- and that is half the population. Sooner or later, they are going to wake up to what is going on, and when that happens, the house of cards that is extreme Islam is going to come crashing down.

Islam needs to reform to survive -- not because of anything we infidels are going to do, but because of what Muslims will do! Our Creator made us free, and we will not be bound by the chains of jihad as slaves of hatred.

Amici Curiae

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

Sauce for the Goose

Now this is quality:

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------X
RACHEL EHRENFELD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
- against -
KHALID SALIM A BIN MAHFOUZ,
Defendant-Appellee.
----------------------------------------X

USCOA
Docket No. 06-2228-cv


This is a "perfect storm" of an appeal. It combines international terrorism, free speech, the Internet, and something called "libel tourism." Fused into one appeal, these various elements come to this Court from federal court filtered through a certified question of long-arm jurisdiction. The specific question to be decided concerns the scope of CPLR 302(a)(1),1 and these larger issues bear on that decision.

Lew responds to new developments, what Holmes famously called "the felt necessities of the time." O. W. Holmes, The Common Law 5 (Little Brown 1963) (1881). A new development in our time is libel tourism. This appeal asks the Court to help mitigate the pernicious effects of libel tourism by finding personal jurisdiction over a foreign serial libel tourist who has obtained a libel judgment in England against a New York author. Threatened enforcement of that judgment has had a chilling effect in New York on that author and others.

The certified question gives the Court an opportunity to protect the rights of plaintiff and other New York residents to write about -- and all New Yorkers to read about -- urgent public issues such as the financing of international terrorism. A finding of personal jurisdiction over this defendant will enable New York authors and publishers to obtain effective relief from foreign libel judgments designed to target and restrict their speech in New York.

What Is Libel Tourism?

A recent, mounting, and insidious trend, libel tourism occurs when a person, usually prominent and wealthy, sues for libel in a country that lacks the protections afforded by the First Amendment.2 Such suits smack of forum-shopping because the authors, the publishers, and the publications at issue have little, if any, connection to the country where the litigation is commenced. See, e.g., Rodney A. Smolla, The Law of Defamation § 1.9 (2d ed. 2004); Note, "England's Chilling Forecast: The Case for Granting Declaratory Relief to Prevent English Defamation Actions from Chilling American Speech," 74 Fordham L. Rev. 3073, 3074, 3135 (2006). With the advent of the Internet and Internet commerce, including websites such as Amazon.com, it has become easier for foreign plaintiffs to allege that a publication written and distributed primarily in the United States was also "sold" or "published" in a foreign jurisdiction, even when the author and publisher took no actions to market or distribute the publication there.

England is a favorite destination, the "perfect locale" for libel tourists, Note, "England's Chilling Forecast," 74 Fordham L. Rev. at 3075, because English libel law provides substantially less protection for speech than does U.S. law. See, e.g., id. at 3077-92; Smolla, The Law of Defamation at 1.9; Telnikoff v. Matusevitch, 347 Md. 551, 598, 702 A.2d 230, 248 (1997). "London is the libel capital of the Western world and attracts endless foreign claimants. They are often seen as overseas 'forum shoppers' convinced that English common law offers the best hope of burnishing their reputations." "Be Reasonable: British Courts Should Beware the Dangers of Libel Tourism," The Times (London), May 19, 2005, at 19. See also David Hooper, Representation Under Fire: Winners and Losers in the Libel Business 428 (2000) ("London has become known to many foreign 'forum-shoppers' as a Town named Sue -- a place where you can launder your reputation on the basis of a few sales in the UK of some overseas publication.").

Some of the wealthiest people have recognized libel tourism as an effective public relations weapon to quell unwanted international criticism. Saudis, like defendant, have taken particular advantage of this situation. "In a growing phenomenon that lawyers have dubbed 'libel tourism,' the Saudis are seeking to invoke Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel laws to silence critics in the United States and in the international community." Mark Hosenball & Michael Isikoff, "Libel Tourism: Anxious Over Allegations of Terrorist Ties, Rich Saudis Are Trying to Silence Their Critics in Court," Newsweek, Oct. 22, 2003, http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339584/. See also Sarah Lyall, Are Saudis Using British Libel Law to Deter Critics?" N.Y. Times, May 22, 2004, at B7.

This Appeal

Libel tourism led to this appeal. Plaintiff Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York resident, wrote a book called Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed -- and How to Stop It, which was published only in the United States. She seeks a judgment from federal court here in New York declaring an English libel default judgment against her totaling $221,000 unenforceable under the United States Constitution and New York law. A 33-35, 54.3 Defendant -- Khalid Salim A Bin Mahfouz -- sued Dr. Ehrenfeld for libel in England based on constitutionally protected statements in her book discussing his alleged financial support of terrorist organizations. He is not a citizen of England. He is a citizen of Saudi Arabia, and one of the wealthiest men in the world. A

Mahfouz won his UK libel judgment only by default. Dr. Ehrenfeld did not appear. She could not afford to defend herself in the English courts and was unwilling, as a matter of principle, to submit the libel issues to a legal system less protective of free speech than ours, when her book had nothing to do with England. A 54.

Although Mahfouz has a UK judgment for monetary damages and injunctive relief, he has intentionally not enforced it. But he has reserved the right to do so, thereby leaving a sharp Sword of Damocles hanging ominously over Dr. Ehrenfeld in New York.

Dr. Ehrenfeld's suit, which seeks to remove Mahfouz's dangling threat, involves an issue of personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz. By simply postponing judgment enforcement indefinitely, Mahfouz wants to choose if and when he will submit to personal jurisdiction. This is really an affirmative assertion of power on Mahfouz's part -- his power to hush critics with the fear of impending enforcement of a foreign judgment. If the Court does not find jurisdiction, Mahfouz will have that sole power for as long as he wants. Mahfouz could then wait for years to enforce the UK judgment -- with full knowledge that the mere existence of the judgment and the continued threat of enforcement are enough to chill Dr. Ehrenfeld's speech, to discourage publishers from publishing her writings, and to deter other New York journalists from writing about him.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
has asked this Court to decide whether, as Dr. Ehrenfeld asserts, the courts of this State have jurisdiction over Mahfouz by virtue of CPLR 302(a)(1) in light of his contacts with New York.

Defendant's New York Contacts

Mahfouz's UK case was part of a purposeful scheme to intimidate Dr. Ehrenfeld and others in New York and to chill Dr. Ehrenfeld's and others' freedom of speech in New York on matters of vital public interest. Mahfouz, who has sued or threatened to sue for libel dozens of times in the UK, has waged a systematic campaign intended to suppress critics (in New York and elsewhere) and to discourage investigation of any role he may have had in the funding of terrorism that led to the 9/11 attacks. A 58, 61. The scheme includes Mahfouz's use of his website, accessible in New York, to announce to the world his "successes" in his UK libel cases, including the one against Dr. Ehrenfeld. A 58, 61. Mahfouz continues to monitor Dr. Ehrenfeld's activities in New York. A 59.

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

The UK judgment and Mahfouz's communications and actions have had and were designed to have an impact and effect in New York. The UK judgment seeks to require Dr. Ehrenfeld to take certain steps (apologize, issue a retraction, cease making certain statements) in New York. A 76, 85-86. Mahfouz's attorneys have written to Dr. Ehrenfeld in New York demanding that she destroy all copies of her book in New York, prevent "leakage" of her book into England, and make a payment to an agreed-upon charity. A 70, 72. And Mahfouz refuses to say he will not try to enforce the UK monetary judgment in New York, the only jurisdiction in which Dr. Ehrenfeld has any assets, thereby creating a lingering, continuing threat and chilling effect in New York.

Mahfouz is no stranger to New York. He has had past and will have future contacts with New York. During the 1990s, he was a major figure in the Bank Credit and Commerce International ("BCCIu) banking scandal, paying a massive fine to resolve a New York indictment. A 59. Until August 2004 -- seven months after he first demanded that Dr. Ehrenfeld destroy all copies of her book and issue a public apology, and two months after the initial filings in his UK libel action against Dr. Ehrenfeld -- Mahfouz owned two condominiums in New York City. A 71, 94-97. He is a defendant in several civil cases in New York arising out of 9/11. And he is almost certainly paying his U.S. attorneys in dollars requiring a Clearing House Payments System transfer and settlement on the books of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Moreover, since Dr. Ehrenfeld's assets are only in New York, enforcement of the UK judgment for money damages can take place only in New York.

Why Personal Jurisdiction Exists

The circumstances of this case, including Mahfouz's many New York contacts, make personal jurisdiction over him appropriate. Any other result would give Mahfouz and other libel tourists a powerful new tool to chill the protected speech of New York citizens on crucial issues like international terrorism. The facts satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of our long-arm statute, CPLR 302(a)(1). The defendant "transacts business" in New York because the "totality" of his New York contacts are sufficient, purposeful, materially affect events and people in New York, and make it foreseeable and fair for such a defendant to answer for his actions in New York.

This conclusion is buttressed by Yahoo! Inc. v. La Lique Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, 433 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc), cert. denied, 126 S.Ct. 2332 (2006). In that important recent case, similar but lesser contacts than Mahfouz's supported jurisdiction under California's long-arm statute. Even if not technically binding, Yahoo! is persuasive and illuminating precedent.

Once the "transacting business" hurdle is cleared, the remaining statutory issue is readily satisfied. Dr. Ehrenfeld's lawsuit "arises from" the activities that constitute Mahfouz's transacting of business in New York. It grows out of and is based on those very activities.

The exercise of personal jurisdiction in this case only requires a holding based on the facts of this case. Such a holding would be narrow, drawn from existing precedent, fair, sensitive to fundamental rights, and without any untoward consequences. According to that limited holding, a non-New Yorker subjects himself or herself to personal jurisdiction in New York in a declaratory judgment action challenging the enforceability of a foreign libel judgment even before New York enforcement proceedings have started when the following three factors are met:
1. The non-New Yorker has obtained a foreign libel judgment against a New York resident;
2. That foreign libel judgment is based on a publication published exclusively in the U.S. by a Newyork resident, and
3. That judgment awards money damages or injunctive relief requiring any actions to be taken in New York.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz has made the claim in the UK court system that since books linking him to terrorism can be bought there via the Internet, the UK court system has jurisdiction so he can sue the authors there -- and the legal system there greatly favors His Wealthy Worshipfulness.

Well, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is fighting back, and her premise is that since His Wealthy Worshipfulness, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror, has far more extensive business contacts in the State of New York, then New York courts have jurisdiction over him, so bin Mahfouz can be sued in New York!

Ah, but the Sharif don't like that!

:)

Sheikh bin Mahfouz, we have a saying in English:

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

:)



Dr. Ehrenfeld's website is The American Center for Democracy. It has a page that provides an overview of this legal battle, and one entitled Legal Action where you can download and read all these "boring" legal papers. (Personally, I think they read like a best-seller.)

On any page, there is a link where you can go to provide real monetary support to Dr. Ehrenfeld, so she can fight and defeat this libel terrorist, and protect our freedom against this guy's blatant legal jihad.

This is our fight and Dr. Ehrenfeld is fighting it, so let's help her out. Remember, this guy that she is battling is a multi-billionaire, one of the richest men in the world, and has been consistently linked to funding terrorism, on top of conducting his own legal jihad to dhimmify our free speech, so let's help Rachel take this Financier of Holy Terror through the court system and cook him up right.

I'll have my cooked gander with extra sauce, please.

:)

Pak Sex Slave Ring in UK, Part 2

We continue from Part 1 with our look at a Pakistani sex slave ring in the UK.

Before we continue reviewing the in-depth report entitled Mothers of Prevention, it is worth reviewing some other articles for further background on the incidents. I will have two other articles in this post, plus two in another, in addition to the remainder of Mothers of Prevention subsequently.

We begin with Grooming of white girls for sex is exposed as two Asian men jailed by Lucy Bannerman and Richard Ford, August 11, 2007.

A hidden world in which Asian men "groom" young white girls for sex has been exposed with the jailing yesterday of two men for child-abuse offences.

Zulfqar Hussain, 46, and Qaiser Naveed, 32, from east Lancashire, were each jailed for five years and eight months after exploiting two girls aged under 16 by plying them with alcohol and drugs before having sex with them.

Both men pleaded guilty at Preston Crown Court to abduction, sexual activity with a child and the supply of a controlled drug.

Despite being told explicitly by police and social services that both girls were under-age and should be returned to care, the men picked up one girl from a children's home in Blackburn and then drove on to collect her friend who was living in temporary foster care in North Wales.

Naveed, from Burnley, gave one girl the first of five Ecstasy tablets at a motorway service station before having sex with her on the back seat of the car while the group drove back to Lancashire. The court was told that the two men later took the girls to an address in Blackburn where Hussain, from Blackburn, had sex with the second girl and gave her a total of ten Ecstasy tablets.

In addition to "grooming" the girls to gain their confidence, the men drugged them -- fairly extensively -- prior to having sex with them.

Yesterday Judge Andrew Gilbart, QC, jailed the two Asian men under new sex laws designed to protect youngsters from being groomed for sexual activity. Judge Gilbart said: "This is a truly shocking offence. You knew them. They were exploited for sex by the two of you. No other description is possible. They were under-age girls who you knew it was your responsibility to protect and not exploit."

If it was their responsibility to protect and not exploit, then the mice were in charge of the cheese.

If you really want a response from the "Asian" community, do the following: Declare that this is an honor crime against the families of the girls, and that the only way to cleanse the honor of the victims' families is to execute the perpetrators -- and then whack these two guys.

At the very least, the penalty should be chemical castration.

It's not, and that's why these guys do it -- they know they can get away with it. The police will "explicitly" warn them before trouble starts.

Try going to certain "Asian" countries (Pakistan) and victimizing their people -- you will be tortured, then executed, though not necessarily convicted!

Where is the PC elite? They are shutting up because of the protected status of the perpetrators. They can't condone the activity (or perhaps they do?), but neither will they speak out against the "Asian" immigrants:

The trial came amid growing concern at the attitudes of some Asian men towards white girls which campaigners for women claim few people wish to address.

Parents have complained that in parts of the country with large Asian communities white girls as young as 12 are being targeted for sex by older Asian men yet the authorities are unwilling to act because of fears of being labelled racist.

The reason they target twelve-year-olds is because they rape the girls when they turn 13 -- the age at which the protection offered by the laws changes, making the authorities have to wait for the girls to come forward and complain to launch an investigation.

Ann Cryer, a Labour member of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, has been at the forefront of attempting to tackle the problem after receiving complaints from mothers in her constituency about young Asian men targeting their under-age daughters.

Although campaigners claim that hundreds of young girls are already being passed around men within the Asian community for sex, she said that attempts to raise the problem with community leaders had met with little success, with most of them being in a state of denial about it.

A state of denial -- they don't even want to say these are Pakistanis, so they call them "Asians". The Vietnamese, Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, etc., ought to be screaming about this.

Hell, the Brits ought to be screaming about this.

Say they are Pakistanis, and tell everybody what they are doing. When the PC elite call you racists, fire back at the PC elite, that they are aiding and abetting child-abusing, drug-pushing rapist-pimps, because that is exactly what is happening.

After the case, the mother of one of the girls, who cannot be named for legal reasons, welcomed the jail terms. "This will hopefully act as a warning to others," the woman said. She had had to leave the court as details of the men’s sexual relations with the teenagers were read out. After the trial, Ms Cryer said that young Asian men were caught between two cultures having been brought up in a Western society in families while retaining the cultural values of the Asian sub-continent.

She said: "The family and cultural norms of their community means they are expected to marry a first cousin or other relative back in a village in Mirapur or wherever the family comes from. Therefore, until that marriage is arranged they look out for sex.

"At the point in their lives when they are ready for this sort of activity, Asians cannot go to Asian girls because it would be a terrible breach of the honour of the community and their family to have sex with an Asian girl before marriage." She said that the reason Asian men targeted very young white girls was because older white girls knew that a relationship with an Asian youth was unlikely to last as the community would seek an arranged marriage with someone from the Asian sub-continent. Police and groups campaigning to protect women insisted that the grooming of youngsters is not segregated along race lines, though there is concern at the attitudes of some young Asian men towards white girls.

Parents claim that criminal networks are able to prey on young girls because the authorities are reluctant to tackle the issue for fear of upsetting race relations in areas of the North West with large ethnic minority communities.

However, Ms Cryer added: "I think there is a problem with the view Asian men generally have about white women. Their view about white women is generally fairly low. They do not seem to understand that there are white girls as moral and as good as Asian girls."

Again, I call your attention to the way they are speaking about this in code: "Asian men" and "Asian girls".

Many of the "Asian" immigrants in the UK are from Pakistan. They are for the most part Muslims. This is not to imply that all Pakistanis are causing problems, or that all Muslims are causing problems, or that all Pakistani Muslims are causing problems.

However, if calling these perpetrators "Muslims" or "Pakistanis" is racist, then it is even more racist to call them "Asians" -- as if all people of any kind of Asian background were involved!

The PC elite thought-police, driving everyone to use the term "Asians", is instilling its own brands of racism: first, they are slandering anyone from any part of Asia, when the culprits are only some (not all!) Pakistanis; second, they are denying justice to victims who are not "Asians".

The issue here is that this activity is organized, and the organizations involved in it are Muslims from Pakistan.

In other countries, in Sweden and Norway for example, Muslim immigrants have a similar pattern of behavior victimizing the women of their host society. Instead of plying young girls with drugs, the immigrants there brutally gang-rape the women, and since they merely overcome the victims with force, they can go after victims who are older; targeting younger girls is only necessary when one is attempting to gain their trust, and so needs a victim who is more naive.

The explanations are the same, however: the infidel women are abused for sex, so it is a sexual jihad; for marriage, they seek "decent" women from their own culture. The blogger Fjordman has written extensively about the situation in the Nordic countries, and has documented this thoroughly. I recommend you read Fjordman's work, and learn about the connection between the permissive attitudes regarding these types of criminal activities, and the PC elites that have these attitudes.

I challenge the Politically Correct elements in the UK to look into whether Islam plays a role here. Do these perpetrators consider themselves Muslims? If so, are they practicing Muslims? Do they justify their activities with reference to Islamic texts? Or, if they consider themselves Muslims, do they believe that what they are doing is wrong according to Islamic laws and traditions?

In short: Is plying young girls with drugs and then raping them and renting them out for sex to others a form of sexual jihad, or is this merely disgusting and despicable criminal activity?

And for my readers who are decent people, and who happen to be either Pakistani or Muslim, there is no need to be offended: we know you do not condone this activity, and we know that any society has its criminal element.

The criminal element in British society are the elitists who allow these heinous crimes to go either inadequately punished, or unpunished and unacknowledged altogether.


Another article addressing this matter came out the same day, entitled 'If it had been white guys, it would have been reported sooner' by Lucy Bannerman, August 11, 2007:

Some parents, support workers and community leaders claim that an ugly pattern has emerged across Lancashire and Yorkshire in particular in which vulnerable, white, working-class girls are being used for sex by groups of older and predominantly Asian men.

Once the girls have moved into these social circles, they are encouraged to rebel, with peer pressure leading to petty crime, says Samantha Pratt, of CROP, the Leeds-based Coalition for the Removal of Pimping.

The victims become criminalised themselves, she said. "A lot of these kids are getting ASBOs and being treated as if they are naughty teenagers. But these men are puppeteers."

This is a universal pattern, familiar throughout communities across Britain. Julie (not her real name), whose 13-year-old daughter fell prey to this kind of sexual exploitation, believes that, in her case, sensitivity about perceived racism led to a reluctance to tackle the problem. "There must be hundreds of girls going through the same thing. But I felt I had a brick wall to knock down before you even got to the real issue. I do believe if it had been white guys, it would have been reported a lot sooner."

She believes that the men have no respect for the victims. "These guys think the girls are white trash. They know what they can get away with."

Therein lies the problem with what this new-age political correctness has done: criminals know they can get away with their crimes, from the cathouse to the White House.

It is a point picked up by Abdul Hamid Qureshi, chairman of the Lancashire Council of Mosques.

"We in the Muslim community are failing in the sense that there are young people in society with little or no moral values. After the age of 12, nobody is engaging with them. We have to transform ourselves.

"It is not just white girls being exploited. Asian girls are involved too, but their numbers are less. There is less access to them, and the criminals are more likely to be deterred by their fathers and brothers, who they know will come after them."

He rejected an argument by Ann Cryer, the local MP, that forbidden extramarital sex and the expectation of arranged marriage is leading Asian men to use white girls for sex.

He said: "I think that is a shallow way of looking at it. This is a social evil. We have to put up enough barriers so that it becomes difficult for [these men] to operate."

The argument made by Ann Cryer is the same as that made elsewhere, and makes sense. It is possible that Chairman Qureshi is right, though.

Regardless, while the perpetrators come from a Muslim/Pakistani background, it would be interesting to know whether they actually practice Islam, and whether they attend a mosque. In short, does Islam play a role here?

The Islamic community needs to help identify these people and bring them to justice. If Muslims don't, they run the risk of being lumped in with the criminals, conspirators through silence, conspirators after-the-fact.

Chairman Qureshi hits it spot-on (emphasis added):

"Asian girls are involved too, but their numbers are less. There is less access to them, and the criminals are more likely to be deterred by their fathers and brothers, who they know will come after them."

The voting public and its elected officials might wish to consider my suggestion:

Declare that this is an honor crime against the families of the girls, and that the only way to cleanse the honor of the victims' families is to execute the perpetrators -- and then whack these two guys.

"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

On a post I did about a sex slave ring in Kazakhstan, I found the following comment:

For All Women Foundation said...
I have worked in some of the former Soviet republics, including Kazakhstan, and I truly hope they don't adopt radical Islam.

I have also worked in Jordan, on a number of occasions, on the "honor" killings situation. This is not the direction the former republics should go.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

November 10, 2007 10:50 AM

In response to a request of mine for her to leave a link to a website or something, Ellen later came back and commented the following:

For All Women Foundation said...
Yankee Doodle, thank you. I am low tech, self funding all the work I've been doing on "honor" killings. So no Web site for now, just the book.

I am a marketer by education and training so, when I was working in the former Soviet republics, it was in the 1990s, not long after the collapse, and the NIS were trying to jump start market economies. It was a strange but fascinating time to be there working on that, for I was working among some very well trained, uber intelligent people, but they just couldn't quite grasp how marketing occurs on some of the most basic, basic levels. I kept thinking, egads, my seven-year-old neighbor kid understands marketing better than these people, but it was only because she'd been immersed in the culture of it from birth, whereas the others simply had no frame of reference.

My interpreter in Kazakhstan was a Muslim woman in her early 20s. We spent so much time together, and she told me to think of the Kazakhs as "Muslim lights," for they had no ability to practice their faith under Soviet rule, so they drank alcohol, didn't cover, etc. One day she took me to a beautiful Russian Orthodox church in a park in Almaty. We happened to arrive mid service, and she had no problem staying with me through the remainder of it. Maybe something similar could happen in Jordan, but I think it's unlikely.

Same in Azerbaijan. The people there are, as you stated, Turkic. What I saw and experienced there was, as my Kazakh friend would say, "Muslim light."

I would just hate to see these countries become radicalized. They are sitting on vast energy reserves. Could be a very, very dangerous combination.

November 11, 2007 12:38 PM

Intrigued, I looked at the reviews at Amazon.com and found three reviews of her book:

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
A profound and thought-provoking work, October 18, 2007
By A. M. McReynolds (San Francisco, CA)

This was a hard book for me to read, but it's something that everyone, especially women, should know about. Ellen Sheeley, at her own expense and very real personal risk, has undertaken to systematically expose both these crimes and the apathy that seems to pervade Jordanians when it comes to acknowledging and punishing these honor killings. A 'must-read' for anyone who cares about human rights.


3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
An Important Piece of Work..., July 13, 2007
By Zeina A (Jordan)

So begins the arduous task of reviewing this unique item. Arduous because, as a Jordanian, it burdens my heart that this book even needs to exist (it does). Arduous because it shook me that the subject was studied at this level of detail by a non-Jordanian. But...perhaps an integral factor in the equation of bringing this book into existence is that the writer has to be an outsider. Jordanian journalists from within have been trying to know themselves and know their society by exposing it's shadow...but anybody, is welcome to tackle the shadow.

Ellen R. Sheeley, being an American who -devotedly- dove right in to a foreign society to try to dig up info about this taboo issue may be an outsider, but that's what may have helped her keep cool enough of a head to compile the data needed to publish such a work.

I applaud her for being able to withstand the hardships of the process of publishing and marketing this type of book. I know some of what she has had to endure, and I only hope that her endeavours will be recognized by people who will thence take action upon eradicating these dis-honorable crimes.


2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Honor Killings: A Sad But Timely Study, July 6, 2007
By Robert L. Willett

I probably learned more about a subject that is so foreign to our American culture, it is thought to be propaganda. But it is not, and the passion shown by Ellen Sheeley in spending her time and funds to bring the facts about this horrific crime out into the open will hopefully bear fruit.

The research summarized in her book demonstrates the acceptance of the custom and brings out how the laws of Jordan are incapable of dealing with the crime. She also points out that as Islamic believers emigrate to the Western world, honor killings go with them.

I hope that further study, by Ellen and others, will focus on the need to abolish the practice and put its shameful history behind the Jordanian people.

No matter what the future provides, Ellen has taken a significant step in exposing the killings for what they are; murder.

At this point, I am fishing, trying to lure Ellen into sending me more information about her experiences and about her book -- this sounds like a story that would be both interesting and pertinent!

Interview with Rohana, Part 1

Here is the first part of an interview with Rider of Rohan, a young Muslim lady. Her blog is called V & L.

I have worked on formatting, but left Rohana's answers mostly unedited (except for some obvious typos). When you see how many languages she speaks, the few mistakes she makes help to highlight how well she commands English, which is not her native language, and this, in turn, helps show just how smart and well-educated this young lady is.

My questions are numbered and in italics.

**Part 1 of Interview Follows**

1) Please describe the area where you live, without being too specific. For example, you could say "suburban Paris", or "a rural area in France", or "a major city in the American southeast".

Currently I live in a small agricultural village in the Southern part of India, close to the western coast, Arabian sea.

2) What is your native language? What other languages do you speak, and how well?

My native language is Dakhni Urdu. Its a mix of Urdu/Persian/and many words from South Indian languages. Urdu is derived from Persian though. I also speak English. I don't know about well. I've been educated using English as the medium of instruction. As you know, India was a colony of Great Britain. I can't guage my fluency. I've studied Englsih grammar in school. But I notice that my language often reflects colloquial (is the spelling right?) English spoken in well, Bangalore (where I studied).

Apart from the above, I speak French, though not as fluently. I can also speak Kannada, which is a local language of the state I live in. I can understand and speak very basic Tamil. Of course I speak Hindi , a North Indian language. I can understand a smattering of Italian, can understand a bit of written Spanish and Portuguese (the Portuguese were here too ;) I can read Arabic, though my comprehension of it sucks. Of course, given the proximity with Urdu, I can also read Persian.

3) About how old are you? Are you married, engaged, single?

I will be 26 soon. I'm single, and I'm looking for someone. Do you know anyone ? I doubt it.. :D

4) What kind of formal education do you have? High school diploma, some university studies, university graduate-4 yrs?

University - post graduate. I am currently studying environmental law.

5) You are a Muslim. How important is Islam in your daily life? Please describe your religious activities. Do you pray at home? Daily? Several times daily? Do you attend a mosque? How often?

Islam is the central point in my life. I realize that I do not and cannot do anything without it acting as a validation in my life. For instance, its impossible for me to fall in love with any man who isn't Muslim. I don't understand it. So practicing all the tenets of Islam is very important to me- the most visible for me are charity/feding the poor/practicing moderation in the way I live/being kind to animals/and human beings/speaking with politeness (which I often lack)/.. So basically, everything I do has a basis in Islam.

My religious activities are to pray five times a day regularly, read the Quran, ponder over its meaning, fasting for Ramadan and also if possible during the other months (which isn't obligatory), giving charity, celebrating Eid- muslim religious festivals that occur twice a year.

Yes, I pray at home. Five times a day - before daybreak, in the afternoon, before the setting sun, immediatley after sunset and at night. Rarely, very late at night.

I don't attend a mosque. As far as I know, women in India don't go to mosques to pray. And I'd rather not. I don't know about other countries but if women here ever gathered at mosques, there would be disaster- make up disasters/gossip /sudden appearance of period disasters/ marriage deals/ demeaning of other women.. etc etc I wouldn't want to go into details. Besides, mosques would not be able to accomodate women. They hardly have space for men.

**End of Part 1**

Her honesty is quite refreshing, as is her sense of humor.

More to follow!

Meanwhile, please visit her blog -- she's usually an occasional blogger, and as I go to press with this, her last post is from September 16th.