Our Minds Threatened with Arrest

Lionheart is in the United States right now, but has been threatened with arrest upon his return to the United Kingdom.

Visit Lionheart's blog for coverage.

More information is at The Green Arrow:

Religious Hatred Act 2006

Lionheart Update

This from Lionheart

Other than an obvious concern for Lionheart personally, as well as for other bloggers in the UK, my main concern is for the UK.

Hat tip to my email tipster.

******

Without specifically commenting on Lionheart's situation, with which I am not terribly familiar, I nonetheless have some thoughts.

Hate speech laws are, in general, ill-conceived, as are Holocaust-denial laws and other such infringements on Freedom of Speech and of the Press. They are everything we in the counterjihad movement complain about with regards to Sharia.

Such laws are an attempt to enchain our tongues and our pens (or our computer keyboards, these days), and that is a major step towards enchaining our minds. Once our minds are enslaved, physical enslavement becomes superfluous, and even counterproductive.

It is important to understand that we have a Second Amendment in case the government fails to abide by the First.

It is more important to understand that, due to the awesome destructive power of modern warfare, the battle needs to be fought and won peacefully, using legal measures. An armed, vigilant citizenry is a counterbalance to a heavily-armed government; both sides may then appreciate the need to settle issues with the ballot box and the jury box, understanding the terrible potential should the issue be settled with the cartridge box instead.

In an increasingly pacified and civilly-disarmed Europe, the government's excesses know fewer natural bounds of an armed and vigilant populace. This makes the provocations greater, thereby making the possibility of armed revolt against government oppression more likely. The disarming of the populace, intended to preclude a resort to arms for settling disputes, in fact emboldens tyranny and works toward making such a resort to arms more unavoidable.

Freedom is not free, and it is far better to sweat a little now, defending our freedom peacefully, than to bleed later, and perhaps arrive too late to save Lady Liberty.

Forbid It, Almighty God!

An article appeared in The Spectator today: The lights go out in Britain. I reproduce it here with my (few) comments:

The sinister police response to Islamist incitement (see post below) in which they tried to suppress the evidence of it in the interests of 'community cohesion' is unfortunately part of a far larger picture of terminal British cultural cringe and abasement in the face of the threat to Britain and the west. Following the statement by the head of MI5 that we should 'pay close attention' to the language used to talk about such matters, the Guardian reports that counter-terrorism officials are abandoning 'offensive' 'inappropriate' and 'emotive language' when talking about, er, Islamic terrorism. So no more 'war on terror'; the 'battle' against extremist ideology becomes a 'struggle' (hello? isn't that what 'jihad' actually means?); and terrorist plots and conspiracies will be described as 'criminal' instead.

'We hadn't got the message right,' said one senior official. He added: 'We must talk in a language which is not offensive.' Another said that the terrorist threat must not be described as a 'Muslim problem'.

The Islamic terrorists are going to kill you unless you surrender every ounce of dignity, self-respect and freedom to them: only by becoming their slaves will they let you live in a hell-on-earth, but even then, life is not guaranteed -- they reserve the right to withdraw the protection of dhimmi status and kill you anyway.

Whatever you do, though, do not be offensive in how you answer them.

Later on in the story, however, we learn that the geniuses in the Home Office Research, Information, and Communications Unit, which was set up to counter al Qaeda propaganda and 'win hearts and minds', will draw up

'counter-narratives' to the anti-western messages on websites designed to influence vulnerable and impressionable audiences… to explain what one official called the government's 'foreign policy in its totality', counter the accusations made by al-Qaida sympathisers and extremist groups and pinpoint the weaknesses in their arguments. The unit will also support 'alternative voices' in the Muslim community.

So how precisely are they going to do this if they won't even acknowledge that the words 'Muslim', 'terrorism' and 'problem' might go together? Since the driver of I*****c t*******m is the I******t injunction, mandated by leading M****m religious authorities, to wage war against western civilisation in the name of I***m, restore the M****m caliphate and subjugate unbelievers and M****m backsliders everywhere, just how is the HORICU going to 'pinpoint the weaknesses in their arguments' if they refuse even to use these words? On what basis will they single out the Muslim community for the encouragement of 'alternative voices' if they say the problem is nothing to do with that community? And just what is the government's 'foreign policy in its totality'? Does this involve saying less than fulsome things about George Bush, perhaps, and more fulsome things about the Palestinians in their historic 'struggle' against the Zionist entity? I'm sure that we'd all love to know.

Last week, London Mayor Ken Livingstone published a report about 'Islamophobia' which damned pretty well every factual reference to Islamic extremism, terrorism or intended genocide as 'Islamophobic'. This risible document was said to have been written by 'leading academics and experts'; but one of its main targets, the television journalist John Ware who made an exemplary documentary exposing the extremism of the Muslim Council of Britain, quickly discovered at the press conference that one of these alleged luminaries wasn't an academic or expert at all but Inayat Bunglawala of the MCB, whose form in the field of prejudice and extremism has been well documented (see here, for example) and that two other MCB people were also among the authors.

As Ware wrote in the Sunday Telegraph, the purpose of this travesty was to suppress legitimate discussion of such issues by putting political Islam beyond the scope of media inquiry. There is already alarming evidence that this is happening. The British libel laws have been successfully used by a Saudi banker, Khalid Bin Mahfouz, to suppress evidence about the alleged links between Saudi financing and terrorism. More than 30 publications, authors and publishers have been successfully sued in Britain, with only one author, the terrorism financing expert Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, fighting a lonely battle against such 'libel tourism'. A nine-minute video documentary on this can be viewed here.

Watch the movie about Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror, complete with commentary by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld.

Then, go to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website and contribute to her legal counterjihad.

'Meanwhile, the Times reported yesterday that the prize-winning artist Grayson Perry had consciously avoided commenting on radical Islam in his otherwise highly provocative body of work because of the threat of reprisals.

'I've censored myself,' Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. 'The reason I haven't gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.'

Far from upholding and protecting the culture that is under attack, the British government and counter-terrorism establishment are instead pushing us all further down this dark path. The lights are going out in Britain. This is the way freedom dies.

"This is the way freedom dies."

"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, 'Peace! Peace!' -- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!"

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775

(See also Patrick Henry Remix; hat tip to my email tipster.)

Libel Terrorist at the Wheel

From a story in The Economist entitled Sheikh it all about, Nov 8th 2007; I have reproduced it in its entirety, with my comments:

From The Economist print edition

How far can a Saudi sheikh use English law against an American author?

CAN the guarantee of free speech in America's first amendment trump English libel law? That is the question facing New York's Court of Appeals, in a case starting on November 15th. Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York-based author, is seeking a ruling that an English libel judgment against her cannot be enforced in America and that her book, "Funding Evil", is constitutionally protected free speech.

November 15th: that means you still have time to contribute to Dr. Ehrenfeld's legal campaign. See her website for information, especially this page where you can download the legal documents and read about the battle.

Ms Ehrenfeld's book makes a series of allegations about the charitable activities of a wealthy Saudi businessman, Khalid Mahfouz, all of which he strenuously denies. Mr Mahfouz has won numerous victories in English courts against those who have sought to link him to Islamist terrorism. In August, for example, Britain's Cambridge University Press withdrew all copies of "Alms for Jihad", a book taking a similar line to Ms Ehrenfeld. That caused a furore: American librarians have refused the publishers' request to withdraw the book from their shelves; surviving copies change hands for hundreds of dollars on the internet.

Sheikh bin Mahfouz is a multibillionaire, one of the world's very richest men.

Scholars consistently link him to financing Islamic terrorists. He consistently uses his wealth to intimidate and sue them into submission, so the terror can continue.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is standing up to him, but it is a David-vs-Goliath struggle, and Dr. Ehrenfeld, who is defending our freedoms from infringement by this libel terrorist, needs our help. You can contribute to the counterjihad, and help make sure our David can buy the legal stones she needs to deal with this Financier of Holy Terror, Sheikh Khalid "Goliath" bin Mahfouz, who defies the God of Israel by trying to squelch the freedoms with which our Creator has endowed us.

"Funding Evil", by contrast, was never published in Britain; indeed it sold only a few dozen copies there, via internet booksellers. Ms Ehrenfeld and her publishers were not represented in the court hearing in London in 2005. "English law does not apply here since 1776, when we won our independence," she says. That did not impress the judge, Mr Justice Eady, who awarded £10,000 ($21,000) damages—the maximum possible in a summary hearing of an undefended action—to Mr Mahfouz and to two co-plaintiffs. He also declared her allegations against Mr Mahfouz false, and criticised her for using the English court proceedings to advertise her book, citing its intentionally eye-catching new subtitle: "The book that the Saudis don't want you to read."

And the fact that they are trying so hard to stomp it out and intimidate its author is the best reason I can think of to read it and to contribute to the legal counterjihad.

Mr Mahfouz's camp claim they are being misrepresented. Their lawyers have never tried to collect damages or costs from Ms Ehrenfeld, nor have they argued that the English court's judgment applies elsewhere, so there is no reason, they say, for a New York court to hear the case. Next week's arguments, they add, will be about jurisdiction, not free speech. The fact that Ms Ehrenfeld was served papers in New York notifying her of the London proceedings—so Mr Mahfouz's lawyers maintain—does not mean that their client conducts business in New York. That argument has already been accepted by a lower court.

They're not being misrepresented -- they're a bunch of terrorists. They terrorize through legal action and the threat of legal action. Far be it for Sheikh bin Mahfouz to strap on a belt of bombs and leave all his earthly treasures behind. Just because he doesn't actually blow himself up, that doesn't mean he is any less a terrorist than others who enable terrorism, like Sheikh bin Laden. These two fund & plan it, others blow themselves up, and innocent infidels -- and innocent Muslims -- die.

None of that cuts very much ice with free-speech defenders in America, who have long detested English libel law for placing the burden of proof on the author, and for the huge costs that defendants face: even brief proceedings quickly run into six figures. Unless American courts take a stand, so they argue, English libel law is likely to deter anyone who feels inclined to investigate important but controversial subjects.

This is a critical campaign in preserving ourselves alive and free; failure here would be another milemarker on the road to submission, slavery and death.

And let's be very clear about this: the road to Hell is very much shorter than we may think, and that's exactly where we're going if we let this libel terrorist drive.

"Our liberty depends
on the freedom of the press,
and that cannot be limited
without being lost."
Thomas Jefferson

Hat tip to my email tipster.

The Right Way

There is an interesting editorial that appeared today in The Washington Times entitled Chilling free speech, by Ilan Weinglass, who is the editor of The Terror Finance Blog. This article can also be found at Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld's website.

I reproduce the editorial here in its entirety, minus some typos, and with my commentary:

The U.S. media has started to notice Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz's use of British libel laws to silence allegations that he funded al Qaeda. Even the venerable New York Times has featured an essay on the subject, plus an Op-Ed urging Congress to prevent U.S. courts from enforcing foreign libel judgments. While this would be a worthwhile achievement, most commentators have missed the point that we may have already lost the battle. More than 30 publications and authors have already given in to the billionaire. Since September 11, Mr. Mahfouz has exploited the British legal system, where libel laws favor the plaintiff, to systematically sue anyone alleging that he financed terrorism. He has also used the threat of such suits to intimidate his critics.

First of all, to say we "have already lost the battle" is exactly correct.

It is not necessary to win every battle in order to win a war. In fact, losing some battles can give one side a kick in its complacency that motivates that side to go on and win the war.

That is what I see happening here.

As the author points out, the US media is starting to notice. That may very well be a sign of a turning point in the war, and the beginning of the end of Sheikh bin Mahfouz's campaign to silence those who are sounding the alarm about him.

Several battles have been lost, but don't start counting your virgins, Sheikh bin Mahfouz, 'cuz the jihad ain't over yet!

By the way: I wonder what, if any, impact the blogosphere has had on this. I'm betting quite a bit; since the mainstream media has tended to keep this issue at arms-length (if that), it is the blogosphere that is playing a significant role in keeping this issue on people's minds.

By silencing scholarly authors, who research their work, have it peer reviewed, and stand behind it, making corrections when necessary, Sheikh bin Mahfouz is driving this whole thing underground, into the blogosphere, where anonymous bloggers who are totally unaccountable can say pretty much whatever they like about him -- and are increasingly motivated to do so.

In fact, I'm feeling so motivated, that I have added a new widget to my sidebar -- see if you can find the one I'm talking about.

How do you like that, Sheikh bin Mahfouz?

:)

A number of leading American publications including The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and USA Today have publicly retracted allegations made about Mr. Mahfouz on their pages. Most recently, Mr. Mahfouz threatened to sue Cambridge University Press (CUP) for publishing "Alms for Jihad." Overlooking its responsibility and academic integrity, CUP decided to avoid huge legal expenses. It apologized and pulped the book. While criticizing CUP for its capitulation, the American media failed to notice that the authors of the book were not even threatened. Why not? Because of what civil-rights lawyer Harvey Silverglate calls "one of the most important First Amendment cases in the past 25 years," now pending before the New York Court of Appeals.

Cambridge University Press.... on the cutting edge of the West's dhimmification movement.

This case involves Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It." Miss Ehrenfeld was also subject to a lawsuit by Mr. Mahfouz. But unlike the others, she refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of a British court over a book published in New York, and she asked a U.S. court to declare the British judgment unenforceable in the United States. After two years, a U.S. appeals court ruled that the New York Court of Appeals must hear her case. This is already a small victory for free speech, as Mr. Mahfouz will have to make his case in an American court.

Oral arguments will be in the middle of next month, so you still have time to support Dr. Ehrenfeld's battle against Sheikh bin Mahfouz.

This small victory pales next to some larger defeats, however. Mr. Mahfouz's Web site shows dozens of otherwise serious, careful scholars making abject apologies to the Saudi. A typical example, from a leading scholar of Al Qaeda: "I withdraw any allegations contained in the Book that you were a financial mainstay of Al Qaeda... I am happy to accept that you abhor terrorism and that you had no part or knowledge of any alleged transfer of funds to support terrorism."

Speaking of your website, I link to it now, Sheikh bin Mahfouz! You're famous at Stop Islamic Conquest!

To get a retraction from me, you will need to stop your lawsuits, and allow these scholars to work in peace. Cooperate with them fully, do not hinder their work, and if they then, under those conditions, say you are clean, I will believe them.

(Shall we hold our breath waiting?)

Looking closely through publicly available scholarship on Mr. Mahfouz, it is doubtful one will find any terror-finance allegations that have not been explicitly retracted in such a manner, with the exception of those made by Miss Ehrenfeld. While all claims must be subject to rigorous investigation, this is disturbing, since the Treasury Department designated Yassin al-Qadi, the director of Mr. Mahfouz's "charitable" foundation, as a terrorist. Moreover, Treasury determined that a Mahfouz-owned bank sent $3 million to the same foundation, plus other "charities that serve as a front for bin Laden." We have lost valuable time in the battle against terror financiers regardless of the outcome of the Ehrenfeld case. As scholar Matthew Levitt writes, "such suits threaten to have a chilling effect on scholars conducting serious, careful, and peer-reviewed research into critical and sometimes contentious policy debates." While Mr. Levitt, who himself faced a libel suit in the United States that was rightly dismissed under U.S. libel laws, is correct in pointing out the "chilling effect" of such suits, the cold fact is that much damage has already been done.

They aren't going to chill anything -- anymore than attacking the Twin Towers and threatening more attacks is going to get us to submit and bow towards Mecca for bin Laden.

But you and your buddy Osama don't get that, do you, Sheikh bin Mahfouz?

Your brand of Islam, Sheikh bin Mahfouz, is an all-consuming fire of hate and anger, power and exploitation -- and it's generating a backdraft.

Ultimately, we will never know how much damage The Washington Post or Wall Street Journal could have prevented if they stood up for their First Amendment rights. Whatever the outcome of Miss Ehrenfeld's case, it is a black mark on these publications that they chose the easy way out, while a lone brave woman is the only thing preventing a total blackout on research into a possible funding source of al Qaeda.

Ilan Weinglass is a counterterrorism consultant in New York City, and editor of the Terror Finance Blog. He was a research assistant for "Funding Evil".

The mainstream media "chose the easy way out".

In my original post on Dr. Ehrenfeld, I compared her to Batman, and how appropriate was that comparison!

As Batman tells Robin in the cartoons, this is one of those occasions where we do things the right way, not the easy way -- and that's exactly what Dr. Ehrenfeld is doing, for all of us.

Help her out, if you can.


Thanks to my email tipsters for keeping me in the loop.

Libel Terrorism's Midway

Here's an interesting article from BBC News, Book author wins historic libel case, by Torin Douglas, Media correspondent.

The author of a book about police corruption has won a ground-breaking libel case in the Court of Appeal.

Three judges found in favour of Graham McLagan and his publisher, Orion, overturning an earlier judgement against a former Flying Squad officer, Michael Charman.

That ruling found that Mr Charman had been libelled in the book Bent Coppers - The Inside Story Of Scotland Yard's Battle Against Police Corruption.

Judges have now ruled that the book was covered by the so-called "Reynolds defence" of qualified privilege, which says that journalists can publish material in the public interest, even if it turns out to be untrue and defamatory, provided it has been handled responsibly.

It's the first time it has been applied in the case of books.

My immediate question is what kind of impact this will have on our Libel Terrorist, Financier of Holy Terror Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, and his efforts to silence the truth about the financing of terrorism by filing lawsuits in the plaintiff-friendly UK. (His activities are having an impact even in the US, where American authors are battling to protect our First Amendment rights in court; for example....)

Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Sedley and Lord Justice Hooper said they were "totally satisfied" that the book was a piece of responsible journalism.

They said the author had demonstrated his honesty, expertise, careful research and painstaking evaluation of a mass of material.

I can think of other books that one might be able to say that about, if the issue were ever contested.

'Responsible journalism'

Mr McLagan is a former BBC correspondent, who has covered police corruption issues for 20 years. Speaking from the US, he said it was "a victory for solid, responsible investigative journalism".

Caroline Kean, a partner at his solicitors Wiggin, called it a ground-breaking case.

"This judgement is a breath of fresh air, building on a decision last year by the House of Lords involving the Wall Street Journal," she said.

"That judgement expressly stated that the defamation laws should encourage, rather than discourage, serious and responsible journalism."

What a concept!

The Reynolds defence is named after a House of Lords judgment in a case brought by former Irish Prime Minister Albert Reynolds against the Sunday Times in 1998.

Lord Nicolls, who gave the leading judgement, laid down 10 points which courts might take into account when deciding whether to admit a plea of qualified privilege.

They included the seriousness of the allegation, the source, and the responsibility of the journalism - the steps taken to verify the story, the urgency of the matter, whether the claimant was asked to give his side of the story, and the tone of the article.

Will having such a checklist of steps make it easier to avoid trouble? It seems all one has to do is make a serious effort to comply with those 10 points, and one might be safe from libel terrorism.

Case costs

Ms Kean said that, in subsequent libel judgements, some courts had treated these as "hurdles", each of which had to be cleared if the Reynolds defence were to be accepted.

The Bent Coppers ruling, and the one in favour of the Wall Street Journal, meant this was no longer the case.

"This is an unambiguous confirmation by the Court of Appeal that Reynolds is alive and kicking and it is not limited to newspapers," said Ms Kean.

"It applies equally to a book and, by analogy, it will apply to a film or a TV programme, providing it is something of proper public interest and a journalist has done his very best to act in the course of responsible journalism."

Mr Charman, a former Flying Squad officer, was supported in his libel claim by the Police Federation, which now faces costs estimated at more than £1 million.

The judges said that £400,000 must be paid on account within 28 days.

It is politically correct to support a journalist against the police, but it may not be so politically correct to support a scholar against those who finance Islamic terrorist movements -- after all, the police are the oppressors, but the Islamic terrorists are the oppressed, and those of us who question their motives are right-wing fascists.

:)

But, if it is a question of applying the law with integrity, then this could be a good sign. Certainly, when the political will someday exists to do something about the radical and violent elements of the Islamic world that are in our midst, and whose network supports terrorist activities worldwide, then the precedent is now established -- and, since it is established against the police, the PC's have less room to whine.

Is this the Battle of Midway in the legal counterjihad?

Hat tip to my email tipster.

The Iceberg of Hate Speech

An article appeared yesterday at Congressional Quarterly entitled British Libel Actions Target Terrorism Books, by Charles Hoskinson, CQ Staff. As usual, I have reproduced it here in its entirety, fixing minor typos, and adding in my comments.

Influential residents of repressive regimes in the Middle East can use a wide range of official measures to counter criticism and suppress dissent. Now, a trio of Western authors contend that one such controversial figure — billionaire Saudi financier Khalid bin Mahfouz — has hit upon a novel extension of such strategies, using Britain's plaintiff-friendly libel law to cancel the publication of two books alleging that he has helped fund terrorists.

Bin Mahfouz has long disputed that he has had any role in funding Islamic terrorist groups. Both of the books he challenged seek to link funds from the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, which he founded, and the Muwafaq charitable foundation, where he is principal donor, to al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz first won a $225,000 judgment in 2005 in a libel action against Rachel Ehrenfeld, a U.S. citizen who directs the American Center for Democracy and the author of "Funding Evil." Her publisher, Bonus Books, can no longer market the title in Britain.

Another pair of American writers, J. Millard Burr and Robert O. Collins, saw their book on the same subject, "Alms for Jihad," pulped outright by their British publisher, Cambridge University Press, after bin Mahfouz threatened to sue the company.

British libel law doesn't require proof, as U.S. law does, that a defendant acted out of "actual malice" and "reckless disregard" for the truth of a published claim. Rather, it hinges on the rebuttable presumption that a defamatory statement is false — sparking a libel-plaintiffs rush into British courts known as "libel tourism."

In a previous post, I called Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror, a "Libel Terrorist", and that's exactly what this is about -- legal jihad through lawsuits, and financial jihad by forcing the victim (defendant) to spend money on legal defense: Libel Terrorism.

This second concept of indirect financial jihad is important to keep in mind, because Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, Financier of Holy Terror, is a multi-billionaire, and is one of the very richest men in the world. Anyone willing to step into the legal ring and go umpteen rounds with Mohammed Mahfouz needs money.

With that thought in mind, go to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website, learn about her work, and make a donation.

The three American authors targeted by bin Mahfouz all say they stand by their work and deny any basis for a libel claim against them. But the broader worry is that judgments like these will intimidate authors from grappling with controversial subjects such as the international funding of terrorism.

Oh, no -- the broader worry is far broader than that. That is only the tip of the iceberg.

Bin Mahfouz won his British suit against Ehrenfeld after she elected not to contest it in British court. Instead, she has asked the New York Court of Appeals to assert jurisdiction over the case and protect her from the British court's action, after a federal court agreed the state court could consider the case. Her appeal is backed by a coalition of media groups, including the Association of American Publishers (which counts CQ among its members) and the American Society of Newspaper Editors, along with online retailer Amazon.com. Arguments in the case are scheduled to begin Nov. 15.

Oral arguments begin November 15th. Go to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website and hit her tip jar in a timely manner, please.

In the Cambridge case, meanwhile, Burr says he and his co-author Collins vigorously disputed the company's decision. The press sent a letter of apology to bin Mahfouz in July, conveying "regret" for alleged "inaccurate and misleading information" in the book. But that may not be the last word: Burr says he and Collins recently re-obtained the copyright to "Alms for Jihad" from Cambridge and are looking for a new publisher.

Yeah, well, Cambridge University Press chickened out.

Having said that, they probably figured that, given the laws in the UK, any legal defense would have been legal and financial suicide, so maybe chickening out made sense to them.

And this is the point I am getting to.

Because of the way libel laws are written in the UK, defense against a libel accusation is legal suicide. Thanks to these cases, we are now aware of that.

What is not obvious is the part of this iceberg that is still hidden from view.

People decry hate speech, and perhaps we should.

Many of these jihadis get transformed into jihadis by nursing on the venomous milk of hatred that flows from their local mosques, which, in many places, are being increasingly radicalized -- radicalized often due to the bite of our ally in the War on Terror, Saudi Arabia.

But, hate speech is partly political in nature, and, as such, does it not deserve protection under our First Amendment? The logic is similar with hateful CD's, pamphlets, and so on.

More importantly than that, however, is that if this kind of material is driven underground by hate speech laws, then how will we be able to identify who the preachers of hatred are? How will we know who is molding a group of potential terrorists if we do not permit them to speak? Is it not better to let them speak, so their arguments can be repudiated and they can be identified as the fools and potential terrorists they are?

The iceberg, however, only begins here.

No matter how terms like "libel" and "hate speech" are defined, it always boils down to interpretation by people, backed up by arguments in a courtroom.

It always boils down to someone saying "Yes, I believe in Freedom of Speech, but that kind of speech doesn't deserve protection."

Once that precedent is established, it is a short trip to government censorship, and from there to totalitarianism, only in this kind of totalitarianism, it will be those who can afford good lawyers filling the gulags with those who can't: Libel Totalitarianism.

Shabby and dangerous is a world where the government has too much power to decide what can be said and by whom, what is righteous truth and what is a hateful lie -- freedom in such a world is but a dream, and power goes to the highest bidder.

Our freedom is not free, it has been bought at a very high price, and it continues to be paid for even today. We must beware lest, as freedom changes hands, it gets sold again, and our liberty sinks upon collision with an innocent- and even wise-sounding argument, the dangerous implications of which we realize only too late.

Hat tip to my email tipster.

The Sharif Don't Like It

Tomorrow's news today! Here is a piece from the New York Times, Libel Without Borders by Rachel Donadio, October 7, 2007, in its entirety with my comments:

When it first appeared in 2006, "Alms for Jihad," an academic book on Islamic charitable networks by two American scholars, drew scant attention. It sold a modest 1,500 copies and received few reviews. But in recent weeks the book has become an international cause célèbre, after Cambridge University Press agreed to pulp all unsold copies in a defamation settlement.

Last spring, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, a powerful Saudi businessman and banker to the Saudi royal family who is based in Jeddah, sued the publisher over the book's depiction of his family as financiers of terrorism. In English libel law, the burden of proof falls on the defendant, and bin Mahfouz had won judgments in several other cases. Rather than challenging the accusations, the press agreed in August to destroy the remaining 2,300 warehoused copies of the book. It also paid bin Mahfouz an undisclosed sum for damages and legal fees, issued a written apology and, to the anger of librarians, asked libraries that refused to insert an errata slip to remove the book from their shelves.

The case is fanning widespread concern that English libel law is stifling writers far beyond the borders of the United Kingdom. Today, any book bought online in England, even one published exclusively in another country, can ostensibly be subject to English libel law. As a result, publishers and booksellers are increasingly concerned about "libel tourism": foreigners suing other foreigners in England or elsewhere, and using those judgments to intimidate authors in other countries, including the United States. Last year, the Association of American Publishers, Amazon.com, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and others filed an amicus brief in New York, arguing that such litigation "constitutes a clear threat to the ability of the U.S. press to vigorously investigate and publish news and information about the most crucial issues before the U.S. public." In early September, Representative Frank R. Wolf, Republican of Virginia, invited one of the co-authors of "Alms for Jihad" to discuss the book in a private meeting with intelligence workers and staffers from the Department of Homeland Security. Cambridge's settlement is "basically a book-burning," Wolf said in a telephone interview. "I think it will have a chilling effect."

This is not just a case about what is happening on the other side of the pond. There are serious concerns about ramifications in the US for legal maneuverings in the UK.

Celebrities and other public figures have long used English libel law to their advantage. In 2005, an English court ruled in favor of Roman Polanski in a suit against Vanity Fair. He had accused the magazine of defaming him in an article that quoted Lewis Lapham, the former editor of Harper's, as saying he had seen Polanski make a pass at a model while uttering the name of his wife, Sharon Tate, one week after her murder in 1969. In 2003, the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky won a libel suit against Forbes magazine, which he said had defamed him by linking him to organized crime. Since Sept. 11, more cases have focused on matters of international security. In 2004, Random House U.K. dropped its plans to publish Craig Unger's best-selling "House of Bush, House of Saud" for fear of libel lawsuits. (It was eventually published by Gibson Square, a small house with few assets to sue over, and became a best seller in Britain as well.)

When it comes to libel tourism, bin Mahfouz is something of a frequent flier; yet since he and his family have business interests, property and friends in England, his lawyer says they have "significant reputations" to protect there. In another closely watched case, he won damages against a New York author, Rachel Ehrenfeld, whose 2003 book "Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It" linked bin Mahfouz with Al Qaeda. Although the book wasn't published in Britain, it could be bought there online. In 2004, bin Mahfouz won damages and an apology from Pluto Press and the author Michael Griffin, whose "Reaping the Whirlwind" also said bin Mahfouz had financed Al Qaeda. In addition, bin Mahfouz has won damages from the newspaper The Mail on Sunday and received written apologies from several other authors.

In all those cases, bin Mahfouz said he and his family had never knowingly underwritten terrorism. In each case, defendants have paid settlements before trial. Under English law, bin Mahfouz has never had to appear in open court to disprove the accusations against him. "This guy has run roughshod over publishers and authors," said Judy Platt, director of the Association of American Publishers' Freedom to Read program. "Every time someone says something he doesn’t like, he takes them to court."

These scholars that are writing these books are coming to conclusions after carefully reviewing evidence. This evidence is then reviewed and checked by all these different publishing houses before the books get published.

But, if Financier of Holy Terror Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz disapproves, his lawyers file a lawsuit in the UK, and bin Mahfouz doesn't even have to show up in court, much less present evidence to cast doubt on the documented claims against him. He wins by default, and facts are never even discussed in court.

With all the power this guy has, maybe instead of Financier of Holy Terror, we should just call him "The Sharif".

"Alms for Jihad" was written by two experts on Sudan: J. Millard Burr, a retired State Department officer, and Robert O. Collins, an emeritus history professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It follows Saudi money through Islamic charitable organizations in Sudan, Southeast Asia, the Balkans and Chechnya, showing how some of it ended up financing terrorism. Though a tangential figure in the 350-page book, bin Mahfouz objected to 11 passages. He "amounts to nothing more ... than a grand footnote" in a larger story, Collins said.

It doesn't even matter how peripherally this guy is mentioned in the book!

Another point of contention is bin Mahfouz's role in the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, which the Manhattan district attorney charged in 1992 with bank fraud, bribery, the illegal shipping of arms and other offenses. In the errata slip sent to libraries, Cambridge says that contrary to what was reported in "Alms for Jihad," bin Mahfouz himself "was never alleged to have been involved in embezzlement, money laundering or the various other criminal offenses alleged against the B.C.C.I.," and that he "paid no personal fine." According to the Manhattan district attorney’s office, in 1993 bin Mahfouz paid a $225 million settlement for various charges — primarily related to the withdrawal of his investment — as part of the larger B.C.C.I. settlement, though he admitted no wrongdoing.

$225 million for withdrawal of his investment. Even Social Security isn't that messed up!

The Cambridge settlement also involves a document called the "Golden Chain," a list of 20 wealthy Saudi donors, including the bin Mahfouz family, that was found in a 2002 raid on the Sarajevo offices of an Islamic charity. In "Alms for Jihad," the authors say the document was a list of Qaeda financiers, an assertion also made in several other news accounts. Bin Mahfouz's lawyers counter that he himself was never included on the list; that even according to United States prosecutors, the list was of donors to the mujahedeen, not to Al Qaeda; and that the document was deemed inadmissible as evidence in cases in England and America, where judges in both places ruled it was not proof of support for Al Qaeda.

In its apology, Cambridge said it accepted "that at no time has any member" of the bin Mahfouz family "contributed to any terrorist organization, nor has the family ever had reason to believe that funds it has given over the years to a wide variety of charities ... have been used other than for the charitable purposes intended."

Cambridge should be sued for that remark.

Have they checked every coin of every member of the bin Mahfouz clan to see where and how it got spent?

Since that is impossible to do, their statement cannot be proven.

They had a book that was well-documented, accurate and true, they chickened out under pressure, and now they are spewing lies to avoid an accusation that they have been spewing lies.

(This, by the way, completely disproves the theory of evolution, because obviously Cambridge University Press is run by invertebrates!)

Kevin Taylor, of Cambridge's legal team, said a challenge to bin Mahfouz’s case would have been "absurd, suicidal and not in anyone's interest," since the courts had found some of the same statements defamatory before. Taylor said the press would now be more vigilant in its fact-checking and would consider "toning down statements" so "such actions won't stick, even under English libel law." "Our basic academic principles have not been undermined by this," he said. "It's more about process."

So ultimately, communist-style censorship triumphed in the UK after all. This goes far beyond politically-correct self-censorship.

Meanwhile, Rachel Ehrenfeld has refused to acknowledge the English ruling that awarded bin Mahfouz $225,900 in damages and ordered her to apologize and destroy all copies of "Funding Evil." An independent researcher who directs the American Center for Democracy, a group that "monitors and exposes the enemies of freedom," Ehrenfeld said she didn’t have the resources to contest the case. Instead, she has asked a federal court in Manhattan to rule that the English libel judgment is unenforceable in New York, on the grounds that it is effectively silencing her in America. In June, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declared her case "ripe" for hearing. "The issue may implicate the First Amendment rights of many New Yorkers, and thus concerns important public policy of the state," the court wrote.

Dr. Ehrenfeld's case against Sheikh bin Mahfouz has been of interest here at Stop Islamic Conquest -- I have a whole sidebar widget full of links to posts I have done about it.

Basically, she outflanked bin Mahfouz and hit him on a front where he perhaps was not expecting an attack.

Heh... :)

(You can be part of the action by going to Dr. Ehrenfeld's website and making a contribution to help fund her efforts.)

In a watershed case last fall, England's highest court ruled that The Wall Street Journal's European edition was working "in the public interest" when it reported in 2002 that Saudi Arabia, at the request of the United States, had been monitoring the bank accounts of several prominent businesses to see if they were being used to finance terrorist groups. Previously, even to report that someone was under government investigation was tantamount to defamation. In the ruling, one judge wrote that England needed "more such serious journalism, ... and our defamation law should encourage rather than discourage it."

Here's a title for a book: "A Clue Grows in England".

For their part, Burr and Collins recently reobtained the copyright to "Alms for Jihad" from Cambridge. They're now awaiting word from several American publishers who have expressed interest. If the book is published here, Collins said he would correct two errors: that the bin Mahfouz family intermarried with the bin Laden family, and that bin Mahfouz was chief executive of B.C.C.I., when in fact he was a director. Beyond that, he said, any changes would be up to the publisher. "There are three options," Collins said. To leave the book "as it is"; to "sanitize it"; or to "just delete Mahfouz the 11 times he appears."

Correct those two errors (this is what serious scholars do -- they review the evidence, and correct themselves), then publish it "as it is" and I guarantee a best-seller!

I wonder how The Sharif would like that?

Hat tip to my e-mail tipster!

Fightin' Words

There's a post over at Hot Air entitled The Forbidden Library. I reproduce it here in its entirety, italicizing the titles of books where that was not done in the original; please visit the original site and leave a nice comment for the author.

The Forbidden Library,
posted at 11:42 am on August 13, 2007 by Bryan

Peruse the “complete” list of banned and challenged books, and you won’t find a couple of titles that we’ve been discussing here on Hot Air lately. Neither Alms for Jihad nor Funding Evil, nor any of the other three books that Khalid bin Mafouz is attempting to suppress, are on the list. Perhaps the list just needs updating. Or perhaps the list’s authors aren’t aware of the legal jihad against free speech that runs from courtrooms in the UK to airplanes, campuses and courts in the US, to India and nearly everywhere else.

Since my last update, several of you have reported that your local libraries have copies of Alms for Jihad. It might be a good idea to inform libraries that have the book that Cambridge Press might request that their copies be returned. If librarians are aware of the reasons, they might decide to keep the books pending a ruling in Dr. Ehrenfeld’s case against Khalid bin Mafouz. And perhaps one or two of them will read Alms for Jihad and understand that the Patriot Act isn’t their most dangerous enemy: Libel tourists are.

I received Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed — and How to Stop It, by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld last week. Since it was published in the US, and since Dr. Ehrenfeld is courageously battling bin Mafouz almost singlehandedly to keep the book in publication, Funding Evil isn’t likely to be banned. But it’s still a book that’s worth getting soon, if you want to see how terrorism finance works laid out in exhaustive detail. Funding Evil will arm you with enough knowledge to see the outlines of the jihad strategy to spread sharia and Dar al Islam around the world. It is dense with enough detail to make it a vital reference, yet engaging and readable for mainstream audiences. It ought to be available in every library in America and the West.

Scanning the book, it’s not hard to see why Mr. bin Mafouz wants it squashed. He appears on page 22 accused of dropping tens of millions of dollars directly into terrorist bank accounts. He appears on page 39 dropping funds into the bank accounts of “charities” that are in turn known supporters of Hamas and al Qaeda. His family turns up throughout the book funding various causes that just happen to funnel money to terrorist groups. The book certainly either defames or defines his character. Given the fact that other authors have researched bin Mafouz’s finances and found similar financial connections and transactions, it’s more likely the latter. So he sues.

Dr. Ehrenfeld’s fight will set free speech precedent for decades to come. If she succeeds, overseas courts will not be able to punish authors whose books are published in the US but sold internationally via Amazon and other online outlets. If her fight fails, then Khalid bin Mafouz will use his billions to come after other American authors who expose how terrorism is financed and fueled by wealthy Saudis and others who appear to be trying to buy their way into paradise by funding worldwide homicide bombing. And he’ll come after US reporters, columnists and bloggers too. Her fight is our fight and your fight too.

Funding Evil is essential reading. With a foreword by former DCI James Woolsey and a critique of the 9-11 Commission report as well as details on terror financing and support for the legal jihad that reach right into the Saudi royal family, Funding Evil is indeed a book that the Saudis don’t want you to read.

Bin Mahfouz & his jihadi buddies will be coming after all of us; sooner or later, everyone who doesn't agree with them will be a target.

You can fight now, while Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is on the front line in a legal jihad, or you can wait until you are being sued.

Or, you can wait a little longer until the politically correct and gutless thought police are banging on your door.

Or, you can wait still more until the mindless khawarij automaton terrorists show up!

Sooner or later, you either fight or submit.

Fight now, while you still have a choice.

Fight now, while you still have allies to fight along side you.

Fight now! Help the Counterjihad -- help Rachel!

"...whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender...."
Winston Churchill

"All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time!"
Chesty Puller, USMC

"I have not yet begun to fight!"
John Paul Jones

Submit?

"That'll be the day!"
John Wayne

And that's not just a bunch of hot air, pilgrim!

-------- August 14 Update --------

One of my email tipsters mentioned the link so we could go and donate to Dr. Ehrenfeld's campaign at The Center for American Democracy. I replied that I already had it in another post.

Then another tipster mentioned it again.

Oh, I get it. (Finally! Duh!) The link needs to be prominent in every post, and easy to find, to make it as easy as possible for people to go and donate.

The American Center for Democracy
Support Page

Freedom isn't free, folks. Dr. Ehrenfeld is doing the hard part. Let's help her out!

-------- End of Update --------

Hat tip to my email tipsters!

Arab Imperialism and a Maldivian Blog

There's a brief post from August 2 over at The Dhivestan Report, entitled Maldivians reject their own for Arab imperial demands. Here it is, in its entirety:

“Islam is in its origins an Arab religion. Everyone not an Arab who is a Muslim is a convert. Islam is not simply a matter of conscience or private belief. It makes imperial demands. A convert’s worldview alters. His holy places are in Arab lands; his language is Arabic. His idea of history alters. He rejects his own; he becomes, whether he likes it or not, a part of the Arab story. The convert has to turn away from everything that is his. The disturbance for societies is immense, and even after a thousand years can remain unresolved; the turning away has to be done again and again. People develop fantasies about who and what they are; and in the Islam of the converted countries there is an element of neurosis and nihilism. These countries can be easily set on the boil.”

- V.S Naipaul

V. S. Naipaul has written two books on contemporary Islam:

Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey
Beyond Belief: Islamic Excursions Among the Converted Peoples

Islam started as an Arab religion.

As Islam spread throughout the world, other countries were forcefully converted to Islam, choosing to submit rather than face destruction at the hands of the Mujahideen. Consequently, as the Islamic world absorbed these non-Arab cultures, the Islamic world lost some of its Arab flavor.

In many ways, Islam was an instrument of Arab imperialism, but that aspect diminished in importance as the Arab world lost control over the caliphate.

Now, however, flush with petrodollars, Saudi Arabia, the place of Islam's two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina, is again spreading its own peculiar Wahhabist brand of Islam -- a very violent and radical form of Islam, one that seeks to weed out of the Islamic world any impurities. The new Arab imperialism is a financial, intellectual and mental jihad, an attempt to re-Arabify the Islamic world, even as it spreads Islam to more infidel lands.

Radical preachers of hatred, ostensibly leaders of the Religion of Peace, trained in Medina and funded by Saudi Arabia, radicalize mosques the world over; these mosques then become the hot points in their host society, bringing the countries that tolerate their intolerance to a violent, rolling boil.

There are Muslims who are truly peaceful. They lead peaceful lives, and really believe that Islam permits peaceful coexistence with other religions. They are not "moderates" -- they are very serious about their religion; they merely are not violent terrorist criminals. They can point to many passages in their holy texts to support their belief system.

The violent terrorist criminals make takfir out of those who believe in peaceful coexistence. They make a convincing argument, based on the totality of Islamic texts, that Islam must rule the world; anyone who disagrees with them is an infidel or an apostate, and must be violently subdued.

It is this latter view of Islam that is prevailing, thanks in very large part to funding from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; decent people in the Islamic world are being shouted down, intimidated, and murdered. Islam's borders are bloody, but so is Islam's interior.

The human, earthly battle against Islamic conquest is today, first and foremost, a battle against Arab imperialism that has been "reinvigorated" with the addictive hits of petrodollars, and that is now so "high" that it feels invincible.

Bonus Books

There was a bonus in my email today: someone had forwarded to me a press release from Bonus Books. Here it is (I adjusted the line breaks in the headline, and blanked out some of the contact information; the contact information is available at the Bonus Books website):

-----PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS-----

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

 

Contact: BONUS BOOKS

(310) 492-9400

 

 

 

U.S. Publisher Condemns
Cambridge University Press
for Conceding to Destroy Books
and Issue Apology

 

Jeffrey Stern cites libel "bullying,"

calling decision "outrageous" and "un-American"

 

 

 

AUGUST 3, 2007 (Los Angeles, CA) -- Jeffrey A. Stern, President and Publisher of Los Angeles-based Bonus Books, Inc., is speaking out about this week's decision by Cambridge University Press to destroy all unsold copies of their 2006 book, "Alms for Jihad," by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, in response to a libel action brought against them in British courts by Saudi billionaire Khalid Salim A. Bin Mahfouz.  In just one of a series of heavy-handed libel suits against American and British journalists and publishers filed in British courts in recent years, Mahfouz claimed that "Alms for Jihad" wrongly implicates him as having had a significant role in aiding terrorism.

 

In a similar attempt to halt the distribution of such claims, libel tourist Bin Mahfouz also filed a libel action in British courts against Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, after Bonus Books published her 2003 book "FUNDING EVIL: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It." Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy, also alleged Bin Mahfouz of backing organizations with alleged ties to terrorism, a charge that Mahfouz, formerly president of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, continues to deny.  But Ehrenfeld stands behind her research, and publisher Stern stands by his author.

 

"I find it utterly appalling that any publisher—let alone one with the history and perceived credibility of Cambridge University Press—would allow themselves to be bullied into making such a decision," Stern said.  "Clearly they must have supported the material before they agreed to a publishing deal with (U.S. authors) Collins and Burr.  It's only now, after being slapped with a suit in the U.K. by the likes of Bin Mahfouz, that they have suddenly decided to concede to demands to pull the book.  What's worse, they have not only agreed to pay damages but they have even gone so far as to issue a formal apology on their website, completely discrediting their authors as having made ‘defamatory allegations’ to which there was 'no truth whatsoever.'”  

 

"Alms for Jihad" authors Robert O. Collins, a professor emeritus of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara, and J. Millard Burr, a retired employee of the U.S. State Department, who were not personally named in the libel action, have refused to endorse their publisher's settlement.

 

"What happened to freedom of the press?" Stern said.  "We're talking about two very credible American writers here.  The very idea that these authors could be silenced in the U.S. by a British court is not only outrageous and fraught with frightening journalistic implications, it's simply un-American."

 

After several copies of the U.S.-released FUNDING EVIL happened to be purchased online by UK buyers, Bin Mahfouz filed suit against Ehrenfeld in Great Britain, where outdated libel laws still put the burden of proof on the defendant. Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay £114, 386.52 in fines and expenses, publish an apology and physically destroy her books.  Because she is a U.S. citizen who writes and lives in New York City, Ehrenfeld did not acknowledge the British court. Instead, she filed suit in New York, seeking to block enforcement of the judgment, citing it as contrary to the free speech protections that Americans enjoy.   In June, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, finding that Ehrenfeld's claim CAN be brought before a U.S. court.  The decision was hailed by prominent U.S. civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate as one of “the most important First Amendment cases” of the last quarter century.  As a result, every American-based writer and publisher in similar "libel tourism" situations can now seek a U.S. court decision, requesting that a foreign decision not be enforceable in this country.

 

In a recent Washington Times editorial about the Ehrenfeld case, scholar and Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer noted the release of a September 13, 2001 note from France's foreign intelligence agency, the DGSE (General Directorate of External Security).  He stated that French news site Geopolitique.com obtained the note in late June, revealing that in 1996, Bin Mahfouz was known to be one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden.  The report also claims that both U.S. and British intelligence services had knowledge of this.  “This is just the latest addition to the mountain of evidence from which Miss Ehrenfeld constructed her case in ‘Funding Evil,’” Spencer writes.  “Even if this evidence is all mistaken, the British libel judgment against Ehrenfeld appears all the more fantastic and unjustifiable in light of the fact that French intelligence agents had documents allowing them to come to the same conclusion she did.”

 

Ehrenfeld, who is also a Member of the Board of Directors of the Committee on the Present Danger (www.fightingterror.org), told the Chronicle of Higher Education on Monday that she finds Cambridge University Press' decision "despicable," and that as she understands it, they "caved immediately."  If and when the New York Court of Appeals decides that there is jurisdiction over Bin Mahfouz, Ehrenfeld's case would proceed on its merits—allowing Ehrenfeld to conduct pre-trial "discovery" of Bin Mahfouz's financial activities to further confirm the accuracy of her claims against him.  

 

"We commend Rachel Ehrenfeld for being strong-willed on this issue," Stern said.  "Allowing this sort of 'libel tourism' to continue stands to negatively impact every writer and publisher and the U.S.—not to mention the public, who is effectively being forced to fall victim to an insidious and unacceptable form of censorship."

 

 

 ###

 

------------

RELATED NEWS LINKS:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTU1YWI5NWI4MWMyYmI0ZTdlYzE2YzA1MjI2MzZmZTA=

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pam-meister/2007/08/02/not-much-ado-over-alms-libel-outcome

http://www.nysun.com/article/59706?page_no=1

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070720/EDITORIAL/107200016/1013/editorial

http://www.boston.com/ae/media/articles/2006/11/07/libel_tourism_and_the_war_on_terror/

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/reid061707.htm

8/2 - AUDIO INTERVIEW WITH RACHEL EHRENFELD (from Michelle Malkin's HOT AIR):

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/08/02/hot-air-audio-how-one-wealthy-jihad-supporter-is-using-uk-courts-to-killl-american-free-speech/

 

 

SOURCE:  Bonus Books Inc., Los Angeles, CA  (310) 492-9400

-----END OF PRESS RELEASE-----

I think that press release is a great summary of Dr. Ehrenfeld's case. The links are nice, too.


Here's what else is funny: Bin Mahfouz has seriously miscalculated.

The money he has spent, instead of silencing his opponents, is getting them publicity that neither they nor their publishers could ever have afforded on their own, or even dreamed of. Collins, Burr and Ehrenfeld are now not only authors; they are heroes of the War on Terror.

Bin Mahfouz's very actions demonstrate that the accusations against him must be true. Bin Mahfouz is not just a terror-financier; Bin Mahfouz is a terrorist. In fact, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz is The Libel Terrorist, and if he thinks he is going to silence us with his lawsuits, then he's Khalid Salim bin Smokinsumthin. In fact, the more he fights this, the more he comes out on the short end of the deal.

Here's the bargain: Those books might be hard to get now, but somebody will reprint them, because now, those books are required reading for those of us who are serious about not submitting.

Thanks to you, Sheikh bin Mahfouz, those books are on their way to being bestsellers, because obviously they must be hitting pretty close to home.

You should have quit while you were behind, Sheikh bin Mahfouz.

How's about this for a headline:

Saudi Billionaire Loses Pants
Trying to Save Face

Yes, indeed, Sheikh bin Mahfouz... I think you will find that now, these truly are

Bonus Books

Dr. Ehrenfeld's website: American Center for Democracy

Other posts I have done on this:

The Libel Terrorist

Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

Robert Spencer on Dr. Ehrenfeld's Situation


Hat tip to my email tipster.

No Comment

I was out looking at the blogs today, and I noticed that English Rose is back after a short absence. Reading her latest posts, I saw a comment at a post there. I reproduce it here in its entirety:

najistani said...
ISLAMIC TRIBALISM - THE MEGAMOSQUE IS AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE THE KAFFIRS

Viewed rationally, Islam is a non-starter. Its 'Holy' Book consists of half-digested fragments of Judeo-Christian theology, mixed with the bile of hatred, and spewed into the fair face of Christendom from the putrifying guts of a violent, deceitful, plundering pedophile. The Koran is full of historical, scientific and logical errors and even contradicts itself on numerous occasions. Not exactly the work of a Supreme Intellect!

And yet Muslims claim that these demented ramblings and rantings are the literal word of God Almighty, to be treated with utmost respect. They throw enormous tantrums when Korans are left in toilets or returned to libraries with bacon-rashers as bookmarks. In the Islamic paradise of Pakistan, damaging a Koran or insulting The Pedophile are punishable by death.

To understand Islam we need to look at the most primitive organisational state of mankind - Tribalism.

If we regard the Ummah as a tribe, and the Koran, the Pedophile and the Black Meteorite as the tribe's three main totems, we begin to get a better understanding of Islam. A tribe derives its identity and unity by displays of reverence towards supernatural totems, and feels insecure and threatened whenever the power of its totems is weakened, for example by the totems being 'humiliated' or 'polluted' . One of the surest ways of demoralising a tribe has always been to desecrate its totems.

This explains the rage at the Motoons, and the 'hate crime' of the Koran down the toilet. It also explains why the Saudi authorities made such a fuss when they found a Christian in Mecca. The precincts of the Holy Meteorite had been defiled by a najis kaffir.

Tribal culture and psychology are difficult for civilised people to understand. Most parts of Western Europe have not been organised tribally since the Dark Ages, so it's difficult to get inside Muslim mind and understand just how primitive and benighted are the psychological processes that go on there. For example:

- A tribe regards itself as perpetually at war with all other tribes - hence the Muslim worldview of Dar a-Harb in conflict with Dar al-Islam, and Ummah in conflict with Kaffir.

- The property and women of other tribes are there for the taking. Might is right - hence the Jizya, Razzia, white slaving etc which are all justified by the Koran. Tribalism also explains the chants of 'We will take your wives for booty' at the London Motoons demonstration - this is the typical behavior of the stone age savage.

- The ethics of reciprocity (do as you would be done by) only apply within the tribe. Hence the lack of any Golden Rule in Islam. The nearest you get to the Golden Rule in the Koran is desiring for your brother Muslim ('kin-selection') what you desire for yourself - in other words share out the booty equally.

- Loyalty to the tribe is of paramount importance - hence the punishment by death for apostates.

- The tribe must not mingle with other tribes or else it may lose its identity - hence the self-imposed ghettoisation and ethnic cleansing of Kaffirs from the periphery of the ghetto as seen in European cities.

- There is a great desire to destroy or humiliate the totems of other tribes, especially where they have phallic significance - hence the attack on the twin towers, and the plans for the MegaMosque whose minarets will be taller than any Christian building.

Muslims in the modern world are living fossils, though like dinosaurs suddenly set down on the streets of London, none the less dangerous for being so primitive. Islam appeals to the lowest and basest instincts of man, and in the absence of a strong, confident modern culture will gradually reduce its host society to a disfunctional state of anarchy where Islam can gain the upper hand.

Tribalism makes it impossible to defeat Islam by reason or appeals to decency. The Koran, the Pedophile and the Meteorite are not capable of being examined rationally or ethically - they are pre-rational symbols of tribal cohesion. And when that tribe is on a roll , and believes itself to be the strongest and fastest growing tribe, winning the Jihad against all the rest, no rational argument will persuade its warriors to abandon the winning side.

The Ummah may eventually have an 'Emperor's New Clothes Moment', but it will not come about by reviewing the evidence for a flat earth in the Koran. It is more likely to happen by military defeat in a European Civil War or World War III.

- Najistani

21 July 2007 06:31

I don't know if Najistani wrote all that, or merely copied it from somewhere; either way, there it is.

The above quote is a fairly comprehensive and systematic indictment of Islam.

It brought to mind a recent post that I made, entitled Rabid Lunatics, and specifically the comments to the post.

We were left with two questions, 1) "...why do there seem to be so many rabid lunatics?" and 2) "Is there a problem with Islam?"

My answer, in part was as follows:

Let me make my point by comparing Islam, as depicted in its holy book, the Koran, with Christianity as depicted in its holy book, the Bible -- specifically the New Testament.

Muslims follow Mohammed; Christians follow Christ.

Jesus Christ in the New Testament neither hurt others nor commanded that others be hurt. In fact, He refused to hurt others, even though they were hurting Him, unjustly.

Mohammed, on the other hand, both hurt others -- he was a warrior, was he not? -- and commanded his followers to hurt others -- he was a battlefield commander, was he not?

If a Christian is violent and hurts others, he is going against the example of Christ, and has very few of Christ's commands that could support such action.

If a Muslim is violent and hurts others, he has ample examples of his holy prophet both hurting others and commanding that others be hurt.

There is, as I see it, the answer to the questions posed.

First of all, I would like to point out that I have made indiscriminate remarks regarding Muslims. I've been blogging since February; it was in the beginning that I made comments that essentially lumped all Muslims together, and then were disrespectful to them all (not so much at my blog, but in comments left on posts at the blogs of others). I have learned a great deal since then; most significantly, I have made the on-line acquaintance of some Muslims who are very nice, fair, thoughtful, tolerant and intelligent people. For my indiscriminate remarks, I apologize; my remarks should at least have been more carefully targeted within the Islamic community.

Having said that, I still very vehemently disagree with Islam.

In Islamic Imperialism 101, I finished the post with the following remarks:

Islam's mission is to conquer the world, until Islam is the only "religion" practiced under the sun. This is the meaning of jihad; most Islamic scholars have never repudiated this.

Islam is the cannibalistic attack of one society on all others. Islam seeks to enslave humanity and drag it back to that dark cave in the Dark Ages, and force and trick a terrified humanity to submit, the way that evil entity forced and tricked a terrified Muhammad to submit to its will.

Islam is imperialism. At its core, Islam is evil.

In Islamic Imperialism 102, I finished the post with the following remarks:

Islam demands 1) your body, 2) your intellect, 3) your emotions, and 4) your very soul.

Islam is not just 1) corporal imperialism, 2) intellectual imperialism, 3) emotional imperialism, and 4) spiritual imperialism.

Islam is absolute, complete, tyrannical, multifaceted slavery.

Islam is Hell.

People are people; none are perfectly good, none are perfectly bad.

If you give people something good, they will pervert it and defile it; however, to a certain extent, because they are starting with something good, the deck is stacked in favor of finishing with something good.

That is how I view Christianity especially, and most of the world's other religions as well: these religions have a core that is good, and deficiencies are, to a great extent, the results of the religion's imperfect adherents.

Conversely, if you give people something bad, their imperfect adherence to it will result in something in which some good elements can be found, but the deck is stacked in favor of finishing with something bad.

Islam is an ideology of violent and uncompromising conquest. While other religions for the most part attempt to elevate their adherents to a common, higher level, Islam appeals to the lowest common denominator. By demanding submission, it promises slavery. Promising earthly treasures to its adherents who conquer infidels, and promising heavenly treasures to those who die trying, Islam yields a hierarchical world where morality is relative and motivation is self-centered, and where men, by nature and on average physically stronger, have women in submission to them. Mohammed's prophecy is thus fulfilled:

Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 464:

"... I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."

Islam means submission; submission in the Islamic world equates to slavery; and slavery is Hell.

The goal of Islam is the submission of people, that is, the conquest of people's bodies and souls; thus, Islam is an ideology of conquest.

Given the large number of adherents, it is only natural that many Muslims are wonderful people, and even an ideology as flawed as Islam, with the right people, can yield something positive. It is noteworthy, however, that many of the decent people in the Islamic world wish to reform or enlighten Islam somehow. This is in stark contrast to the "rabid lunatics" (terrorists and others) who not only insist on a strict interpretation of every iota of Islamic law, but insist on their strict interpretation, and not someone else's: khawarij, for example.

All of this then leaves me with the question: how can I assist those who wish to reform and enlighten Islam?

Well, I can suggest things that need to be eliminated from Islam, one by one, until, in the end, having eliminated enough, I am left with

NO COMMENT.

The Libel Terrorist

Here again is a comment on the story of Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld.

Briefly, Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and an author. One of her books connected a Saudi billionaire to the financing of terror. In the parts of the Islamic world where terror rules, terror (not truth) indeed rules, so the response was, naturally, an attempt to terrorize (legally, of course) Dr. Ehrenfeld into submission, so she would stop speaking the truth.

This Saudi billionaire, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz, went to the UK to sue her, since the legal system there favors the plaintiff, and won a judgement. Dr. Ehrenfeld is fighting back. For background at my blog, see Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Robert Spencer on Dr. Ehrenfeld's Situation; you can also read Dr. Ehrenfeld's work, and read about her work, at her website, The American Center for Democracy, and at The Terror Finance Blog, both of which you should consider required reading if you are one of those who refuses to submit.

With that background established, you are encouraged to read From the British Courts: A strange libel case that gives pause to authors and comfort to terrorism over at History on Trial.

Pointing out that Terrorist Financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz (may Allah be pleased with him) makes the slimmest of connections between his case and the United Kingdom in order to be able to sue there, the blogger, Deborah Lipstadt, refers to bin Mahfouz as a "libel tourist" -- a comment which is as hilarious as it is true.

However, I would go Deborah Lipstadt one further: Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz is not so much a libel tourist as he is a libel terrorist.

Most of the jihadis foolishly blow themselves up, in the hopes of taking some infidels, or even fellow Muslims, with them. They fight their holy war with firearms and explosives, but they do make a personal sacrifice.

Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz is more of a manipulator: he doesn't actually go to Allah himself, he just sends others on that journey and makes sure their tickets get paid. I guess you could say that bin Mahfouz goes to Allah first class, while the suicide bombers go coach.

Through his financial and legal jihad, Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz tries to silence people who seek to speak the truth. This is typical of much of the Islamic world today, because these people can't stand the truth; the truth about submission is ugly, and it hurts. So, they attempt to force us to deny the truth about their dysfunctional imperialistic agenda by intimidating us.

The first stop on the road to physical submission is mental and intellectual submission, and the first step toward that is causing us to have reservations about speaking the truth. After we stop speaking the truth, perhaps we will stop thinking it; and when that happens, we have already submitted, and it becomes just a question of wrapping a rag on our head or covering our face with a veil, and bowing toward Mecca.

Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz may be both a libel tourist and a libel terrorist, and he may be going to Allah first class, but he is, in the end, a terrorist, pure and simple.


Hat tip to a certain tipster for the heads-up!

"Imagine You're a Woman..."

Here are two articles from The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) addressing the daily life of women under Islamic Law.

First is Saudi Women's Rights Activist Wajeha Al-Huwaidar: For Saudi Women, Every Day Is a Battle, posted June 1, 2007:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Wajeha Al-Huwaidar, a Saudi women's rights activist, which aired on Hurra TV on May 26, 2007. [1]

To view this clip, please visit: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1465.




"There Are Five Types of Shackles, or Jails, For the Woman - if She Manages to Escape One, She Might Enter Another"

Wajeha Al-Huwaidar: "Saudi society is based on masters and slaves, or, to be more precise, masters and maids, because the masters are the men, and the slaves are the women."

[...]

"The ownership of a woman is passed from one man to another. Ownership of the woman is passed from the father or the brother to another man, the husband. The woman is merely a piece of merchandise, which is passed over to someone else - her guardian. How do you recognize a maid or a slave? The decision making is out of her hands. All the decisions are made by the master. Women today are not allowed to make any kind of decision - not about marriage, work, studies, medical treatment, leaving the house, or traveling."

[...]

"I believe that in general, for the Saudi woman, every day is a new battle. She needs to find ways to live on the face of this earth without colliding with the law, with men, with society, with the religious clerics, or with the political establishment. She is besieged. There are five types of shackles, or jails, for the woman - if she manages to escape one, she might enter another. The first is the tribe, then comes the family, then the religious institutions, the political establishment, and finally, society. Wherever you go, you encounter a battle. What are you to do? Within every Saudi woman, there is a Scheherazade. Imagine Scheherazade trying every night to stay alive until the next night. That's how I see the Saudi woman. Some might say that I am exaggerating, but..."

Interviewer: "Some say your perspective is a bleak one."


"The Woman is Raised to Fear Man and Society"

Wajeha Al-Huwaidar: "It's not bleak. I am being realistic. I know that some of our women live in prosperity and freedom, and I am one of them, but to what extent? To what extent do you own what you possess? Nadine, hypothetically speaking, if whoever gave you that freedom decided to take it away from you - would you have the ability to escape this punishment?"

[...]

"The woman is raised to fear man and society."

Saudi author Khaled Al-Ghanami: "So why does she accept this upbringing?"

Wajeha Al-Huwaidar: "Because she stands to lose a great deal, if she rebels. When a man rebels, he might collide with the political establishment only. But when a woman collides with several institutions. Ultimately... I don't know if you've noticed, but when a woman begins to become liberated, she is not respected by society, but when a man raises the banner of liberation, and calls for equality and liberalism, he is highly respected and is always given prominence. Even the state shows respect for a man who speaks freely, but it shows no respect for a woman who speaks freely. She pays the price on every level - her family, religion, and society. Ultimately, I think women are greatly feared. When I compare the Saudi man with other Arab men, I can say that the Saudi is the only man who could not compete with the woman. He could not compete, so what did he do with her?"

Khaled Al-Ghanami: "Why couldn't he compete?"

Wajeha Al-Huwaidar: "Because he has great fear of the woman. The woman has capabilities. When women study, they compete with the men for jobs. All jobs are open to men. 90% of them are open to men. You do not feel any competition. I'm not competing with you for your job. Saudi men do not face competition from non-Saudi men, who are also considered of lower status. The Saudi is a man who has never known the meaning of exerting efforts in order to realize a dream. That is the Saudi man. I am not talking about all men, but about most of them. If you do not face competition from the Saudi woman, and not from the non-Saudi man, you have the entire scene for yourself. All positions and jobs are reserved for you. Therefore, you are a spoiled and self-indulged man."

It's easy in the above quote to see what Islam does to women, but think for a moment how it imprisons the men, as well: it makes them "spoiled and self-indulged" and unable to compete.

And, from Saudi Author: Imagine You're Woman, posted October 24, 2005 (numbers in brackets refer to notes; see original):

Saudi author Badriyya Al-Bishr, a lecturer in social sciences at King Saud University, recently published an article titled "Imagine You're a Woman" in the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

The following are excerpts from her article: [1]


"Imagine you're a woman. When your brother is born, people say: 'It's a boy, how wonderful,' and when you are born they say: 'How wonderful, it's a little girl' – using the diminutive form. [2] Your arrival is welcome if [you are] the first or second girl, but it's best if there are no more than two, so that nothing undesirable happens to the mother. On the other hand, your brothers' arrivals are welcomed – the more the merrier.

"Imagine you're a woman. You always need your guardian's approval, not only regarding your first marriage, as maintained by the Islamic legal scholars, but regarding each and every matter. You cannot study without your guardian's approval, even if you reach a doctorate level. You cannot get a job and earn a living without your guardian's approval. Moreover, there are people who are not ashamed to say that a woman must have permission to work even in the private sector.

"Imagine you're a woman, and the guardian who must accompany you wherever [you go] is your 15-year-old son or your brother, who scratches his chin before giving his approval, saying: 'What do you think, guys, should I give her my permission?' Sometimes he asks for... a bribe [in return], heaven forbid! [But] your brother avoids taking such a bribe in 'cash' because his self-respect prevents him from touching a woman's money. So he prefers the bribe to be a car, a fridge, or an assurance of money that you will pay in installments [for him], until Allah gets him out of his financial straits...

"Imagine you're a woman, and you are subject to assault, beatings, or murder. When the press publishes your photo [together with] the photo of the criminals and [descriptions] of their brutality, there are people who ask: 'Was the victim covered [by a veil] or not?' If she was covered up, [the question arises:] 'Who let her go out of the house at such an hour?' In the event that your husband is the one who broke your ribs, [people will say] that no doubt there was good reason for it.

"Imagine you're a woman whose husband breaks her nose, arm, or leg, and you go to the Qadi to lodge a complaint. When the Qadi asks you about your complaint, and you say, 'He beat me,' he responds reproachfully 'That's all?!' In other words, [for the Qadi], beating is a technical situation that exists among all couples and lovers, [as the saying goes]: 'Beating the beloved is like eating raisins.'

"Imagine you're a woman, and in order to manage your affairs you must ride in a 'limousine' with an Indian or Sri Lankan driver... or that you [must] wait for a younger brother to take you to work, or that you [must] bring a man who will learn to drive in your car, and will practice at your expense... because you yourself are not permitted to drive.

"Imagine you're a woman in the 21st century, and you see fatwas [issued] by some contemporary experts in Islamic law dealing with the rules regarding taking the women of the enemy prisoner and having sexual intercourse with them. Moreover, you find someone issuing a fatwa about the rules of taking the women of the enemy prisoner even in times of peace, and you don't know to which enemy women it refers.

"Imagine you're a woman who writes in a newspaper, and every time you write about your [women's] concerns, problems, poverty, unemployment, and legal status, they say about you: 'Never mind her, it's all women's talk.'"

This "submission" that these guys want is evil, and it has to be stopped.