Supporters of Islamic totalitarianism are using courts to silence their critics and advance their agendas as the American mainstream media barely take notice.
Take the case of Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, the billionaire alleged funder of terrorism, and his dogged critic, Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. Their story has been chronicled here by the Moving Picture Institute. (Newsbusters' Pam Meister wrote about the sheikh's virtual book burning activities this summer. The sheikh defends himself at his own website.)
The litigious bin Mahfouz, a Saudi citizen, manufactured his own cause of action and then sued Ehrenfeld, a criminologist who wrote a book on terrorism financing, for libel in a British court, and –astonishingly— won. According to Ehrenfeld, a citizen of the United States, bin Mahfouz is “not a key figure in the book.”Ehrenfeld does not reside in the United Kingdom, is not a U.K. citizen, and did not offer her book, Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It, for sale in Britain.
She says bin Mahfouz gamed the legal system, arranging for 23 copies of her book to be imported into the U.K. in order to give that country’s courts jurisdiction. She did not defend the action, explaining that she refused to recognize the jurisdiction of a British court over her freedom of speech. In 2005 bin Mahfouz won a default judgment and the court ordered Ehrenfeld to pay 30,000 British pounds, publish an apology, and keep her books out of the U.K.
It should be noted that the British have very strange ideas about defamation. In the topsy-turvy world of British libel law, it is assumed that the statements alleged to have harmed the plaintiff's reputation are false, which places the burden of proof squarely on the defendant. To digress for just a moment, the prospect of bringing such a legal regime to the U.S. would undoubtedly stimulate the salivary glands of members of the ambulance-chasing set also known as the American Trial Lawyers Association (a group that in a deft public relations move renamed itself the more respectable-sounding "American Association for Justice").
As law professor Richard N. Winfield explains, fans of Islamic radicalism have discovered the loose libel laws of Jolly Olde England, which had led to the so-called “Arab Effect,” a term that describes “the surge of libel suits brought in recent years in English courts by wealthy Arab plaintiffs…[but] More important[ly], it describes the impact of these suits on the law and on coverage of the war on terrorism.” Winfield continues:
“Despite negligible ties to England, and in some cases, despite minuscule publication of the offending coverage in England, the Arab plaintiffs found jurisdictional homes in the open arms of the English courts. And once jurisdiction was firmly established, the Arab plaintiffs exploited every advantage offered by England's notoriously plaintiff-friendly libel laws."
Clearly, bin Mahfouz is contributing to the “Arab Effect.” He has “filed more than thirty-six lawsuits in London against various media and publishers, many of them American,” says Ehrenfeld. The publisher of American journalist Craig Unger was intimidated into not publishing his best-selling book House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties, in Britain. The publisher refused to publish the book in that green and pleasant land out of fear of being sued.
Stateside, Ehrenfeld is fighting back. She is suing bin Mahfouz in the U..S. court system and hopes to establish a precedent that would block foreign courts from exercising authority over American authors.
That Islamofascists have discovered the importance of legal forum isn't all that shocking. Islamists and other enemies of Western civilization have been using the U.S. court system for years, with the enthusiastic complicity of useful idiot lawyers such as those at Greenwich Village’s Center for Constitutional Rights.
Meanwhile, the U.S. media have said next to nil about Ehrenfeld’s plight. A three-month Nexis search for mentions of “Rachel Ehrenfeld” yields only a handful of hits, among them: a 696-word AP article (Nov. 15), a 478-word item in The Economist (Nov. 8), a 715-word op-ed by two professors in the New York Times (Oct. 11), a 1,606-word New York Times book review focusing on bin Mahfouz’s adventures (Oct. 7), and a 721-word op-ed in the Washington Times (Oct. 19).
Given that the U.S. is fighting two wars against Islamism overseas, you’d think a courageous author’s struggle to uncover the truth about who is funding terrorist groups might merit a bit more attention from our press.
—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch at the Capital Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Attention all
November 26, 2007 - 17:57 ET by alamojbAttention all shoppers,
Truthmonger to the front of the store, please.
Mr. Vadum, The media is also
November 26, 2007 - 18:01 ET by alamojbMr. Vadum, The media is also ignoring the emerging parrallel sharia legal systems in Europe. A while back I posted some stuff over in the "forum" about this, specifically in Britain.
Shiekworthy
November 26, 2007 - 18:15 ET by acumenMaybe it's time for a class-action lawsuit against the publishers of the koran in Great Britain.
On behalf of all non muslims in England and elsewhere I find the countless use of the term "infidel" in the koran to be outrageous, egregious, preposterous, libelous and a cause for REAL harm to much more than simply reputation.
I'll bet such a suit against the "religion of peace" would certainly get the terrorist enablers in the old media's attention.
ROMP BOMP! HERE COMES
November 26, 2007 - 18:17 ET by JimboROMP BOMP! HERE COMES TRUTH MONGER!
Save yourselves!
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Toooo funny Jimbo
November 26, 2007 - 19:11 ET by acumenTooooo funny Jimbo - Not to worry...I flushed the evidence.
Given that the U.S. is
November 26, 2007 - 18:25 ET by DaBirdGiven that the U.S. is fighting two wars against Islamism overseas....
But we must all remember, according to the U.S. media the U.S. isn't fighting two wars against Islamism, George W. Bush is fighting two wars against something or another. That is until the U.S. wins this thing, then the media will be shouting from the roof tops "We won, we won!"
The gaul of the MSM will be
November 26, 2007 - 18:27 ET by JimboThe gaul of the MSM will be astounding. They will pretend like the last several years never happened and that they were behind it all along. Of course, the other MSM outlets will go along...
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Islamism
November 27, 2007 - 01:34 ET by Lame CherryWith all due respect Mr. Vadum, there is far too much ignorance in people using words like Islamofascist when in essence your use of the word Islamism is far more correct in this case.
There are very few Islamofascists in the broad scheme of this. bin Laden and his slaughtered group at Tora Bora are almost the only surviving members now of the original Bana Nazi of Egypt which gave rise to the Muslim Brotherhood.
In that though Zawahiri was Muslim Brotherhood until he was caught by the Russians in Chechnya and offered a better deal whereby he joined the ISLAMOCOMMUNISTS of Syria Ba'athists, Iranian Ba'athists and Saddam Ba'athists now virtually eliminated.
In effect, the Islamocommunist movement is what has hijacked al Qaeda, was slaughtering enemy Suni and Shia in Iraq and led by Zawahiri are now the terror arm of Iran and Russian along with the Qod forces.
This is vital to understand because the Muslim Brotherhood current worldwide status spars not so much in the socialist realm, but leans toward the communist too. Keith Ellison in our own Congress is a follower of this sect in his public admissions which are a basic plan of bringing down standing governments BY POLITICAL MEANS and replacing them with Muslim rule. If the political does not bring results then violence is the chosen doctrine. All of this reflects Bolshevik revolutionary teaching and not Nazi doctrines.
It is why Putin is using the Islamocommunists as the 5th column for the pinning down of Europe for it's annexation by the Russian superstate in coming years.
In this is Mahfouz who operates literally as much as Saudi Arabia does in a mix of fascism (government control of business) but with Islam replacing the socialist order. Yes Saudi Arabia is an Islamofascist type state, but one has to be very understanding in they are not worshippers of the Bana Nazi.........yes bin Laden promoted the teaching from his teacher, but the Bana Nazi movement is housed in Aryan or Iran who took the name to impress the Nazi regime of Hitler for their freedom from British rule in World War II.
The Saudi government did indeed promote the Wahabbist sect in building mosques as a spiritual guidance. This same government though funded with Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
In looking at the financial records Mahfouz as much as the "other " bin Ladens were part of the vast CIA money laundering operation (Hillary Clinton was part of this in the Rose Law Firm using the PROMIS software) coupled with Saudi funding of American off the books foreign policy.
For example the Sultan of Brunei was approached by Ronald Reagan to save England when that communist George Soros made a run on the pound and smashed the British economy which was pure economic warfare and rape. He runs free and no one writes books about him.
In this Mahfouz originally was funding American backed sects which were hammering the Soviet Union. Many of these sects run by the Pak CIA have been purchased with Russian oil money and are no longer western friendly and is why Pakistan is erupting into the terror hub it is as the Islamocommunists are running things there now.
Mahfouz may indeed have a libel claim, but not in Britain. He is shadey in dealings, but that is the world he has operated in for years. One does not have billions in oil money without it ending up being put to use in cartel causes.
One can examine the Rothschilds of Europe in their promoting funding for terrorists in the "palestinians" in murdering Judeans so their familiar sect of Ashkenaz can rule the Israeli state in a communist dictatorship.
None of this is to acquit nor support Mahfouz, but when Jimmy Carter started dumping millions of dollars in creating the Muhajadeen to make up for his failed socialist policies and Bill Clinton brought the Muhajadeen out of Afghanistan and into Kosovo for his oil war which turned them into al Qaeda which is now a pro Russian Putin Bolshevik terror wing of the FSB and GRU...........well yesterday's Carter/ Clinton funder is todays terror funder as the Russian and Chinese communists took control.
Mahfouz is more like a bazaar money changer using his fortune to be a king where he can never be one in Saudi Arabia. Allot of these people are just trying to make up for lack of self esteem and allot of these problems could be stopped if the American government would just sit down and explain the facts of living and dying to them.
If this policy had been done when bin Laden was humiliated by the Saudi's in sending him away, there never would have been a 9 11........at least instigated by bin Laden. He would still be on the United State's side and literally at war with Zawahiri and most of the Islamocommunist regimes in the region. bin Laden is now only being kept around for the Islamocommunists to blame when they cut loose with their nuclear arsenal.
Ms. Ehrenfeld like most of the "experts" hammering away on things they find in books for profit would perhaps be better served in explaing for book deals in depth what I touched on above in my work.........as all she has done now is antagonize a very rich Arab who is going to set legal precidents which CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda operatives will indeed start using against western people's in court.
Mahfouz is furious at being called a terror funder when he was being blessed by the same people who got elected President for having a part in policy which aided western interests. Marc Rich ges a pardon and no books investigating him, but Mahfouz gets an incomplete book investigating him.
It would have been allot better if the critic had written this Arab's story as she would have learned things which she would not have believed as you can not run the Saudi banking system without having your fingers in American and European cartels as they confiscate all the money for "their use".
Thank you for listening.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Neville Chamberlain ... how's it going?
November 27, 2007 - 09:40 ET by jonathanandersonProverbs 10:19
In the multitude of words there wanteth [lacketh] not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
"Islamofascist" is just another word for "islamic militant" ... stop arguing with the mirror.
The laws in England are
November 27, 2007 - 11:07 ET by Dan The Man 2The laws in England are kinda strange indeed, included in the publishing laws are laws taht say you cant resell books. The book selling rights actualy belong to the publisher and author. This also precludes copying parts of it without permission.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.