Thread: How the UK and Canada are facilitating Islamic censorship

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24176

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of
the press are dead in Britain. The same sorts of people who killed them in
Britain are killing them in Canada. They and their allies are using the
British and Canadian courts and tribunals to bury our First Amendment rights
in America.

Muslims -- individually and in pressure groups -- are using British libel
laws and Canadian "human rights" laws to limit what is said about Islam,
terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding
groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove
the point.

Dr. Ehrenfeld is a scholar and author of the book, "Funding Evil: How
Terrorism is Financed, and How to Stop it." In that book, Khalid Salim bin
Mahfouz -- a Saudi who is former head of the Saudi National Commercial
Bank -- and some of his family are described as having funded terrorism
directly and indirectly.

Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she
has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit
courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of
her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for
libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what
it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true,
rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.


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

Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political
writing -- free speech -- is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a
politician -- or someone suspected of terrorist ties -- would have to prove
that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such
as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he'd not only have to prove
that what was written was false, he'd also have to prove it was published
maliciously.

Those American laws and standards of proof protect political speech. The
First Amendment is intended to protect political speech that people find
objectionable. In the landmark 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the
Supreme Court overturned an Ohio statute which would have outlawed hate
speech by the Ku Klux Klan. That's why Mahfouz sued in Britain, not here.

Ehrenfeld refused to fight the case, saying the Brit courts have no
jurisdiction over her. Mahfouz got a default judgment against her for
?10,000 (for himself, and in equal amounts for his sons). The judgment also
requires that there be no further "defamatory" statements published in
England and Wales.

In a letter published in the Spectator on November 21, bin Mahfouz's lawyers
gloated over their victory against Ehrenfeld: "Rather than check her facts,
defend her statements in open court, or acknowledge her mistakes, Ehrenfeld
hides behind a claim to free speech. Thank goodness, the legal lights remain
on in Britain to expose such harmful journalism."

"Harmful journalism" is what tyrants and despots call free speech,
especially political speech that condemns their affronts to freedom. The
"legal lights" Mahfouz's lawyers see is the bonfire they made of the Magna
Carta. Thanks to Mahfouz and his ilk, the light of free speech is
extinguished in Britain. Consider the fate of the book, "Alms for Jihad."

In 2006 Cambridge University press published "Alms for Jihad." It's a highly
detailed and apparently well-researched book that documents Saudi funding of
terrorist groups (as well as other funding and the network of Islamic
"charities" that contribute to terrorism). "Alms for Jihad" -- like
Ehrenfeld's book -- documents bin Mahfouz's funding ties to terrorism,
including to Usama bin Laden. But "Alms"-- in settlement of a libel suit by
bin Mahfouz in the Brit courts -- was withdrawn from stores and libraries
and unsold copies destroyed. The Saudi book burners won.

Mahfouz's case against Ehrenfeld has already done enormous harm in the US.
Ehrenfeld told me she's unable to get book publishers to contract for
another book. She said all of the major US publishing houses have turned
down a book on the Muslim Brotherhood -- thought to have substantial
terrorist ties -- and the Saudis' involvement in funding it.

If what Ehrenfeld writes about the Brotherhood offends Mahfouz or someone
else whose ties to terrorism ought to be exposed, sales could be banned not
only in Britain but in the entire European Union and the publisher -- and
the author -- made liable for damages. Mahfouz -- using British courts that
have no jurisdiction over American authors -- has apparently precluded
Ehrenfeld from writing another book. Steyn's case is another instance of
Muslims trying to silence "harmful journalism."

Mark Steyn's superb book, "America Alone", makes two important points:
first, that the Muslim baby boom around the world will likely result in
Christian nations becoming Muslim by weight of demographics; and second that
Islam is a political system, not just a religion:

So it's not merely that there's a global jihad lurking within this
religion, but that the religion itself is a political project and, in fact,
an imperial project in a way that modern Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and
Buddhism are not. Furthermore, this particular religion is historically a
somewhat bloodthirsty faith in which whatever's your bag violence-wise can
almost certainly be justified.

Steyn's stance -- written by him and paralleled by other writers in the
Canadian magazine, "Macleans" -- is the subject of a complaint to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission brought by three Muslim law students in
Canada, with the apparent support of the Canadian Islamic Conference. That
group is similar to the CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is a multiculti kangaroo court. The
complaint against Macleans will be adjudicated next year, and findings
entered against the magazine. (Steyn told me that the CHRC has granted 100%
of the petitions brought to it so far.) What then?

Fines and other sanctions will be entered against Macleans along with
probable injunctions against further "harmful journalism" that offends
Muslims. A case may be brought against Steyn himself later. Which means
that he could be subjected to fines or other penalties in Canada for
exercising his First Amendment rights in the US. And -- because American
publishers look to Canada for about 10% of their sales -- Steyn may, like
Ehrenfeld, find publishers unwilling to publish his work.

What has happened to Ehrenfeld and may happen to Steyn is in contravention
of their First Amendment rights. No American court would or could do that.
No foreign court or commission should be able to. US courts, and each of us
who believes in free speech, must stand with both authors. US courts should
make it clear that foreign libel judgments or "human rights" decisions that
conflict with our First Amendment cannot be enforced.

Each and every presidential candidate should speak -- loudly and clearly --
against this encroachment of foreign law on the First Amendment. Anyone who
doesn't stand forthrightly against these foreign infringements on Americans'
Constitutional rights should receive neither our confidence nor our votes.

What Muslims such as Mahfouz and those complaining against Steyn are doing
to destroy free speech overseas has been commenced here by groups such as
CAIR. A few weeks ago, CAIR announced its media guide, which is purportedly
corrects "misperceptions" about Islam and ".educate(s) the media and
disabuse(s) journalists of misinformation." But the other aspect -- which I
and others suspect -- is that it's not so much a guide as a set of rules
against "harmful journalism." And those who write about terrorism, Saudi
Arabia and Islam will be accused of intolerance and racism should they
violate them.

We don't yet know what the CAIR guide says. I requested a copy of it from
CAIR by e-mail, as they specified. I have neither received a copy nor
received any response. I suspect CAIR wants to hide it from people who would
scrutinize it. Having to operate under our Constitution, they will take a
more indirect path than Mahfouz and the Canadian law students to preclude
what they believe is "harmful journalism."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Babbin is the editor of Human Events. He served as a deputy
undersecretary of defense in President George H.W. Bush's administration. He
is the author of "In the Words of our Enemies"(Regnery,2007) and (with
Edward Timperlake) of "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States"
(Regnery, 2006) and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse
than You Think" (Regnery, 2004). E-mail him at jbabbin@eaglepub.com.

there are trying to do the same thing to Michael Savage