Banned in the U.K.--British libel laws barred me from my own meeting on how to combat terror.

I was prevented from attending a meeting last weekend that I organized in the U.K. on "How to Combat Terror Financing." Had I gone, I would have been in jeopardy due to British libel laws.

I have been sued for libel in London by the Saudi billionaire Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz because my book, Funding Evil, documents how his charity, the Muwafaq Foundation, “transferred at least $3 million, on behalf of Khalid bin Mahfouz, to Usama bin Laden, and assisted al Qaeda fighters in Bosnia,” according to testimony of former National Security advisor Richard Clarke. Bin Mahfouz sued in London, because British libel laws guarantee that he could win without challenging the facts.

The British libel laws are so destructive that they affect writers and publications who never set foot in Britain and never published there. They are used effectively by Saudi billionaires who can afford the steep legal fees to silence successfully writers and publishers around the world who attempt to expose how the Saudis have funded and continue to fund the spread of Wahhabism, Islamist radicalism, and indoctrination that leads to global terrorism.

British libel laws are not the only tools that the Islamists use to silence their opponents. They exploit the laws that are designed to ensure freedom to subvert democracies throughout the world. And what they cannot achieve by exploiting the laws, they often achieve through intimidation and invoking political correctness.

Their success is demonstrated by Britain’s submission to Islamic will. These include the Dudley Council’s ban on all representations of pigs - “in the name of tolerance” - and the Tate Gallery’s cancellation of John Latham's “God Is Great," portraying Christian, Muslim, and Jewish holy-books, “because it could upset Muslims.” This submission is surprising in a people who stood up to the Nazis and did not bend under the Blitz. But now, the Queen knights a Muslim "community leader," Iqbal Sacranie, after he praises former Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin at his memorial service. In fact, Sacraine has also stated publicly, that "death is perhaps too easy" for Salman Rushdie.

This British submission did not help stop the July 7 bombings or the later bombing attempts. But even after the attacks, the Prime Minister appointed to the new anti–terror task force, which they call “the working group on tackling extremism,” Muslim advisers who are known to support Radical Islam, including Tariq Ramadan. Ramadan's U.S. visa was revoked last year, and he is believed to have connections to al Qaeda. Furthermore, last August, to enable Ramadan to speak at a gathering of Muslim youth in London, Scotland Yard contributed $15,000 of taxpayers money. Ramadan, who is also believed to have organized a meeting between Ayman al Zawahiri and Sheik Abdel Rahman currently teaches at St. Antony College, in Oxford. Another advisor to the Prime Minister’s task force, Inayat Bunglawala, was appointed despite his public praise of bin Laden as a “freedom fighter.”

This submissive attitude also leads the British to turn a blind eye to the sale of books like Mein Kampf and The Protocol of The Elders of Zion, which are printed in Egypt and Lebanon in Arabic and distributed in and from London to the rest of Europe. Clearly, the British legal system that banned my book seems to see nothing wrong with this anti-Semitic propaganda, even though this propaganda helps to create the climate that encourages Jihadist recruits from all over Europe to come to Britain to join the international brigade of Jihadis. From Britain, the Jihadis go on to fight British and American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Statements, new laws and banning terrorist organizations are important, but they are useless as long as Islamo-Fascism is allowed to flourish. As President Bush emphasized earlier this month, Islamo-Fascism cannot be eliminated by appeasement, or by dialogue, or negotiated solutions, as many falsely believe, especially in Europe. Indeed, without the political will to stop the direct and indirect financing of terrorism, no law or convention will stop it.

We should have tried to stop the spread of Wahhabism and Islamo–Fascism two decades ago. Our inaction, as much as their efforts, facilitated the funding of terrorism that has killed and maimed many thousands. In addition, Islamo-Facism has already infected tens of millions around the world with a hatred of democracy and freedom.

Although prevented from doing my job in the U.K., I’m challenging the funders of terrorism in the U.S. so as to defend my First Amendment rights. I have sued Khalid bin Mahfouz in the Southern District of New York.

UK Libel Laws

Muslim ex-pop star Cat Stevens wins libel damages from British Papers

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/005063.php

George's dirty secrets:

In Iraq, reporters from the Telegraph newspaper uncovered Iraqi documents showing that:

George Galloway was in Saddam's pay, secretly receiving about 375,000 British pounds a year in bribes.
George Galloway diverted monies from the oil-for-food program, thus depriving the Iraqi people of food and medicines.

George Galloway used the Mariam Appeal, a campaign he launched to raise money for an Iraqi girl with leukemia, as a front for personal enrichment.

George Galloway never challenged that the documents were genuine. But, under the reprehensible libel laws in the UK, it isn't enough for the documents to be genuine; the defendant in a libel trial must also prove that the documents are true.

http://panda.com/advocacy.html

Galloway awarded £150,000 damages over newspaper libel
02-12-2004

George Galloway won £150,000 libel damages from The Daily Telegraph today over allegations that he was in the secret pay of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=8487

MP George Galloway has accepted damages and a public apology over an American newspaper article that alleged he accepted money from Saddam Hussein.

Mr Galloway, expelled by Labour for his stance on the Iraq war, said he had been "completely vindicated".

The Christian Science Monitor admitted a set of documents upon which it based its story were "almost certainly" fake.

The MP, who described the settlement as "substantial", has always denied taking cash from the Iraqi regime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3549679.stm

By Alyssa A. Lappen
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 18, 2005

When billionaire sheik Khalid Salim a bin Mahfouz uses the London courts to attack his critics, there is little most people can do. In dozens of cases to date, reporters and newspapers have apologized, settled or backed off completely from stories critical of bin Mahfouz. But one truth-seeker isn't backing down.

In December 2004, investigative reporter and American Center for Democracy director Rachel Ehrenfeld bucked a dangerous trend and responded to a preposterous allegation with her own U.S. lawsuit. In Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim a bin Mahfouz, the author seeks a declaratory judgment that her assailant could not prevail against her in the U.S. on libel charges arising from her 2003 book, Funding Evil. The case was assigned to Manhattan Federal Judge Richard Casey, who is also handling the bulk of the 9/11 lawsuits.

Ehrenfeld's attorney, Daniel Kornstein, considers her suit as important as New York Times v. Sullivan—the 1964 case in which the courts decided for the first time “the extent to which the constitutional protections for speech and press limit a State's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official...”

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18781

A book investigating links between rich Saudis and US politicians has been suppressed by the giant publishing firm Random House because, it says, of growing "libel tourism" by wealthy foreigners, and exorbitant legal "success fees."

Libel lawyers are stifling free speech, the deputy chairman of Random House, Simon Masters, said last Wednesday.

The UK publication of House of Bush, House of Saud, by the American writer Craig Unger, has been cancelled because Secker and Warburg, a Random House subsidiary, says it can no longer afford such risks.

The UK publication of House of Bush, House of Saud, by the American writer Craig Unger, has been cancelled because Secker and Warburg, a Random House subsidiary, says it can no longer afford such risks.

The book focuses in part on the activities of a Jeddah-based Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz, who has been engaged in a war of words in the US, where there have been public accusations by officials linking him and others to funding received by Osama bin Laden.

'snip'

"Forum shopping'' by wealthy foreigners attracted to Britain's draconian libel laws was made worse, he said, by "the willingness of some law firms to take cases on a no-win no-fee basis. The firms who take on such clients will if successful, present hugely inflated bills, the costs of which can be awarded against the defendant in addition to any damages".

He called this system disgraceful. A libel fight was immensely time-consuming and potentially hugely expensive -- "vastly more than the publisher could hope to earn from the book''.

The UK libel system, he said is "stifling legitimate freedom of speech".

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2004/04/04/2003116647

MIM: In 1998 Al Muhajiroun member Javaid sued for libel at being named a supporter of Usaama Bin Laden - claiming he thought that the terrorist group Al Muhajiroun was a 'social and educational organisation'

http://artsweb.bham.ac.uk/bmms/1998/10October98.html

Makbool Javaid is taking libel action against several British newspapers which reported him as being a supporter of Usama bin Ladin and a member of "the London based fundamentalist group, al-Muhajiroun" (see BMMS for August 1998). The allegations started with a letter that was sent to the Home Secretary, Jack Straw, by the Jewish Board of Deputies, saying that these involvements were incompatible with the newly set up Race Relations Forum, to which Javaid was hoping to be appointed. Javaid has denied the allegations saying he was only involved with al-Muhajiroun as a legal observer, and would not have helped them if he had known of their support for terrorism: "I knew al-Muhajiroun as an organisation involved in a wide range of educational and social activities consistent with the promotion of Islam. I have never supported any form of violence, let alone terrorism" (The Times, 20.10.98). Speaking of the Board of Deputies he said: "It's rich of the Board, which is not even accepted as a representative of the Jewish Community, telling an elected government how to conduct its business and dictating which voices from other communities are acceptable" (Q-News, 01.10.98). Javaid said he felt "completely destroyed" by the experience, and is worried about the damage it has done to his reputation. Javaid's greatest triumph, the record award of £380,000 to Sam Yeboah for race discrimination against his former employer, was overshadowed by the allegations. He said: "I was thinking last week, look at that! It should be one of the greatest moments in my career but instead my career is threatened by these fantastic accusations" (The Times, 20.10.98). [BMMS October 1998 Vol. VI, No. 10, p. 9]
MIM: In 1997 Javaid spoke on behalf of AM's 'Society of Muslim Lawyers' whose director is AM deputy leader Anjem Choudary

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/386

In a growing phenomenon that lawyers have dubbed “libel tourism,” the Saudis are seeking to invoke Britain’s plaintiff-friendly libel laws to silence critics in the United States and in the international community.

The legal actions come at a time when American lawyers for the families of September 11 victims are aggressively pursuing a $1 trillion lawsuit in the United States that accuses dozens of Saudi royal princes and wealthy businessmen of providing funding that led to the terror attacks. By targeting U.S. media organizations and others in the British courts, some of the Saudis may hope to shift the focus and win judgements that will bolster their position in the United States.

The opening salvo in this Saudi counteroffensive may start as early as this December when The Wall Street Journal goes to trial in a libel action filed against it by two members of the Jeddah-based Jameel family, which operates the largest independent Toyota dealership in the world.

The U.S. business daily, which publishes a European edition, is also the target of a separate lawsuit filed by the family-run Al-Rajih Banking and Investment Corp., a Saudi group heavily involved in “Islamic” banking activities. Both lawsuits stem from a February 2002 Journal story reporting that Saudi authorities were monitoring about 150 bank accounts for possible suspicious activity related to terrorism, among them, the Journal claimed, accounts maintained by businesses related to the Jameels and Al-Rajihs.

In addition, Khalid bin Mahfouz, a wealthy Saudi who used to head one of the kingdom’s largest commercial banks, has filed suit with his son Abdulrahman in the British courts against Jean Charles Brisard, chief investigator for the lawyers representing the September 11 victims in the United States and the author of a French book—later published in the United States—about the financing of terrorism and the family of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Mahfouz is also suing the British weekly newspaper The Mail on Sunday for an article published a year ago which carried the headline BIN LADEN’S TEXAN BANKER HAUNTS BUSH, which repeated allegations from the French author’s book.

‘snip’

Under British libel law, said a lawyer close to some of the current cases, the courts presume that a published article is false rather than true. All a plaintiff has to prove is that it was published and that its contents were likely to damage the subject of the article by holding them up to public “odium, ridicule or contempt.” Under the British system, losers in libel cases not only have to pay damages awarded by a jury but also usually have to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees, which sometimes can run to one million British pounds or more. Because of the high financial risks of libel cases, and the draconian nature of British law, libel plaintiffs in Britain sometimes file—or threaten to file—lawsuits to deter other media from reprinting a particularly sensitive story, then let the lawsuit quietly lapse once the controversy has blown over. (In recent years, however, British courts have made it a bit easier for libel defendants by allowing the media to claim that there was an overwhelming “public interest” in publishing a particular controversial story and that publication was undertaken only after exhaustive efforts were made to verify facts and contact parties for comment).

After one recent Saudi-related hearing in a wood-paneled courtroom inside London’s gothic Law Courts complex, one of the British barristers (trial lawyers) in the case told journalists “Say what you like about Osama bin Laden. He’s done wonders for the defamation [libel] bar.”

There has so far been remarkably little attention given to the British lawsuits—in large part because British law greatly limits pretrial publicity that could influence potential jury members. Lawyers and principals contacted by NEWSWEEK this week were reluctant to discuss the cases, although Brisard dismissed the action against him as a “trick” aimed at undermining the lawsuit by the September 11 families in the United States. Norman Chapman, a British lawyer suing the Journal on behalf of the Al-Rajih banking group, said his client had been “vigorously pursuing” the paper for some time. “We want to put the record straight on behalf of our clients.” Andrew Stephenson, the lawyer for the Jameel family’s action against the Journal, said it was natural for his clients to sue in England given their substantial financial interests in the country. “If you’re a Japanese and hit by a car in Trafalgar Square, then you can sue in the British courts.”

A lawyer for The Wall Street Journal declined to comment on the suits. But there are signs that the paper plans to defend itself vigorously. Following recent submissions from the Journal’s principal barrister, prominent human-rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, the judge postponed the trial date in the Al-Rajih case. The paper wants to try to prove that its allegations against the Al-Rajih’s were “justified” by showing that the bank had provided services to controversial Islamic charities, including the Muslim World League, the International Islamic Relief Organization and the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation. All three have been repeatedly linked in U.S. court documents to alleged terrorist financing, and the Al-Haramain foundation was designated a terrorist entity by the U.S. government in March 2002. The Al-Rajih family is also connected to several charities and businesses in the Washington area that were raided by U.S. Customs and FBI investigators in the winter of 2002 as part of a terrorism-financing investigation.

‘snip’

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3339584/

JEDDAH, 6 February 2005 — Mohammed Jameel, president of the Abdul Latif Jameel Group, and Abdul Latif Jameel Company Limited yesterday won a libel suit in the British Court of Appeal against the Wall Street Journal Europe.

The court upheld awards of libel damages of 30,000 pounds to Jameel and 10,000 pounds to the company, rejecting an appeal made by WSJ Europe.

The case related to an article titled “Saudi Officials Monitor Certain Bank Accounts” that was published in WSJ Europe on Feb. 6, 2002. The article alleged that the ALJ Group was “one of a number of prominent Saudi businesses which were being monitored by the Saudi banking regulators” at the request of US law enforcement agencies.

The Wall Street Journal Europe had never claimed its article was true, but had sought to persuade the court that it had acted responsibly in publishing its story. In a ruling upheld yesterday by the Court of Appeal, the trial judge, Justice Eady, rejected this defense.

“The Court of Appeal refused the Wall Street Journal Europe permission to appeal to the House of Lords,” a press statement said. WSJ Europe was ordered to pay the costs of court proceedings.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=58614&d=6&m=2&y=2005

Wealthy businessman Yousef Jameel settled a libel action today with the Sunday Times which published an article reporting he had links with Osama bin Laden.

‘snip’

It reported that Mr Jameel had been added as a defendant in litigation brought in the United States on behalf of victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

'snip'

Stephen Suttle QC, representing the newspaper, said: “The Sunday Times took the view that, as a matter of public interest, it was entitled to report neutrally the fact that Mr Jameel had been added as a defendant to the 11 September litigation and to explain the reasons why, according to the US Lawyers acting for the plaintiffs, this had happened.

“It was not the intention of the Sunday Times to give credence to the claim against Mr Jameel. The Sunday Times has never sought to maintain that Mr Jameel had financially supported Osama bin Laden in connection with terrorism or that he helped fund the training of the terrorists who carried out the 11 September attacks.

“The Sunday Times accepts that the claimant is not a supporter of Osama bin Laden or al Qaida and regrets if the article may have given readers a different impression.”

http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=9364

A libel suit filed against a British newspaper The Sunday Telegragh by the son of the Libyan leader Colonel Muamar Gaddafi ended in a dramatic out- of-court-settlement in a London High Court last week.

The £1..2 million legal costs expended by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, 29, would be paid by the newspaper. The newspaper would not be paying any damages and also ethically succeeded not to disclose the source of the article .

Gaddafi's son toned down his legal pursuit following an appeal from the Saudi Ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar Abdulaziz who jetted to London on April 15, 2002 to talk Saif al-Islam out of the legal tussle.

All emanated from a story that appeared on The Sunday Telegragh in early 1996 when Gaddafi's son was alledged to be part of an international financial ring operating in the Middle East particularly in Egypt and Iran.
The Libyan government was amassing collosal profits from the fake currency deal , according to The Sunday Telegragh .

The Sunday Telegraph editor Dominic Lawson was visibly relieved when the newspaper's counsel Geoffrey Robertson ,QC , offered its sincere apologies to Saif al-Islam and promised to retract the defamatory story in a subsequent issue.

http://www.expotimes.net/backissuesmay/may2002/may2.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1445191/posts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.