Few Americans know about the concept of "libel tourism" and fewer still understand the connection between that obscure legal activity and global terrorism. But they should.
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch has penned an important editorial for the Washington Times:
One of the most potent weapons that global jihadists have to advance their cause is one of the least-remarked: censorship. And Rachel Ehrenfeld, founder and director of the American Center for Democracy, stands today as one of the primary targets of this tactic — and, by her ongoing resistance, one of the foremost defenders of the freedom of speech against encroaching attempts at legal intimidation that, if successful, will effectively silence the anti-jihad resistance.Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid Salim bin Mahfouz sued Miss Ehrenfeld in the U.K. for libel: in her book, "Funding Evil," she wrote that he was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Mr. bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. Taking advantage of British libel laws that place the burden of proof on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, Mr. bin Mahfouz sued not in the United States, where Miss Ehrenfeld lives and published her book, but in Britain, where neither he nor Miss Ehrenfeld live and where his entire case depended upon a handful of copies sold in that country mostly through special orders from Amazon.com, and the appearance of one chapter of the book on the Internet, where it may have been read by British readers.
Britain's libel laws have given rise to the phenomenon of wealthy "libel tourists," who sue there on the slimmest British connection in order to ensure a favorable ruling. Mr. bin Mahfouz had the good fortune of having the case heard by Judge David Eady, who has a long history of strange rulings in libel cases — rulings that generally ran in favor of censorship and against free speech. In connection with another of these rulings in May 2007, British journalist Stephen Glover wrote: "Mr Justice Eady is beginning to worry me. Is he a friend of a free Press? There are good reasons to believe that he isn't."
In May 2005 Justice Eady ruled that Miss Ehrenfeld must apologize to Mr. bin Mahfouz and pay over $225,000. This fine remains uncollected, and Miss Ehrenfeld sees no reason to apologize. Now she cannot travel to Britain, and her writing and research work has of course been banned there — thus preventing important information from reaching the public.
The unwilling poster child for libel tourism's devastating effects, Ehrenfeld is currently countersuing in New York, asking the courts to declare that her First Amendment rights trump--and thus cancel--the British ruling. On June 8, the courts agreed that Ehrenfeld has a valid case; she is now free to pursue an appeal that will have historic implications for free speech, not to mention the counter-terrorism movement.
Spencer calls for "open and thorough investigation, unhindered by legal intimidation" to determine whether "Saudis or others who have indeed supported the global jihad are able cover their tracks using British libel laws to silence investigators."
He's right. And to that we would add a recommendation to see MPI's upcoming film, The Libel Tourist. A hard-hitting documentary about Ehrenfeld's experience, this timely film will be key to the crucial work of educating the public about this pressing and unresolved issue.