Persistence of Vision

When Rachel Ehrenfeld's attempt to defend herself against a foreign libel judgment foundered in the U.S. courts due to jurisdictional issues, everyone recognized how wrong that was, and saw, too, the need to close a frightening loophole in the law. And so New York lawmakers went to work ... and on March 31 the legislature unanimously approved the Libel Terrorism Protection Act. Otherwise known as "Rachel's Law," this bill will protect New York writers against foreign libel judgments by declaring all such judgments unenforceable if they are made in countries whose free speech protections are weaker than those conferred by the First Amendment.

"The truth is a critically-important component in the War on Terror,” said Senator Dean Skelos, a co-sponsor of the bipartisan bill. “This important new law will protect American authors and journalists who expose terrorist networks and their financiers. In its decision, the Court of Appeals called upon the State Legislature to revise the law. Today, we made clear that New York State will safeguard the First Amendment and these courageous writers."

MPI fellow Jared Lapidus' short film The Libel Tourist was released at a pivotal moment in Ehrenfeld's case, and helped raise international awareness of the threat libel tourism poses to writers like her. View it here.

Come see Indoctrinate U at 6 p.m. on Monday, April 14, at the Directors Guild Theater in Manhattan. The New York premiere of Evan Coyne Maloney's hardhitting expose of higher ed's disrespect for individual rights and free inquiry is co-sponsored by MPI and the Manhattan Institute, and will feature a discussion session afterward with higher ed commentator John Leo and David DesRosiers of the VERITAS Fund for Higher Education Reform. RSVP here.

On Oscar night, MPI founder Thor Halvorssen found himself at Elton John's annual party. There, he met Academy Award-winning actor Sean Penn -- and had an eye-opening glimpse into the confused world of Hollywood A-listers who flirt with totalitarian politics. In a riveting op-ed at Fox News.com, Halvorssen, who is also president of the Human Rights Foundation, describes his encounter with the self-professed fan of Venezuelan president and habitual human rights violator Hugo Chavez. He also reflects on the pattern Penn exemplifies: that of the celebrity who reviles the nation whose opportunities, legal system, and economy allowed him to become who he is:

I assumed Penn was probably ignorant about the human rights record in Venezuela in that he broke off relations with the San Francisco Chronicle in mid-January calling them a "lamebrain paper" over their use of the word "dictator" to describe Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Penn was in Caracas late last year where he went to do research for an essay he says he is writing about Chavez. On David Letterman's show Penn gushed about Chavez as a "fascinating guy" who had done "incredible things" for Venezuela's poor. Letterman remarked that Chavez had shut down a television station, RCTV — something that should trouble a self-styled journalist. Penn looked at the camera and misled the audience, stating that for years RCTV "had been encouraging the assassination of Chavez every day." But there was not a single instance of such behavior by RCTV. It's as if the Sean Penn puppet in "Team America" came to life as a propagandist.

Ironically, it was President Chavez who has repeatedly threatened — even with death those in the media who disagree with his policies. Reporters covering government functions must wear bullet-proof vests and dozens in the media have been assaulted and beaten for disagreeing with the official party line.

On Oscar night Penn and I had an unpleasant exchange about the political prisoners of the Chavez government which he ended by walking away and repeating, like a mantra, the name of one of the evening’s Academy Award recipients, “Daniel Day-Lewis,” over and over again in what seemed like the equivalent of a child putting his hands over his ears and belting “la-la-la-la-la-la! I can’t hear you!” Undaunted, I scribbled a note inviting him to learn more about the appalling stories of Venezuelan dissidents in prison for doing nothing but criticizing the government. The invitation is still open.

Penn isn't alone in displaying ignorance or deception while defending the Venezuelan president. He joins an all-star cast of Chavez admirers including actors Danny Glover and Kevin Spacey, musician Harry Belafonte, supermodel Naomi Campbell, director Oliver Stone, activist Cindy Sheehan, and Princeton University Professor Cornel West.

A multi-billion dollar public relations campaign, complete with Potemkin villages and a lucrative international initiative that includes heating oil distributed by Joe Kennedy to America's needy, has managed to paint a romantic picture. However, a shift has begun in the widely-held perception about Venezuela as a place transforming into what Chavez describes as a socialist "terrestrial paradise."

Regionally, Chavez has exemplified imperialism by intervening in the internal affairs and elections of Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua. He began a continental arms race complete with submarines, 100,000 new AK-47s and fighter jets from Russia. His government has provided a safe haven, cash, and military supplies to the leaders of the FARC terrorist organization of Colombia — whom his government considers as allies and heroes. Just imagine if the Canadian or Mexican governments provided cash, lodging, and supplies to Al Qaeda to get a sense of what Colombia must bear.

Domestically, the unbendable reality about Chavez is that he is on record authorizing the use of lethal force against unarmed civilians who protest. Thanks to massive oil revenues, he has presided over the richest government in Venezuelan history, yet living standards continue to decline and food shortages are a weekly phenomenon. Corruption is worse than ever before and street crime has grown under his government to the point that Venezuela has one of the top five per capita murder rates in the world. And in December the people so overwhelmingly rejected his proposed plan to stay in power indefinitely that despite a manipulated voter roll, voting machines made by a company once secretly-owned by the government, and control of the electoral commission, the vote revealed that Venezuelans aren't sitting out the elimination of their freedoms. Since May of last year, hundreds of thousands of people, mostly students, have been marching in a continuous peaceful protest. The quick count and polls indicate Chavez lost by a wide margin of more than 8 points. Election night saw a tense negotiation between Chavez and his high command who informed him they would not go along with his plans to announce victory. The electoral body tried to lessen the blow by announcing preliminary numbers indicating Chavez would lose by less than one point. As of this writing, the Venezuelan electoral body has yet to publish the official results of the vote.

So why, despite his atrocious human rights record, does Chavez enjoy the support of high-profile actors and activists?

What tickles Penn and his ilk is that Chavez is the world's most visible opponent of the United States and the U.S. government. Many foreign leaders differ with President Bush, but none of these leaders openly use profane and scatological language. In this, Chavez is identical to his cheerleaders.

Whether by embracing Iran's leader, cozying up to Belarus strongman Alexander Lukashenko or even supporting Saddam Hussein by becoming the last elected leader to visit him in Iraq — Chavez will do the opposite of President Bush and the American government.

After calling George W. Bush the "greatest tyrant in the world," Harry Belafonte declared to Chavez: "Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people... support your revolution."

Kevin Spacey kept a low profile regarding his three-hour visit but he was happy to enjoy a lengthy photo-op, and then tour a new film facility. Chavez told his supporters that Spacey had approved of the revolutionary process.

Glover received a cash reward for his endorsement: $20 million in financing for two films now in development. It is a tragic irony that the man who portrayed Nelson Mandela in the HBO classic is celebrating and coddling Chavez as he dismantles democracy and persecutes dissenters.

Naomi Campbell's motorcade drove into Caracas as water cannons, tear gas, and bullets were used on students marching for equal rights. After spending some time with Chavez and shaking him down for a charitable contribution, she joyously described the "love and encouragement" she witnessed in the welfare programs of Venezuela. “Viva la Revolucion!”

On December 30 Oliver Stone joined the chorus by announcing he was thinking of making a movie about the Chavez revolution. He said this and much more as he stood next to Chavez to celebrate a "humanitarian mission" to free hostages held by the FARC terrorist organization — a Marxist-Leninist organization that has terrorized Colombia with kidnappings and murder for decades while funding its operations from billions of dollars garnered from cocaine trafficking. The mission was a miserable failure and Stone went home without a minute of footage.

By virtue of the media attention garnered, what Hollywood's cheerleaders do and say matters — profoundly. One instance of impact across the world is Abu Nasser, chief of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades terror group in the West Bank. He told author Aaron Klein how Campbell's visit "presents a slap in the face to Bush and his government and his policy. The fact that she respects Chavez, and his ideals, can bring more people to follow this step." Several terrorists explained to Klein how the solidarity received by Chavez from high profile individuals is a terrific boost to their morale.

Tragically, none of these so-called social justice advocates care to know about political prisoners like Humberto Quintero, an army lieutenant colonel in charge of an anti-terrorism and anti-kidnapping border unit who caught Rodrigo Granda, the "foreign minister" of the FARC terrorist organization and handed him over to the Colombian authorities. Granda had been living in baronial splendor in Caracas with the protection of the Chavez government. For his courage in trapping a man wanted all over the world, Quintero was not celebrated but instead arrested on January 12, 2005. He is in prison for treason, abuse of power, and dishonoring his uniform. I visited him in Ramo Verde prison where he provided me with the grotesque details of the torture he suffered for having served his country. The prison, a rat-infested dungeon miles away from any major road, has no running water, no daily rations for prisoners, and no medical attention of any kind. Quintero is virtually unknown outside of Venezuela. If Penn, Stone, or Campbell chose to live up to their stated commitments, they would make time to visit Quintero or any of the political prisoners forgotten in Venezuela’s prisons.

What do you get when you cross the state of Massachusetts and the imperative of universal health coverage? A stateside, state-sized Canada. The New York Times explains the mess Massachusetts made when it tried to put theory into practice:

AMHERST, Mass. — Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.

Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.

In pockets of the United States, rural and urban, a confluence of market and medical forces has been widening the gap between the supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services. Modest pay, medical school debt, an aging population and the prevalence of chronic disease have each played a role.

Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance.

Since last year, when the landmark law took effect, about 340,000 of Massachusetts’ estimated 600,000 uninsured have gained coverage. Many are now searching for doctors and scheduling appointments for long-deferred care.

Here in western Massachusetts, Dr. Atkinson’s bustling 3,000-patient practice, which was closed to new patients for several years, has taken on 50 newcomers since she hired a part-time nurse practitioner in November. About a third were newly insured, Dr. Atkinson said. Just north of here in Athol, the doctors at North Quabbin Family Physicians are now seeing four to six new patients a day, up from one or two a year ago.

Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said an influx of the newly insured to her practice in Malden, just north of Boston, had stretched her daily caseload to as many as 22 to 25 patients, from 18 to 20 a year ago. To fit them in, Dr. Sereno limits the number of 45-minute physicals she schedules each day, thereby doubling the wait for an exam to three months.

“It’s a recipe for disaster,” Dr. Sereno said. “It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.”

Indoctrinate U's New York City premiere took place Monday night at the Directors Guild Theater in Manhattan--and the event was a smashing success. Co-hosted by MPI and the Manhattan Institute, the event was attended by director and star Evan Coyne Maloney, and featured a discussion session afterward with education critic John Leo.

"The only thing that can be more gratifying to a filmmaker than having a packed house is having the house packed with a lively audience that responds enthusiastically," Maloney wrote on his blog yesterday. "Thanks to everyone who made it to last night’s New York City premiere of Indoctrinate U. It was truly a special night, and it makes me all the more certain that the only thing standing in the way of massive success for Indoctrinate U is making sure that enough people get a chance to hear about the film." Maloney also appeared on Fox & Friends the following day (video here).

Leo agreed that the premiere was a great night. Calling the film "brilliant," Leo reports that somewhere between 400 and 500 people attended--"laughing in all the right places."

Download the film--or order a DVD--from the Indoctrinate U online store.

The Singing Revolution has been playing in Portland since April 4 -- and has proven so popular that it has been held over two times. Its original scheduled weeklong run has been extended to meet the audience demand that this film inspires wherever it plays. As the Seattle Times put it, "it's impossible not to be stirred by the music these survivors make."

Watch www.singingrevolution.com to see when the film is coming to your area.

Reason editor Matt Welch interviews James Tusty about The Singing Revolution:

Q: How did songs become an essential part of the Estonian revolution?

A: Music has always been part of Estonian history. For thousands of years the Estonians have been singing folk songs. They have one of the largest collections of folk songs in the world, even though they’re a very small country. So it was very natural that music would become part of the weapon that they would use to fight the Soviets. They have this song festival every five years called Laulupidu, which is 30,000 singers coming on stage to sing in harmony. And it’s not any 30,000 people who want to sing; these people audition, so it’s the best 30,000 singers.

Well, in 1947 Stalin had already come in and occupied Estonia. He declared the song festival a “bourgeois tradition,” and he declared the first annual Soviet Song Festival, making the Estonians sing songs in Russian that glorified Lenin and Stalin and Marx. But the Estonians snuck one by. That song became the unofficial national anthem in Estonia, and for the next 50 years they always sang it to close the Song Festivals.

Q: So what happened in the late ’80s?

A: In June of 1988, there was a rock concert with, I don’t know how many, tens of thousands of youth who were there singing into the night. The Soviet authorities got worried, and they shut down the concert. So the people walked three miles to an open field to continue singing, and they sang until five or six in the morning. And it went on for a week. Every night more and more people came until there were maybe 100,000 to 150,000 people singing these rock ’n’ roll songs, as well as some traditional songs. The Soviet police saw this, but they didn’t know what to do. And the Estonians just kept on pushing that envelope, until eventually they contributed significantly to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Q: What broader lesson did you learn from this story?

A: What this film is about is humankind’s indomitable drive for independence. If there’s a reason to see the film, it’s to start understanding liberty and freedom at a base level. I reduce freedom to this reality: I don’t want my neighbor telling me what color to paint my living room. Let’s get it down to that, and then let’s move out from that slowly, and talk about what political systems give us all the individual freedom we need.

This is not a political film. This is a story. And you will cry in the beginning and feel uplifted in the end, I promise.

Manhattan Institute scholar and former UC Berkeley professor John McWhorter appears in Indoctrinate U--and has great things to say about the film. Writing in the New York Sun, McWhorter describes how attending the New York premiere earlier this week prompted him to think about the "Indoctrinate U-type episodes" in his own career:

The film got me thinking about how I was treated when I was teaching at Berkeley and wrote a book against racial preferences. ... there was, in fact, one 'Indoctrinate U'-type episode. A black education professor invited a black-ish star sociology professor to come to campus and "debate" me, and the event turned out to be an occasion for audience members loudly booing me and hurling extended tirades.

To me, it was all in a day's work: you don't do what I do expecting not to be hated. What has never left me, however, is a chat I had with the education professor a few days later. He actually thought the event — a know-nothing burning in effigy in which my opponent had clearly not even read my book — had been a useful debate. To him, that public spanking was a productive and appropriate response to my opinions — at a university no less. I will never forget his sober expression, his sad, earnest eyes: he actually was sincere.

This is the ideology "Indoctrinate U" is about, and it is mistaken to treat these people as bullies, willfully precluding debate by hurling epithets like "racist" and "sexist." This analysis implies an insecurity of these people which they do not feel. They thrill as much to the idea of open dialogue as anyone — but they think that a radical leftist perspective is truth, not opinion. To them, dialogue about a conservative perspective's correctness is no more legitimate than dialogue about heliocentrism.

"The students are ready. The day after September 11 I devoted my two classes to discussing the event. I placed myself firmly in the political middle and directed the discussion accordingly," he concludes. :After both classes, several students came up and thanked me for fostering a discussion where more views were welcome than ones from the hard left. I thought I was just doing my job — but to the types "Indoctrinate U" documents, I was selling out."

MPI fellow Engi Wassef is premiering her feature-length documentary, Marina of the Zabbaleen, at the Tribeca Film Festival this Friday. Here's what Downtown Express has to say about it:

“Marina of the Zabbaleen” revolves around a village of refuse, created by poverty-stricken trash collectors in Cairo. A gorgeous film about garbage, the documentary is beautifully shot and poetically told. It follows six-year-old Marina, whose family members are part of the “Zabbaleen,” or “garbage people,” employed by the city to collect and sort debris. The industrious community bundles newspapers and recycles and resells other waste. Marina dreams of becoming a doctor as she lives in squalor among vermin. As Coptic Christians, the family is a minority in the Middle East. Being of the same faith, director Engi Wassef had special access to the people and the site.

Wassef was born in Cairo in 1980 and immigrated to the United States as a child. After attending Harvard and working on Wall Street, she pursued a graduate degree in film in New York, where she now lives. In 2006, while in production with “Marina,” her first feature, she was selected for Tribeca All Access, a program that supports filmmakers from underrepresented communities. The film will have its world premiere at the festival.

In 2003, New York criminologist Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld published Funding Evil, a book that meticulously details the clandestine networks through which terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda obtain their financing. But by doing so, she drew the ire of a litigious Saudi banking magnate, Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, who has repeatedly brought suit in England's plaintiff-friendly libel courts to suppress exposure of his covert activities. He sued Ehrenfeld in London in 2005. Three years, two lawsuits, and one important piece of legislation later, New York governor David Paterson will decide today whether to sign into law the Libel Terrorism Protection Act, a bill that would render foreign libel judgments unenforceable against his state's authors and journalists. Known informally as "Rachel's Law," the new bill could bring closure to what Boston civil liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate has called "one of the most important First Amendment cases of the past twenty-five years."

Law firm partner and renowned First Amendment scholar Floyd Abrams has published an op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal, commending the state legislature for its timely, important work, and calling on Governor Paterson to protect New Yorkers from foreign impositions on their constitutional freedoms. As a democratic nation, England has every right to choose its own legal system, Abrams notes. But so, too, does the United States:

[T]here are sharp distinctions between U.S. and English law. One difference is that under the First Amendment we provide far more protection for speech that is claimed to be libelous.

There is no need for democratic nations to agree upon such matters. The values of free speech and individual reputation are both significant, and it is not surprising that different nations would place different emphasis on each.

But a serious problem has surfaced. In recent years, English libel law has come to have a disturbing impact on the right of Americans to speak out.

England has become a choice venue for libel plaintiffs from around the world, including those who seek to intimidate critics whose works would be protected in the U.S. but might not in that country. That English libel law has increasingly been used to stifle speech about the subject of international terrorism raises the stakes still more.

[...]

Gov. David Paterson has until the end of today to decide whether or not he will sign the [Libel Terrorism Protection Act]. Meanwhile, the Ehrenfeld saga has led Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) to propose federal legislation which would provide similar relief.

The need for such legislation has become very real – all the more so since English libel law is increasingly being used to limit public debate about terrorism. Mr. Bin Mahfouz has personally commenced or threatened to commence at least 30 law suits in England. This tactic has served him well in obtaining libel judgments that would be unthinkable as well as unconstitutional here. The danger is that other American writers and publishers will shy away from this crucial subject, out of fear of being sued far from home.

This is a reasonable concern as a good deal of litigation related to reporting on terrorism has been threatened or started in England by individuals who have limited contact with that nation, but who find its libel law congenial.

England should be free to choose its own libel law. But so should we. It is not too much to ask that American law should protect our people when they speak in precisely the "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" manner that the First Amendment was drafted to protect.

Last year, MPI fellow Jared Lapidus used the medium of short film to highlight the difficulties faced by the brave authors and journalists whose work sheds sunlight on terrorism's furtive financiers. Released at a pivotal moment in Ehrenfeld's case, Lapidus's film played an important role in raising awareness of the problem and in encouraging legislators and citizens to advocate for change. The Libel Tourist can be viewed online at LibelTouristMovie.com.