Recent Editorials

Reader comment on:
Islamists in the Courtroom

Submitted by Alyssa A. Lappen, Jun 5, 2007 10:46

Mr. Pipes gives a much-needed report on the grave danger inherent in Islamist lawsuits in the U.S. and abroad.

His brevity concerning the Khalid bin Mahfouz British High Court case against Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, however, renders the summary misleading. Bin Mahfouz sued the American Center for Democracy director for "libel" for facts reported in her 2003 book Funding Evil -- despite their accuracy, as established by U.S. federal sources, testimony and data.

But Britain's libel laws (not merely this court) stand American principles on their head. In the UK, meeting standards of accuracy and lack of malice are insufficient to disprove libel claims. Rather, reporters must produce their sources in court, along with primary evidence and documents on which their statements were based.

Clearly in cases of terror financing, U.S. national security trumps the need to disprove any libel claim--in a foreign court, no less. Under no circumstances could former U.S. Treasury and State Department officials be expected to produce primary evidence of terror financing, protected by U.S. national security regulations, to a British court. And in any case, Dr. Ehrenfeld is an U.S. citizen, and wrote and published her book in the U.S. Only a handful of her books sold in Britain--and those only through the U.S. Amazon website.

Dr. Ehrenfeld therefore did not acknowledge the bin Mahfouz libel claim or demands of British court. And the High Court Ł87,000 award (not Ł30,000), and demand for an apology, go unanswered to this day, and so they shall remain. The $150,000-equivalent monetary award and related demands were not based on merit, but mere technicalities of British law. Dr. Ehrenfeld paid no fine, and did not apologize.

More important, to protect U.S. First Amendment rights from such nuisance lawsuits, Dr. Ehrenfeld sued bin Mahfouz in an U.S. Federal Court. A panel of Appeals Court justices is now considering substantive evidence and argument in her U.S. lawsuit --to protect U.S. rights to free speech and bar the British ruling from enforcement in the U.S.

All Americans must hope that Dr. Ehrenfeld prevails.

--Alyssa A. Lappen
Senior Fellow
American Center for Democracy
http://www.acdemocracy.org
http://www.alyssaalappen.org


Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.

Other reader comments on this article

Comment By Date

Surely, these people can file counterclaims and counter-sue these Islamists who are misusing our courts. The best defense it a... [MORE]

David Oberholtzer

Jun 5, 2007 16:52

In response to the question, why don't the defendants countersue? They've already spent about two years under the cloud of... [MORE]

Judy Lee

Jun 8, 2007 14:22

Mr. Pipes' work to expose the many Islamist tactics to silence their critics is exceedingly important, as is this article.... [MORE]

Rachel Ehrenfeld

Jun 5, 2007 14:03

Mr. Pipes gives a much-needed report on the grave danger inherent in Islamist lawsuits in the U.S. and abroad. His brevity...

Alyssa A. Lappen

Jun 5, 2007 10:46

Comment on Islamists in the Courtroom

Name
Email Address
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. The New York Sun reserves the right to reject anything found to be objectionable.

Would You Like to Become a Sustaining Subscriber of the Sun? Sign up now

* Inquire about the Sun Seminars

Sustaining Subscriber Login

Follow The New York Sun

Facebook    Twitter    RSS    Join Mailing List

Buy China Wholesale Products on DHgate.com

For Vegas Show tickets, shop ShowTickets.com

Hamptons Estate Agents

Made-in-China.com

Make sure your dresses are beautiful

Planning an Orlando Vacation? Visit Best of Orlando!