[DumnEuronoumn]

http://lipstadt.blogspot.com/2007/07...ry-afraid.html Tuesday, July 24, 2007 Attention Authors [1]: Hesitate, really afraid.... Particularly if you come up with the Saudis and their assistance of terrorism Whenever David Irving's libel case against me pops up some one undoubtedly asks: How can he sue you in the united kingdom? I reveal that my book was published and purchased by Penguin UK and consequently he might pull me right into a UK court. Works out that today the reach of UK libel regulations has been considerably expanded. It's a distressing development. Within an early in the day post I wrote about Rachel Ehrenfeld and how she was sued for libel by the Saudi Khalid container Mafouz for writing he had backed terrorism. But some tips about what makes Ehrenfeld's account very distinctive from mine: her book wasn't printed in the united kingdom. Many people in the UK [I question if it had been the Saudis or a copy was bought by their lawyers???] on the internet. Container Mafouz pounced and Ehrenfeld was ordered to pay for damages to him. Today the American courts came to her protection. [Scroll down only at that link to obtain the Ny Law Journal report on the Ehrenfeld case.] Now the Saudis have silenced still another book. That one is by T. Millard Burr, a former reduction planner for Operation Lifeline Sudan, U.S. Agency for International Development, and Robert E. Collins, teacher of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Sudan and they've created numerous publications on Darfur. Their newest book, Alms for Jihad was printed by Cambridge University Press. [Since their book was printed in the united kingdom, their situation is nearer to mine than Ehrenfeld's.] The authors investigate how, in the words of Michael Rubin, creating in the New York Sun: The Saudi royal family played a pernicious part, founding and promoting charities to distribute militant Sunni Islam, not just being an inoculation against resurgent Shi'ism from revolutionary Iran, but additionally to radicalize the Muslims in Europe and America.The British attorneys for Khalid bin Mahfouz and his boy Abdulrahman bin Mahfouz wrote Cambridge University Press saying they meant to prosecute the Press and the authors for defamation against their customers. Cambridge University Press approached the authors,and detailed material was provided by them to get their statements produced in Alms for Jihad. None the less, Cambridge University Press didn't match the argument and they'll apologize in court in a few days. As Rachel Ehrenfeld has only written in my experience within an email: "Get a of AaA'Alms of JihadAaA before itAaas banned..." [To fulfill the various leanings of followers of the website links have been provided by me to Amazon, B&N, and Powells. I'd have provided a connect to Cambridge University Press but the book appears to have been hidden deep within the Cambridge University Press website How's that for spinning of history?] Container Mahfouz seemingly has accumulated numerous conclusions automagically, quite simply the situation wasn't attempted on its merits. Everybody else gives an excellent, only caves, and gets out of Dodge as quickly because they may. Cambridge Press had fairly heavy pockets however it also flattened. I'd see what associations it's with the Saudis.. if I were a writer currently talking about this. That might be interesting to understand. Exactly why is not this sample of silencing by the Saudis of writers who're critical of these been the subject of articles in the conventional media and now I go back to the primary point:? You will find essential legal precedences here, particularly in the Ehrenfeld situation, and a troubling routine of silencing of criticism by the Saudis. Where would be the free speech advocates now??? Posted by Deborah Lipstadt at 7/24/2007 07:06:00 AM