ETANT POURSUIVI EN DIFFAMATION PAR UN JOURNALISTE MUSULMAN, JPPS ESPERE QUE LA REFORME BRITANNIQUE FERA JURISPRUDENCE !
| LONDON — England has long been a mecca for aggrieved |
A hint of good news? Possibly.
Even though one of the most egregious libel tourists is now dead, this is still tool of the jihad as documented in these previous posts and the video below from one of its victims – author Rachel Ehrenfeld.
She was sued for exposing terrorist financing by the Saudi’s in her book Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed—and How to Stop It.
The story from the NY Times.
LONDON
— England has long been a mecca for aggrieved people from around the world who want to sue for libel. Russian oligarchs, Saudi businessmen, multinational corporations, American celebrities — all have made their way to London’s courts, where jurisdiction is easy to obtain and libel laws are heavily weighted in favor of complainants.
Embarrassed by London’s reputation as “a town called sue” and by unusually stinging criticisms in American courts and legislatures, British lawmakers are seriously considering rewriting England’s 19th-century libel laws.
A member of the House of Lords is preparing a bill that would, among other things, require foreigners to demonstrate that they have suffered actual harm in England before they can sue here.
English libel law is the opposite of America’s in many ways. In the United States, the plaintiff, or accuser, must prove that the statement in question was false; public officials must also prove that it was made maliciously, with “reckless disregard” for the truth.
In England (Scotland has its own system), the burden of proof rests on the defendant, whose statements are presumed false and who has to establish that they are true.
A number of states, including New York, have passed legislation making English libel rulings difficult to enforce in American courts. Congress is considering similar legislation.
The catalyst for the New York law was the case of the American scholar Rachel Ehrenfeld, who was sued in the English courts by a Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz, after she accused him of channeling money to Al Qaeda in her book “Funding Evil.”
The book sold just 23 copies in England, but that was deemed sufficient to allow Mr. Mahfouz to bring his case here. Ms. Ehrenfeld, who refused to participate in the case or submit to the court’s jurisdiction, was ordered in a default judgment to pay him more than $225,000.
New York and Florida have passed laws known as Rachel’s Law to offset British libel laws, and a proposed federal law and California state law have also been proposed.
The lawyer who opposed Ehrenfeld in her case also represents
al Qaeda interests and some bin Laden’s, and his law firm contributed heavily to the Obama campaign causing us to pose this question in March 2008: Does Obama Support Free Speech or Libel Tourism?
(www.creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire