[The message at Red Planet Cartoons read: “A color version of this cartoon will be available Tuesday.” We don’t think it affects the message of the cartoon. Color will just make it more vivid.]
Red Planet then goes on into detail.
Muslims — individually and in pressure groups — are using British libel laws and Canadian “human rights” laws to limit what is said about Islam, terrorists and the people in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere who are funding groups such as al-Queda. The cases of Rachel Ehrenfeld and Mark Steyn prove the point.
So what’s Freedom of Speech if you can be sued for calling a “terrorist” a “terrorist”?
Or calling “al-Queda”–“al-Queda”?
Or a “muslim” a “muslim”?
It goes on to lay out what happened in the ridiculous case of author Rachel Ehrenfeld.
Ehrenfeld is American, her book was written and published in America and she has no business or other ties to Britain. Under American law, the Brit courts would have no jurisdiction over her. But about two-dozen copies of her book were sold there through the internet. Bin Mahfouz sued her for libel in the Brit courts where the burden of proof is the opposite of what it is in US courts: the author has to prove that what is written is true, rather than the supposedly defamed person proving it is false.
Think about that for a moment. Under the US Constitution political writing — free speech — is almost unlimited. To gain a libel judgment a politician — or someone suspected of terrorist ties — would have to prove that the story or book was false. If that person were a public figure such as Mahfouz, in order to get a libel judgment he’d not only have to prove that what was written was false, he’d also have to prove it was published maliciously.
The rest of the story, plus a Link-A-Palooza of other stories on this disturbing trend against Free Speech.
The entire Kafka-esque scenario is laid out at Red Planet Cartoons’ Financial Jihad.
And later today, it will all be in surreal color.