We Can No Longer Count on Our British Cousins

Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Great Britain is being destroyed by the Islamic militants. It’s inevitable decline may only be a bit slower than that of the French. This is how rapidly things are deteriorating:

“The pretext for filing in a British court was that 26 of Ehrenfeld's books made it into the hands of British citizens who ordered the book via Amazon. A Justice Eady in the UK decided a default judgment against Ehrenfeld, and ordered her to pay the Saudi more than $200,000 in damages plus court costs, and barred her book in the U.K. The judgment rendered by the British court can only be enforced in the United States by legal action.”

Link here

Great Britain’s legal system is corrupt. Yes, let’s be blunt. It is now infringing upon the First Amendment rights of American citizens. There’s no sense continuing to delude ourselves. Our British cousins are likely doomed. We must therefore be cautious when dealing with their national leaders. A close and "special" relationship is no longer possible. We now have to realize that the British will often stab us in the back. They can no longer be trusted. Thank God we have the First Amendment. It is virtually the only thing saving us from Armageddon.

By the way, Melanie Phillips new book “Londonistan” should be on everybody’s must read list. Sadly, it is not comforting reading. She is very pessimistic about her nation's chances for survival.

Update: I suspect that Judge Richard Casey ruled correctly. He may not have the ability to rule in favor of Rachel Ehrenfeld. If this is indeed the case, we must push our legislators to pass laws to do so. We cannot allow the French, the Brits, and our other politically correct dominated allies to threaten the First Amendment rights of our journalists. A blogger could be next. What is stopping Sheik Khalid Salim a bin Mahfouz from suing Flares into Darkness? After all, isn’t this blog read by a number of British Isles citizens?

18 comments:

terrye said...

Well after that I think I will just go shoot myself.

David, I doub t if all is lost in Britain. Nothing short of death is inevitable. And if you believe Gleen Reynolds even that might be avoided with the right nanothingee.

David Thomson said...

You don't have to shoot yourself. We must merely be more cautious when dealing with our British cousins.

chuck said...

We must merely be more cautious when dealing with our British cousins.

I am more concerned that Ehrenfeld was not protected from British law by the US judge. I would like to know more about why Richard Casey decided that he didn't have jurisdiction and just who does have jurisdiction in that case. I don't want any other country, bar none, screwing with the first amendment.

truepeers said...

Britain is corrupt in many ways yes. BUt what about the US? How is it that she can be pursued in the US to pay up? How come the AMerican court didn't tell the Jihadist to go to hell? Perhaps a lawyer could clarify the situation.

Syl said...

I saw her on FoxandFriends this morning and started writing a comment to Truepeers' thread below, but couldn't put my words together.

I was trying to compare our MSM attitude to what's going on in Britain via definition of a line that should not be crossed by Islamists.

Here in America, it's easier because of our 1st Amendement and knowing where the line is. Don't incite hatred and violence, and don't break our laws.

We can all argue about it, and the MSM can claim the line is somewhere else, but we all know where the line is.

Britain doesn't have the line defined and it has moved in the wrong direction.

Syl said...

(I was speaking of Melanie, not Ehrenfeld)

David Thomson said...

Is Judge Richard Casey acting like a fool---or is he right? I don't know enough about the law. Gosh, where are our resident legal scholars when you need them?

terrye said...

I know the British laws are a great deal more stringent in this regard. I honestly do not know why an American judge would go along with something like this, but then again I don't believe everything I read either.

Seneca the Younger said...

That's right, David, no American has ever been tried for libel in the UK in ways that wouldn't work here.

loner said...

This is hardly new on the international/British front and it was Ehrenfeld's suit (Rachel Ehrenfeld v. Khalid Salim a bin Mahfouz, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case # 04CV9641, Dec. 8, 2004) which was of some interest (starting at paragraph nine.)

David Thomson said...

“That's right, David, no American has ever been tried for libel in the UK in ways that wouldn't work here.”

Thank God for the First Amendment. An American attorney would not dare present such a weak case to our judicial system. I suspect that the presiding judge might even fine an attorney for presenting such a frivolous case. Rachel Ehrenfeld is compelled to raise significant amounts of money for her defense. This alone might inhibit other writers and publishers in the future. I am getting to the point where I must control my temper when speaking about our “British cousins.” We simply cannot trust them. The politically correct extremists dominate their legal and cultural institutions. Great Britain is probably doomed---and we must make certain that the British people don’t drag us down with them.

terrye said...

David:

I think you are overreacting.

ex-democrat said...

Although the US party sought relief from the court (presumably declaratory relief), U.S. court will not generally assert jurisdiction over a foreign individual unless and until that individual attempts to enforce their foreign judgment here in the U.S. Otherwise anyone who successfully sues someone in their own country who happens to be American would be automatically subject to jurisdiction in an American court.
A different result is sometimes reached under the Calder "effects test," where the court determines that the defendant’s acts were designed to ensure that the brunt of the injury would be felt in the US. Here, it seems, the court found otherwise.

ex-democrat said...

British libel laws were ever thus. I don't think the Brits are a lost cause (yet) but i do agree that their strategy of dealing with controversy by trying to hush it up is misguided and dangerous.

However, it took me many years living under the First Amendment to really understand that.

chuck said...

ex-democrat,

Thanks for the clarification. So what you are saying is that since there has been no attempt in the US to collect monies from Ehrenfeld the court felt that it did not have jurisdiction. I can understand that as a reasonable decision at this point.

As to the Brits, yes, that is how things work there. Likewise in the rest of Europe. I suspect we will be seeing more restrictions imposed by European courts as they try to ride out the future by ignoring it.

Peter UK said...

Bad timing David,five of the poor buggers have just been shot out of the sky over Basra.

terrye said...

Yes Peter, I was so sorry to hear about that and that nasty little bastard Sadr tried to capitalize on it too.

Laclos said...

And I thought only Ann Coulter shot from the hip!
Don't you think you are being a tad alarmist? But why should America count on the British anyway, its not as if the "special relationship" has been anything but one sided in your favour?