Bartholomew's Notes

From the Nigerian Tribune:

The former Oyo state Action Congress (AC) gubernatorial aspirant and the immediate past Finance and Budget Planning Commissioner in Lagos state, Dr. Ismael Adebayo Adewusi, has been given the award of Youth Ambassador for World Peace.

The title, of course, was conferred by the Universal Peace Federation. Local Director of Project Ola Akinmolayan explained:

“The essence of the award is to involve people who will assist in changing the battered orientation of many of our youths and to develop their intellect, skill acquisition and mode of life through educative workshops and seminars. Our objective is to seek a common ground of shared principles aimed at promoting reconciliation, overcoming barriers and building a world of lasting peace.

“At this time that the youth of our nation and world need to have exemplary leaders as role models, we are carefully selecting such leaders and appointing them as Youth Ambassadors for Peace. One of the role models in this category is Dr. Adewusi”, the organisers said.

Meanwhile, The News Today reported from the Philippines last month:

Another feather on the cap was added to Mayor Jerry Treñas after he was named as Ambassador for Peace by the Universal Peace Federation (UPF) for his “exemplary contributions in the building of peace.”

…With such honor, Treñas will join UPF’s global network of Ambassadors for Peace worldwide “to bring civil society solutions to global problems.” UPF is a global network of individuals and organizations committed to peace building through dialogue, education and service.

What neither paper mentions, however, is the person behind the UPF: none other than Reverend Sun Myung Moon. The UPF has persuaded hundreds (perhaps thousands) of locally prominent politicians – including some former heads of states – and high-achievers from around the world to accept “Ambassador” status, and so lend credibility to Moon. The above are just two recent examples; I’ve blogged some others here, here, here, and here. It’s a remarkable achievement which apparently no-one else has much noticed.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

A crank right-wing blogger in the UK by the name of “Lionheart” claims he has received word that he is to be arrested on suspicion of “stirring up racial hatred” for his virulent and obsessive anti-Muslim blog. The blogger concerned is deeply unpleasant; here’s a taster, chosen more or less at random (he’s easy to find on-line, but I’m not linking him):

In Luton we have a very large Pakistani Moslem encampment that has evolved over the last 40 years into a mini Islamic state with all the ingredients needed for it to be a state within a state within Britain. The Pakistani forbearers of this community were welcomed into our country to work alongside our forefathers in local industry to earn money to provide food, shelter and clothing for their dependents, just like the average British citizen. Little did the British public realize about the beast ‘Islam’ they were welcoming with open arms into their midst… The only way you can conquer another land and people is by military force, the first Pakistani Islamic religious leaders who arrived here would have known this fact and would have encouraged the first welcomed invaders to raise up from amongst them an army of young men who can defend this new Islamic community in this foreign land and when the time is right to rise up and conduct Jihad for Islam and conquer the Nation.

Etc, etc. Unsurprisingly, he also advises us to “get wise and vote B.N.P.” Apparently the police claim they are acting on a complaint received; once they have investigated, they will decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges. Possibly the police will be reluctant – in November 2006 two leaders of the BNP were acquitted of the same charge after making anti-Islamic speeches. Tim Worstall puts the liberal free-speech view:

My view on this is pretty simple: other than libel and incitement to violence (which includes that shouting “Fire” in a crowded theatre thing) we’ve a right to say anything we damn well please without fear of the law. I also realise that this isn’t quite what the law itself says, but then that’s an error with the law, not with the right to free speech.

I concur with this, although of course this begs the question as to what we mean exactly by “libel” and “incitement to violence”. Might it not be libellous to suggest that the first Muslim leaders from Pakistan plotted to overthrow the UK by violence? Might it not also encourage certain individuals to go out and physically attack Muslims in the area? Perhaps, but without direct calls for violence (which Lionheart insists he has not made), where do we draw the line? And is it fair that we should only find out after the authorities decide it has been crossed? One wonders what public good is served, especially after the BNP trial fiasco. I would prefer it if the law treated citizens like reasonable adults and merely made it clear that those who allow themselves to become incited by this kind of rubbish will face serious consequences. Indeed, given that there is no practical way to stem the flow of inflammatory writing from abroad, this is the only sensible way to deal with the problem.

Meanwhile, news of the arrest has prompted the expected conspiracy-mongering from bloggers on the anti-Muslim right, with the whole thing seen as a plot by Islam to take over the UK. The fact that extremist Muslims have been jailed under the same laws is either ignored or played down; and of course I doubt that many of these sudden defenders of free speech would feel particularly bothered if a blogger targeting some other group got the same treatment.

UPDATE (10 Jan): More here and here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

A bit of hysteria from Alyssa Lappen at International Analyst Network:

Unless the U.S. Congress and New York legislatures act immediately to stop them, foreign terror financiers and libel tourists now can essentially impose sharia (Islamic) law on American writers and publishers.

This is foolish demagoguery. Lappen is referring to a New York court judgement that was made just before Christmas concerning US author Rachel Ehrenfeld and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz, whom she (along with a number of other authors from across the political spectrum) has accused of terrorism funding. Bin Mahfouz chose to sue Ehrenfeld through the London High Court, taking advantage of the UK’s notoriously restrictive libel laws, and won a default judgement. Although Lappen quotes a restrictive definition of slander from an Islamic source, “sharia” has absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand, and one wonders why she thinks this hyperbole is in any way helpful.

The December New York court decision was the result of a counter-suit brought by Ehrenfeld against bin Mahfouz. The judgement summarises her complaint:

Plaintiff alleges that the process server who visited her on March 3 [2005] threatened her, stating: “You had better respond, Sheikh bin Mahfouz is a very important person, and you ought to take very good care of yourself.”…In an affidavit, the process server stated that plaintiff “grossly misrepresented” their meeting.

…In addition, plaintiff claims that the ongoing threat of enforcement in New York has led her to decline publishing certain articles and to attempt to conform her writing to the standards of English libel law. Plaintiff also asserts that the alleged chill caused by the English judgment has been felt by certain publishers who have accepted her work in the past, but decline to do so now for unspecified reasons, and by other authors engaged in the investigation of international terrorism whom she alleges must now tailor their writing to avoid foreign libel suits.

However, despite the First Amendment issues arising from this, the court decided that it would be concerned only with the narrow question of whether it had jurisdiction over bin Mahfouz, and it decided that it didn’t. The ruling does not mean that the New York court supports the British libel judgement – much less an Islamic interpretation of “slander” – or that bin Mahfouz would not face serious obstacles should he try to collect his damages in New York.

Ehrenfeld’s case tried to make use of Yahoo’s lawsuit against La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme to establish jurisdiction, despite the fact that that suit had been ultimately dismissed. The ACLU has a piece on that case:

In November 2000, a French court said it would fine Yahoo approximately $13,000 per day unless it took action to prevent French Web users from gaining access to Nazi-related materials, including memorabilia up for auction on Yahoo.com.

…Yahoo filed suit, Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme, and asked the U.S. district court to rule the French judgment unenforceable in the United States because it violated the company’s free speech rights.

The district court [in California] held that it had personal jurisdiction over the two French organizations, and that enforcement of the French order by an American court would violate the First Amendment. The French organizations filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, but appealed only the ruling on personal jurisdiction.

…Relying in part on the important First Amendment issues raised by the case, an 8-3 majority of the 11-member en banc panel hearing the case held that the district court did have personal jurisdiction over the French litigants.

However, three members of the eight-member majority favored dismissing the case because it was uncertain whether the French court would actually enforce its order. When their three votes were added to the three votes of the judges who said the case should be dismissed because there was no personal jurisdiction, the result was a 6-5 majority in favor of dismissal. Thus the case was dismissed.

…The ACLU-NC believes that if a foreign person or entity takes affirmative steps both in a foreign court and in the United States to force a U.S.-based speaker to censor constitutionally protected speech, U.S. courts have jurisdiction to protect that speech.

(We’ll leave aside the hypocrisy of Yahoo, an organization which colluded in the jailing of a Chinese dissident, making a stand for free speech)

The New York judgement has drawn fire from Ehrenfeld and some other commentators. She writes:

Falling to protect my rights for freedom of speech under the Constitution’s First Amendment laws, the New York Court of Appeals, opened the door to those wishing to curtail the U.S. press and media willingness and ability to freely investigate and report on matters important to our survival as a free nation.

Solicitor Mark Stephens, a media law specialist partner with London law firm Finers Stephens Innocent , who also represents the WSJ is quoted by a British legal publication saying: “New York court’s decision was “obviously wrong” and not merits-based.”

…The New York Sun newspaper reported the decision by saying the State’s highest court had “turned down a chance to protect American authors from libel judgments awarded by foreign courts”.

The newspaper quoted Boston lawyer Harvey Silvergate, who has written on the case, as saying that “The New York Court of Appeals could have done a better job of protecting our Constitutional rights than it did here with this rather technical opinion.”

Perhaps a bit of a concerted effort from across the Atlantic would be in order as well: in the UK we’ve recently seen libel threats being used to suppress legitimate discussion of public figures such as the blogger Paul Staines (a supposed “libertarian”) and the Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov (in the latter case the attempt was a dismal failure).

Meanwhile, it’s interesting to see that Craig Unger’s House of Bush, House of Saud, which in the UK proudly bears the label “banned by Amazon.co.uk” is actually available from second-hand merchants on that website, and I’ve seen the book available in Waterstones.

UPDATE: It seems Lappen got her idea from Jed Babbin, editor of Human Events. According to Babbin,

Under assault by Muslims and multiculturalists, free speech and freedom of the press are dead in Britain…

Actually, I can think of all kinds of people who have undermined free speech in the UK by resorting to repressive British libel laws – and most of them are certainly not Muslims.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

I’m a bit late with this – via Jurist:

The UN General Assembly has passed a resolution against “defamation of religion,” expressing concern about laws that have led to religions discrimination and profiling since Sept. 11. The resolution urges all:

States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance.

The full text of the resolution – A/C.3/62/L.35 – can be seen here; it was put forward by Pakistan “On behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference”. The document claims that “defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights”, and calls for freedom of expression to

be subject to limitations as provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs.

Defamation and incitement against Muslims is mentioned in particular. The resolution comes two years after a UNHCR Resolution on Islamophobia, again raised by Pakistan, which I blogged at some length at the time.

Among the 108 countries which voted in favour of the resolution was Lebanon, which in 2005 banned The Da Vinci Code while allowing Hezbollah to broadcast an anti-Semitic TV programme on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion on the grounds the censorship would “be a violation of free speech”. Also on the list were Belarus and Iran, both of which are more laid-back when it comes to the publication of anti-Jewish screeds. There’s also Russia and China, notorious for their pursuit of “totalitarian sects” and “evil cults” – definitions that apply to any religious group which refuses to toe the line.

Meanwhile, the 51 countries opposing the resolution included nations such as Poland and the United Kingdom, both of which have laws against blasphemy…

(Hat tip: MediaWatchWatch and Dispatches from the Culture Wars)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

The latest issue of Mother Jones has an interesting article (online here) on attempts by American Christians to find oil in Israel. The author, Mariah Blake, concentrates mainly on Ness Energy, a shell company devised by Hayseed Stephens in 1997:

In late 2002 he told Prophecy Club listeners that “experts from Israel and around the world” had studied his planned drilling site and concluded that “18 to 50 billion barrels of oil” were hidden beneath the surface, reserves worth up to a trillion dollars. “You cannot find such good odds in Vegas, Atlantic City, or anywhere else in the world, even if you are nothing but a gambler.”

However, investors discovered that shares could not be re-sold; they watched them rise in value, then fall dramatically. Ness has acquired $10 million, despite not actually digging anywhere. Blake notes that several Ness insiders also have links with a company called Safescript Pharmacies, which had its license revoked by the SEC allegedly “for artificially inflating its stock value through a fraudulent accounting scheme”:  the head of Safescript was Stanley Swanson, who was also founding CEO of Ness, while a Safescript consultant was Ivan Webb. Webb was Ness’s financial officer and was also involved with a firm called Broadband Wireless that had allegedly cheated investors . Ness, according to the article, purchased $1 million dollars of shares from Safescript which became worthless soon after.

Blake also travelled to Jerusalem to look through Israel’s oil register; she says that she discovered that Stephens controlled a second private company, named Hesed, which would receive any profits from drilling undertaken by Ness – leaving Ness investors with nothing. In 2003, Hesed and another firm owned by Stephens were sold to Ness, according to Blake at inflated prices. Stephens died a month later.

Ness, though, is still going, and for a month a businessman named Anthony Allenby was appointed CEO – leading to a raise in stock prices and payouts to executives, but no actual oil. Blake describes Allenby as “British”; he is actually South African, although based in the UK. In the last few months (this isn’t in Blake’s piece) Allenby has established Allenby-Ness Oil, much to the displeasure of Stephens’ son, who has fired off transatlantic legal threats on behalf of Ness Energy to Allenby in Uckfield in East Sussex, where he is associated with an obscure “Churchill and Associates Limited”.

Blake’s article also draws attention to some other figures who have promised oil bonanzas for Christians but then failed to deliver: Andy Sorelle, who was puffed by Pat Robertson on the 700 Club in the 1980s; Bernard Coffindaffer, “who searched for oil using scriptural clues and a vial of his own blood”; and Covenant Energy, which ended in fraud convictions.

There is also a profile of Zion Oil, whose banner appears often at the head of the WorldNetDaily homepage. I’ve been following Zion Oil ever since Hal Lindsey encouraged his readers on WND to buy shares, without disclosing that his cousin Ralph DeVore was a member of the board or that he himself had received a gift of shares worth $337,500 (DeVore’s shares are worth $4.9 million; the significance of DeVore was first noticed by me; Blake’s article avoids going into DeVore’s hilarious spat Zion CEO John Brown, which I blogged here). Blake observes that

Unlike Ness, Zion is a legitimate wildcatting venture, with respected geologist on its board of directors.

However,

Zion was never close to striking oil; at its very first stockholders’ meeting in June, the firm announced plans to temporarily abandon its only well due to technical problems.

Full paper reference:

Mariah Blake, ‘Let there be light crude’, Mother Jones January-February 2007: 54-57, 81, 86.

(Hat tip to a reader for bringing this to my attention)

Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Over to Shelby Corbitt:

Oh well, maybe this guy will have better luck:

Nostradamus prophesied the death of Princess Diana, her “temple” at Althorp, and her reappearance to the world as a miraculous apparition. This final event may take place in October 2008 near the eve of World War III.

…If Toutatis is the asteroid predicted by Nostradamus, it will smash into the Aegean or Ionian sea part-way through the reign of Hieron (anagram of Chiren) in July 2008…Pop superstar and Kabbalah high priestess Madonna may be a personification of the “Whore of Babylon” who appears in the Book of Revelation…

…A potentially spectacular and dangerous “comet” or other celestial body is revealed in ancient prophetic text and may portend a great loss of human and animal life between May 2008 and November 2009. Is Comet McNaught a harbinger of this menace from outer space? Or is it the Mabus “death star?”.

Meanwhile, the Pagan Prattle has a comprehensive round-up.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »