Libel tourism in the UK
'Libel tourism' in the UK is providing those that really don't deserve it with the right to silence their detractors, anywhere in the world. This is an abomination and should be stopped. From the Evening Standard A free speech crusade we should all be proud to join Nick Cohen Saudi bankers and Russian oligarchs love London, and not only for its chichi boutiques. English judges provide them with a unique and de-luxe service: the right to silence detractors from all corners of the globe. Their behaviour is causing an international scandal but you would never guess it from the wretched response to the Daily Mail editor-in-chief's criticisms of Mr Justice Eady. The supposedly liberal-minded Lord Falconer, the former Labour Lord Chancellor, and Lord Lester, who once championed human rights, have burbled their defences of Eady, apparently unaware that all over the world honest people fear him. I've been on the fringes of campaigns for freedom of expression for years, and could provide dozens of examples. But let us begin with the case that has made English law a laughing stock. One of Barack Obama's first acts as president will be to sign into law the Libel Tourism Bill, which is sailing through the US Congress. America is an ally whose law has its roots in England but because of Eady it will not recognise the judgments of English courts. Eady allowed the billionaire Saudi banker Khalid bin Mahfouz to sue Rachel Ehrenfeld, an American author. Ms Ehrenfeld had not published or promoted her book on the funding of terrorism in England. The sheikh had paid hundreds of millions of dollars in fines after the collapse of the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International. Eady shrugged and ordered that all copies of Ehrenfeld's book should nevertheless be pulped. The New York politician Rory Lancman responded with a robustness our leaders can rarely manage, and thundered: "When US journalists and authors can be hauled into kangaroo courts on phoney-baloney libel charges in overseas jurisdictions who don't share our belief in freedom of speech or a free press, all of us are threatened." And not only in America. A chill is spreading around the world. The Ukrainian website Obozrevatel was sued for libel in London by the local oligarch. It doesn't publish in English but our judges didn't care. The human rights charity Global Witness has been threatened with libel action for criticising a corrupt African dictatorship. The Law Lords allowed the film-maker Roman Polanski to sue in Eady's court, even though he could not appear in person because he would have been arrested and deported to the US to face allegations of child abuse. Every British journalist knows of rich and dangerous men we must steer clear of for fear of cripplingly expensive libel cases before judges who do not understand democracy's need for plain speaking and open debate. This summer the United Nations accused Britain of allowing Eady and his colleagues to stifle free speech. After this week, I don't know which is the more shameful: that Eady will see no reason to resign or that Lords Falconer and Lester will see no reason for him to go.

Thee have been a whole host of dubious characters who have made British "Justice" a total mockery. Leading UK lawyers have become simply financial pimps. Worth remembering some of those who flew to the High Court on libel and slander issues: Maxwell: Jeffery Archer Aitken: Fayed: et al. England has become a land in which the poor pay for it and the non-resident non-taxpaying rich exploit it. Nice country.

If no offence has been committed here then there should be no jurisdiction here. If criminal offences committed abroad aren't recognised then why should libels, it's totally wrong and utterly pathetic.