Thursday, 4th November 2010

The growing case for libel reform

James Forsyth 11:56am

Policy Exchange’s work on Islamism has been some of the most important undertaken by a think-tank in recent years. It has influenced and bolstered the thinking of brave politicians in both the last government and the current one. That’s why it is so important that Policy Exchange came off best in the libel case brought against it by North London Central mosque.

The case is now over and the mosque has made, what Policy Exchange calls, ‘a substantial contribution’ towards the think tank’s costs. Policy Exchange has stated that it never meant to suggest that extremist literature was sold or distributed on the mosque’s grounds with the consent of the trustees or staff of the mosque. But, crucially, there is no apology and this statement appears to me to be compatible with the original report.

As Lord Bew argued in a superb recent speech in the House of Lords, our libel laws need to be rethought. Lord Lester’s libel reform effort is vital to this task. In the meantime, Policy Exchange deserves huge credit for not folding in this case. Those who believe in the need for rigorous debate and fearless research should applaud the think tank and its trustees.

Filed under: Coalition (2088 more articles) , Freedom of speech (49 more articles) , Islamism (124 more articles) , Law (122 more articles) , Libel (10 more articles) , Libel law (8 more articles) , Lord Lester (1 more articles) , Policy Exchange (41 more articles) , Security (41 more articles) , UK politics (5405 more articles)

Previous Back to Coffee House Next

Actions: Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (6) | Subscribe

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Vulture

November 4th, 2010 12:21pm Report this comment

Slightly off-post, but talking of courts and Islam.

Can anyone explain why three Muslim men were yesty allowed to abuse and 'Curse' a judge on open court, and then parade around with placards outside the court calling for the death of an MP whom a co-religionist had already tried to murder - without being arrested?

And can anyone - possibly a lawyer - assure me that a Christian/Buddhist/Jew/Hindu/agnostic would also escape arrest if they had acted in a similar fashion.

Silly questions I know...

LibertarianLou

November 4th, 2010 12:24pm Report this comment

But surely this sensible ruling demonstates that the current system operates almost perfectly? The Mosque were free to accuse Policy Exchange of libel. The case was dismissed. They had to contribute to Policy Exhchange's legal costs. They look pretty daft.

This seems to me to be exactly what our legal system should look like.

Tiberius

November 4th, 2010 12:48pm Report this comment

It should not have to be the case, but I am pleasantly surprised that the judgement went in favour of Policy Exchange.

Those judges, who choose to interpret the law in a fashion which provides incremental threats to the framework which puts them in a position to serve up those judgements in the first place, might wish to rethink their logic.

Then again, maybe some of our law enforcement and judicial agencies regard Islamists as so juvenile (which although very dangerous they certainly are) that they find treating them like adults to be difficult. Perhaps our police stations and courts should have naughty steps built in them to accommodate these cases.

Osred

November 4th, 2010 1:44pm Report this comment

In the aftermath of this case there has been the usual calls to ban Islamist videos on YouTube. I hope they aren't. The last thing this country needs is further restriction on information and discourse. Islamists would demand (and get) a quid pro quo taking down far less inflammatory stuff as their tolerance level is virtually non-existent.

The likes of Choudhary are likely to kick off anyway - the source and timing is irrelevant. What passes for 'moderation' in London's Islamic community doesnt warrant the description in the wider world.