The Importance of Being Libelled

Ken

Mr Bright:
"end the routine use of the insult "Islamophobe" by Islamists.."

Your legal action would most regrettably end nothing.

The MCB is seriously out of control greatly encouraged through craven knee-bending by the marxists in power.

Your chances in court may be good but fear of the "Moslem Army" (and its mobiliser-in-chief Lord Ahmed) would in reality temper your victory, rest assured.

Even the Times this week has a clutch of Sharia-supportive articles on its Law pages.

The policies of the Left are to foster the destruction of European civilisation under the the banner of "progressive politics".

Stopping the juggernaut without any brakes is going to be Herculean.

Hawkeye

Martin said: "the insult "Islamophobe" is thrown around so casually. It is essentially a charge of racism"

No.

Islam is a religion. It is a choice you make. Don't do the racists a favour by expanding their definitions.

Hawkeye

"Should I take action against the Engage libel? As an anti-libel law campaigner it would provide an interesting moral conundrum. But it's a serious defamation and my chances of success would be high. "

I fail to see what your confusion is here. If you have been libelled then you take action. As a campaigner to stop misuse of the libel laws you should see that if you use the laws yourself then you use them for the right reasons.

It would be unreasonable to sue if, for example, someone expressed something as an OPINION rather than a stating it as a FACT. There is a world of difference between saying "J. Bloggs Esq is a drunk" and "I'm worried by the amount that I have seen J. Bloggs Esq drinking"

Hugh

Why do you need to ask this? You'd look absurd if you're campaigning against the libel laws and then your first recourse is to use them when someone calls you an 'Islamophobe'.

Jerry Thomas

Fascinating problem to have Martin. As you say you have an open and shut case for defamation but equally, no matter how strong the case, there is something quite distasteful about journalists suing people for libel.

For what it's worth, my view would be that you could issue a claim form against the website and simply make it clear the whole way through that you are not intent upon seeking personal damages (perhaps that would be even better than donating them to charity) and neither are you seeking to restrict their right to freedom of expression.

You could request that the post be "updated" with a clarification and an apology but not actually removed because
a) there is little point in the internet age of just getting something taken down off one website and
b) you are not silencing them - just forcing them to correct an error.

Dave B

Go for it.

Hawkeye

Jerry Thomas said: "You could request that the post be "updated" with a clarification and an apology"

Although I am not a lawyer, my understanding is that if you proceed to court before you ask for an apology and/or retraction, then the judge gets upset and tells you to go off and request an apology before wasting court time.

A refusal of a reasonable request to clarify the article would also strengthen the case for Martin if it went to court.

Jerry Thomas

Hawkeye: You are absolutely right, the first step would be to ask for an apology and retraction.
I just skipped that step as I suspect it will not be one which yields the result Martin wants!

aseriesoftubes

Any meaningful reform of our libel laws would preclude you taking a case like this. If you were to proceed it would demonstrate that you would be satisfied with half-baked reform and that you're in favour of free speech except when you disagree and feel you've been insulted.

Paul Jones

That's not true aseriesoftubes. You can take issue with the most iniquitous aspects of our libel laws e.g. the judge-made privacy law, conditional fee agreements, the costs of defending a libel action and libel tourism while still going ahead with a case like this.

ndm

-- I object in the strongest terms to the way the insult "Islamophobe" is thrown around so casually. It is essentially a charge of racism: the cheapest of shots and utterly without foundation.

"Islamophobe" is never thrown around as casually as "anti-Semitism" which is now used to attack anyeone even remotely critical of Israel. The cry of anti-Semitism is now routine from those who seek to defend decades of Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, given its past association with Nazi Germany and the Holocaust it is a particularly foul libel - far more so than Islamophobe.

That Martin Bright has "already taken legal advice" shows him to be a fair-weather critic of the libel laws. Had he sought legal advice in the United States about a similar libel he would have wasted his money because he is a public figure. Realistically, anyone purveying "dispatches from enemy territory" really needs to be made of sterner stuff.

mac

"it would provide an interesting moral conundrum.'

Only because you choose to make it so. Or is it hesitation over damaging your progressive credentials in the eyes of good ol' Sunder, Sunny, Yasmin et al?

Richard

A phobia is an irrational fear. Fear of Islamist violence is not irrational.

Jeremy

"...the cheapest of shots and utterly without foundation."

Martin, it strikes me that there is a lot of this sort of thing to be found online - and most particularly so in the arena of politics. I am becoming increasingly aware of it myself.

Personally, I think it is best ignored. To engage with them is simply to give them additional promotion.

As for what they called you... well, it is always easier to simply call other people names rather than to construct a reasonable argument against whatever their position may be. Any person of intelligence already knows this.

Their behaviour is beneath contempt and therefore - I would say - beneath your notice.

Unless, that is, it is Very Serious Indeed. In which case just nuke 'em and be done with it...

Morus

Don't do it.

It's called the (Barbra) Streisand Effect [see Wikipedia], and it's why we should do away with defamation suits for the sale of the people who misguidedly file them as well as for those silenced by them.