Progress On Our Pernicious Libel Laws

Thursday, 3rd December 2009

It was great to see the cover story in Progress about this country's pernicious libel laws. The magazine did well to commission Jonathan Heawood, the rather brilliant director of English PEN, who really knows the subject.

Central to his argument is the point that the government risks being outflanked by the Tories on this issue:

The Conservatives could well come down behind the reforms that were outlined recently in the Sunday Times, based on the recommendations published by Index on Censorship and English PEN in our report, Free Speech is Not for Sale (see www.libelreform.org). Unless Labour catches up with this growing momentum for reform, it risks finding itself on the wrong side of history. The party which benefited from the liberalisation of information and ideas at the end of the 19th century now appears to be supporting oligarchs and corporations who are using the law to shut down legitimate debate.

It's good that Progress is on to this issue. Sometimes it takes a brush with the libel laws for people to realise just how dreadful they are. Earlier this year, Progress was forced to apologise to Sir Iqbal Sacranie over an excellent piece by Paul Richards about the Muslim Council of Britain after receiving a letter from libel lawyers Carter-Ruck. The details of the apology were helpfully reported on the Engage website, which was set up by the MCB's Inayat Bunglawala.

If you wondered what all the fuss was about, the full details can still be found on the same website. Funnily enough, Carter-Ruck doesn't seem to have warned the pro-MCB site about repeating the claims.

Filed under: Freedom of speech (49 more articles) , Islamists (11 more articles) , Libel law (8 more articles) , Muslim Council of Britain (6 more articles) , Progress (2 more articles)

Previous Back to Martin Bright Next

Blogs: Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (3)

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

Post comment

In2minds

December 3rd, 2009 9:40pm Report this comment

Libel laws, from your link I deduce your are keen on free speech. Well in the comments section of this blog I see - “Report this comment” hovers alongside the words I write.

So, how free is free speech? And please say what you like m'dears, I won't report you or take offence!

Rhoda Klapp

December 4th, 2009 9:31am Report this comment

Truth is still a defence, isn't it? Do you want to not have to prove truth? If so, you are trying to get a free ride to write what you like about people true or not. That really should not stand.

If however you want to be able to defend truth without excessive expense, allowing the rich to bully the press or public, that's a fine thing, but it requires a change in how the process of the law works, a kind of small claims court to quickly and cheaply establish what is true, not a change in the libel law itself. Which change in the courts would be appropriate for many other cases and altogether a good thing, but rather against the interest of the legal faction and thereby quite impossible.

paul bassett davies

February 3rd, 2010 1:27pm Report this comment

The libel issue is part of a broader conflict concerning freedom of speech. The erosion of our civil liberties by laws, for example, restricting free assembly and the right to peaceful protest are reflected in the cultural prison of self-censorship we are building for ourselves out of fear and misguided ideas about respect, often based on a misunderstanding of the principle that respect should be given to someone's right to believe what they wish, not their beliefs. The recent Irish blasphemy laws are a case in point - and so is the furore about Rod Liddle and the editorship of The Independent. You don't have to like him, and he is generous in providing us with reasons not to, but in these times isn't it better to have an editor who believes in and practices free speech than one who cravenly (and secretly) obeys the dictates of a publication's owner?

Post comment