Reform UK libel law now

Dave

Promises to Dave Cameron is what Andrex is to bums.

Dixon

This is all the more urgent now that we see widespread use of libel-law and spurious damages cases to silence criticism of Islamists and terror-enablers.

sleeping dolls

Dixon: I wonder which particular recent case you had in mind?!

Off topic, how about the international response to the fire in the Carmel? Hardly the actions of people who (were I to believe much written here) want to see the destruction of Israel.

Dixon

"sleeping dolls
December 3rd, 2010 11:31am

Dixon: I wonder which particular recent case you had in mind?!"

If you read Mels piece you'll see she cites one such case in her argument.

Another is the current case against Pamela Geller by the lawyer for the parents of Rifqa Barry seeking $10 million damages for allegedly slandering him by questioning his motives.

Or the case against the director of "Blazing Cat Fur" for $6 million in damages for offending someones religious beliefs.

Dixon

"sleeping dolls
December 3rd, 2010 11:31am

Off topic, how about the international response to the fire in the Carmel? Hardly the actions of people who (were I to believe much written here) want to see the destruction of Israel."

If you can go off-topic we can go off your topic, but stillon the topic of Islam and fires:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1874471.stm

John Steadman

It seems to me a great many of Mr Davis' parliamentary colleagues - and by no-means just the usual suspects on the Left - as well as media commentators, are more than anxious to protect the freedoms of suspected terrorist sympathisers - consider the 28/42/90 day marathon debate, for example - but when it comes to defending the freedom of expression for the vast majority of us somewhat less-menacing law-abiding types who merely seek to express an opinion that might be deemed offensive by some precious minority or other, they are strangely less animated.
The Coalition's "promises", Melanie? Really!

sleeping dolls

Dixon@2.00pm:

Truly horrible, even if it was nearly ten years ago.

But aren't you one of those who believes BBC coverage of the Middle East is not to be trusted?

On Carmel, here's what Netanyahu has said: "The international answer to our call was outstanding, and the willingness to send help was also impressive, and it should bring comfort to all citizens of Israel. It demonstrates that there is affection for, and identification with Israel from all corners.'

Do you agree? Or do you still see only enemies?

celato

Rich litigators are not the only ones to benefit from Britain's libel law.

Among its greatest iniquities is in presenting almost insuperable hurdles for people of modest incomes (let alone the poor) to win redress for defamation.

Lack of legal aid and prohibitively high court costs are as much of a deterrent to those prosecuting a libel case as to those defending it.

And media lawyers know this perfectly well.

Refusal by journalists to offer prompt retractions and apologies for damagingly inaccurate reports is all too often the knee-jerk response - 'Go on, then, sue!' - being the preferred way to shut most complainants up.

Journalists who rely too complacently on this strategy can, however, occasionally come a cropper. (They may under-estimate the wealth of one victim, or the fund-raising tenacity of another.) Then, what a howl arises!

The law that has shielded them so effectively is suddenly seen as 'draconian' and a 'threat to free speech'. Furious demands for change abound as belated retractions/apologies/financial compensation are reluctantly wrenched out at the eleventh hour to avoid litigation.

Perhaps if journalists were more ready to admit their mistakes, genuinely injured parties would be less inclined to want payment in blood and enough money saved to fend off unwarranted accusations.

Kieran Gallagher

When the Governor of the Bank of England recently said that Davis Cameron was simply not up to the job then perhaps it was the beginning of the end for the Cameron Premiership?

Let’s hope there is a leadership election in the Conservative Party soon.

Brian O'Connor

sleeping dollsā”

I strongly support your right to believe what you wish and to express whatever opinion you choose.

But forgive me . . .

I believe that Rachel Ehrenfeld and people like her should be able to publish books like she did without fear of being sued by fabulously wealthy people such as Khalid bin Mahfouz.

I also believe that people should be able to publish works opposed to former President Bush, even those envisioning his assassination, however repugnant I might find them to be, without fear of being sued.

It's a failing of mine . . .

Neil Craig

When Russian oligarcs are coming to Britain to find a more restrictive & authoritarian form of government we must take them at their deed.

Davis lost the Conservative leadership purely because he was seen as having some integrity & passion compared to Cameron's "Blair lite".

He has since shown more integrity & passion & Cameron, more liteness.

C.Gee

sleeping dolls
December 3rd, 2010 11:31am:

It would not be appropriate for Melanie Phillips to comment on any case she was a party to, though that case is, in fact, a good illustration of the pro-plaintiff bias of the British libel law.

With respect to the fire in Israel and the international response:

Compare and contrast the response to Israel’s provision of disaster aid to Haiti - or indeed Turkey, Indonesia or scores of other countries. Note the accusations by NGOs and the press that Israel: is indulging in opportunistic PR; is guilty of double standards in its humanitarianism, preferring to show compassion to everyone except the Palestinians; and is trying to distract attention away from its treatment of the Palestinians. Moreover, if Jews claim Israel’s humanitarian actions represent them, then they should not complain when Israel’s inhumane actions are taken to represent them too.

The Israeli media coverage of the fire seems to be using the paradigm of Katrina reporting: excoriating the (right wing) authority for being unprepared and callous. Of the international aid sent, it is Turkey’s which is dwelt upon. Netanyahu’s effusive thanks is reported with relish - as if it were an admission that Turkey’s humanitarianism now proves its humanitarianism in the flotilla incident, and Netanyahu has egg on his face. I have not read any insinuation that Turkey is indulging in PR or is distracting attention away from its treatment of Kurds or has double standards for compassion. And as you demonstrate, there is no suggestion that the aid from Turkey should not be taken as representative of the good will towards Israel by all its so-called Islamic enemies.

There is a lesson to be learned here. The same lesson, again. Jews are human beings when they are in need, suffering or dead - a status retroactively accorded to them as a people before they reestablished their nation. As Israelis, in health and strength, and defending themselves, they are inescapably racist, immoral and inhumane. The very last thing that should be conceded is their national humanity.

Alex Bensky

Well, thank goodness over here we still have the First Amendment to the constitution and much of the libel litigation in the UK would not get past a first look in an American court.

Not that we can rest on our laurels, to be sure. No one who understands what leftists are really about will be surprised to know that the First Amendment guarantees are under fire in the US primarily (not exclusively) from the left. "Hate speech is not free speech" is just one manifestation of this.

Of course, "hate speech" is free speech; few people are interested in banning speech with which they agree.

AY

.."Reform UK libel law" - that sounds very similar to "free Palestine" or "stop the war".

..problem certainly isn't the law - but interpretations.

In particular, the free hand given to the alliance of oil money and terrorism, - and these guys will use any laws and any unprincipled nihilist scoundrels interpreting laws, to suppress those few who try to tell truth. The next stage will be suppression just for trying to know truth.

The low quality of population is the main reason for having that shameful mess, and growing danger of civil unrest and totalitarian takeover.

Free speech, as everyhting else free, is meaningless (rather harmful) without responsibility.

Especially in the society that is just grotesque collection of garbage. Just remind the story of that guy who arrived in the UK as student on "hospitality management" (sic!) course - but instead decided to start a career in social justice enforcement, - by hacking to death a woman he never knew, with a machete bought for £14 by her husband, another imbecil.

Give'em free speech, that is what they urgently need.. Machetes they already have, for better persuasiveness.