Galloway vs Toube: libel laws could kill blogging
Posted on Saturday 20 March, 2010
Filed Under Respect
SUPPOSE I was tentatively to postulate that George Galloway is, by predeliction, broadly sympathetic to some elements found at the more radical end of the Palestinian nationalist political spectrum.
If you find that notion unduly controversial, or even shocking, I apologetically implore you in advance to forgive my impertinence in advancing such a contentious premise. All I ask is that you temporarily suspend your disbelief and work with me for a few minutes, just by way of a thought experiment.
On the entirely hypothetical presumption that Mr Galloway’s position actually is as I assert it to be – simply for illustrative purposes, as I must immediately stress in the most insistent terms – would it cause the Respect MP to be held in hatred, ridicule or contempt? Harry’s Place blogger David Toube is about to find out.
I myself would not have used the patently infelicitous words Toube chose to employ in the comments box at Socialist Unity, in describing what he believes to be the relationship between Galloway-linked charity Viva Palestina and the Palestinian grouping Hamas. The formulation was especially inadvisable, given the known litiguous tendencies of the target. His remarks have in any case since been deleted.
But in essence, what Toube said boils down to no more than my opening proposition with unnecessary embellishments. Yet Galloway has responded with a threat of legal action for libel unless he is sent a cheque for £50,000. His aide Kevin Ovenden, also associated with Viva Palestina, is asking for the same sum of money.
Whatever the proximate cause for such an unwarranted outbreak of apparent unseemliness, some observers maintain that there has been a history of reciprocated animosity between Harry’s Place and George Galloway for some considerable period.
I have to admit at once that I am in no position whatsoever to reach an informed conclusion on this. Why, for all I know, such talk may be entirely comprised of unsubstantiated malicious speculation.
Unfortunately, this unproven belief has led to patently mendacious suggestions that our courageous, strong and indefatigable parliamentarian is motivated primarily by a desire to silence one of his most persistent online critics.
Interestingly, on the very day that Toube received a letter from Galloway’s lawyers, the blogger considered by some to be Galloway’s most prominent internet loyalist posted a YouTube clip under the title ‘DAVID TOUBE IN ISLAMOPHOBIC RANT’. There is no suggestion that Socialist Unity’s timing in this was anything other than a gratifyingly fortuitous instantiation of Jungian synchronicity.
The video shows Toube at some kind of political meeting, about which no further details are supplied. He acts in an intolerably disruptive fashion, refusing to take directions from the chair in a civilised fashion. He is then expelled from the meeting, and rightly so.
So what are we to conclude? These reflections are prompted by the fact that for the last three years I too have been involved in libel proceedings brought by Johanna Kaschke, one of several erstwhile Respect members who have since joined the Conservative Party in Tower Hamlets. Many people have wished me well in this matter, and all I can add here is that things are currently looking good, and may soon be resolved in my favour.
I am also aware that lawyers acting for a retired businessman with documented links to the right wing of the Conservative Party have recently sent a demand for retraction and damages to a far left group. If the matter does come to a head, the Trots will effectively have to shut up shop.
Now, David Toube and I disagree on many important political issues. I, for example, strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq and am in favour of a democratic secular state as the only viable solution for the Israel/Palestine question.
His positions are diametrically opposite to mine. Yet as a fellow blogger, I believe that he should be able to express them as robustly as he wishes, even if this entails resort to sarcasm or satire.
My mind is not altered by the fact that Toube made a complete prick of himself at the event depicted on SU. His behaviour was shocking. But I am confident that he will not be sending me a heavy letter simply for because I speak my brains on this one.
I will certainly be willing to donate some of the costs I fully expect to win from Ms Kaschke to any legal defence fund Toube establishes. Indeed, I cannot think of a better use for the money then in support of the basic right to freedom of speech.
In the interest of a serious discussion of the issues English libel law raises for blogging, I have decided to leave the comments box open. But please be warned that there will be ruthless deletion of any comments even mildly defamatory towards Britain’s most high-profile anti-imperialist.
<<Go back
Comments
82 Responses to “Galloway vs Toube: libel laws could kill blogging”
Leave a Reply
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Moddy – I can’t quite believe that even anonymously, you have the gall not to deny what I have said but to simply make false counter allegations. To suggest that I ban people because their arguments embarrass me is dishonest even by your own appalling standards. Such dishonesty goes a long way to explaining why you choose to remain anonymous.
I don’t have to deny being either fascist or racist because no serious person would believe you but you accusing me of being a fascist for questioning you over your dishonest allegation that Shlomo Sand is a promoter of an antisemitic variant of the Khazar hypothesis is plain ludicrous. You further accused PSC, GG and SU of the same thing. I correctly pointed out that you are a liar and a fool and nothing you have said has detracted from that.
Every blogger bans something. I usually ban time wasting, overt racism and persistent lying and refusals to answer points of clarification. I allow through more lies and racism from zionists than I ban or I would never have comments from zionists and they have their uses.
Look at Bob from Brockley. Lie after lie after lie and I allowed and wasted lots of time exposing the lies. He even went to his own blog and others to lie about what had happened and I still allowed him back. And I would never deny a right of reply to an allegation against a named individual as you do and Toube does.
You claim that I am a fascist and that I was banned for that reason but when you thought you could sustain your ludicrous assertion that the aforementioned (Sand, PSC, GG and SU) were promoting a particular antisemitic variant of the Khazar hypothesis, you knew my anti-zionist position but you were happy to let me comment several times and you even tried to respond, mostly by repeating your unsupported and unexplained assertions. I would link but I think you’ve since doctored the post.
You didn’t suddenly discover my politics. I exposed you as the liar and fool that you are and so you eventually applied your “no platform for fascists” policy. And you’re now lying about my moderation as well as your own. You obviously forgot your previous excuse for only talking about me and not to me. You said I was immature and boring. Like you’re a fascinating grown up.
Anyway modders, this is neither your blog nor mine. I was merely pointing up your hypocrisy, your dishonesty and your sheer stupidness only to be treated to more of the same. But it’s bad manners to continue this on what is a well managed and well read blog, woops, and well written too.
Re Dr Tamimi, he is a victim of ethnic cleansing, the perpetrators and beneficiaries of which are Jews. I would describe him telling Jews to go back to Germany as anti-Jewish and politically infantile. Given the sheer powerlessness of the Palestinians, I would not call it racist any more than I would call black anger at whites racist.
I do call the movement, state and system that has driven most Arabs from what we now call Israel into the occupied territories and beyond racist because it has the power to enforce a prejudice which is based largely on heredity and it uses that power with viciously murderous abandon that I am yet to see you criticise. The power balance makes all the difference.
But we’ve strayed way off topic. There are major issues about Hamas nowadays and they seem to be emerging as yet another manager of the occupation, only in Gaza, not the West Bank, where fatah runs the show.
I think we’ve exhausted this now Moddy. Except for one thing. In Dave’s post on the settlements in Jerusalem, in spite of you saying many times that I should not be engaged with because I am childish, boring and now a fascist, you insisted (to me, not about me) that I provide sources for my assertions. In spite of you being a time waster because you must surely have known I could support what I was saying, I provided three sources for two assertions. You must have suddenly remembered that I am a fascist because you didn’t acknowledge my response but never mind. Though Dave, to his credit, did.
But I can’t help noticing that you haven’t provided any evidence for your smears. Double standards again Moddy. A liar, a fool and an outrageous hypocrite. Again I say, no wonder you prefer anonymity.
Note to Dave:
I think this is a very worthwhile blog. I am sorry that I seem to have sparked a flame war. It’s actually a compliment to you and your blog that I worry that people reading something here will take it seriously, (that fascist stuff was obviously bollocks no matter where it appeared) so I deny Moddy’s main smear about my moderating because that’s an attack on my integrity. I wouldn’t bother if it was Engage, Harry’s Place or Moddy’s own blog. But it was me that started this so, once again, sorry. And apologies for any repetitions. I’m tired and if I don’t make sure of covering as many points as pos, moddy will falsely accuse me of evasion. What a character!
Cheers
I along since gave up ever trying to argue with Elf.
He’s great at monologues, even better at streams of consciousness blogging, but largely incapable of addressing any of the issues raised in a rational way.
And certainly any of his summaries are decidedly suspect, if any reader is really interested they can see the exchange from last year (I had forgotten about it)
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/khazars-the-far-right-and-dubious-history/
And later on they can follow the link to a comments box at Bob from Brockley, where Elf accuses him of being a Jewish supremacist. [comment at November 17, 2009 3:10]
It is fairly typical of the inflammatory language used by Elf and really so much nonsense it is not worth giving it a moment’s thought.
PS: Elf, I don’t think you are a fascist, were that the case, I’d say so. I am not shy.
I’d say you are thick, can’t read, assume that thinking is optional and always believe the worst of people, but you are not a fascist, just incapable of reading my comment at November 17, 2009 3:10 (see above link) and understanding it.
Moddy -You are now philibustering. I accused Bob from Brockley of being a Jewish supremacist because everything he said pointed to his being one. Though I gather he back-peddled later in the thread. He also indicated that he thought that Jews are entitled to privileges now on account of the suffering of ancestors but like you he has a tendency to change and invent his arguments as he goes along. I think he may have settled on the idea that Jews who don’t come from Palestine should have a special right to settle there but non-Jews or maybe Arabs have to actually come from there. He even at one point claimed to support the Palestinians’ right to return. But maybe he’s changed from that now, I don’t know. Basically, his position is that of a Jewish supremacist.
You didn’t long since give up arguing with me. You tried it here only yesterday and today. You did so by lying about my moderating and by failing to support the lie in spite of your insistence that I provide sources for fairly basic true information that is easy enough to find in the mainstream Israeli media. That latter argument, too, was hardly “long since”. And I’m the thick one, huh?
You have also accused me of misrepresenting your arguments, which is impossible because you will say anything to undermine a critic.
But you claimed to provide “no platform for fascists” in the context of a discussion where my banning (which I hadn’t known about) was mentioned. Ok, you didn’t mean me. Fine. But you don’t provide a platform for people who you can’t win an argument against even when you make things up as you go along. And you do provide a platform for supporters of ethno-religious supremacy and relentless militarism. So your no platform policy is hardly consistent.
You have called me thick and to round off, you claim to not be shy. And yet you maintain anonymity. If you must break your word (yet again again again) over “long since” giving up arguing with me, perhaps you could pretend to provide some evidence for your false claim about my moderating. Or you could shut up. Don’t be shy. No one knows who you are.
Dave – apologies once again for being drawn so far off topic.
I do hope people will click the “older comments” button. I particularly enjoyed Will’s one.
Elf,
Listen up, go read the thread, I explain why there, otherwise just shut up, your excessive ranting is rather boring.
As for anonymity, I am an antifascist, and if you can’t work out why an antifascist would want anonymity then you are really more stupid than I take you for, which is considerable.
My views are unfortunately not anonymous, if you are truly interested in anyone else but your chronic moaning then you could read them. It is simple enough even for a political village idiot such as yourself, follow the link.
As I said, I don’t think you are a fascist, but I’m not so sure about your mate Gert, he comes out with weird and racist statements periodically, which is why he is banned.
http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/khazars-the-far-right-and-dubious-history/
Jimmy Glesga:
You are wrong indeed.
Modders:
This is what you wrote on account of me having comments deleted at HP:
It is good that racists such as you and HB are not even given the time of day.
Go peddle your racist filth elsewhere.
On that same comment thread one Zionist blogger (an Israeli) told you in no uncertain terms that you were wrong about me.
Another two bloggers (Mark and Margaret) then asked you emphatically to come up with the goods: what was it that I wrote anywhere that you consider ‘racist filth’. You refused to answer the question, instead resorting to your standard:
It is fairly simple to spot anti-Jewish racists, they rant on about the misdemeanors of Jews ad nauseum, and even if they change the words around, as the Far Right do, using “Zionist” instead of Jews, it fools no one.
This is sums up who you see as antisemites: ‘Zionism is a code word for Jews’.
As I’ve promised you elsewhere: I’m going to check your Kommentariat to see if they comply with your comment policy. I doubt that very much: there’s considerable racism among Zionist commenters, ranging from Arabophobia to Islamophobia to occasional bouts of Jewish supremacism.
Regarding the Far Right, we all know where the BNP and EDL stand on Israel and Zionism…
Gert. I think I am right. I am sure it was on the ‘Wright Stuff’ morning chat. It is history in any case.
Jimmy,
So he appeared once on the ‘Wright Stuff’ (or so you claim), so what? All politicians are whores for publicity, no exceptions.
Gert. Just a memory Gert. He may have appeared more than once. But I am sure he did! So what if he did Gert and I am right. What do you make of anyone claiming dogs or animals do not have souls. Strange thing to say Gert if he did! Maybe the channel five archives will tell all.
Stalkers like Gert never go away, shame cos they ruin an otherwise interesting thread, but I suppose that’s their purpose, as they are largely apolitical and without the ability to analyse anything of consequence on their own.
For such cranks everything comes down to straw men, faulty comprehension skills and their own petty personal battles.
Silly really.
Stalkers like Moralityblog never go away, shame cos they ruin an otherwise interesting thread, but I suppose that’s their purpose, as they are largely apolitical and without the ability to analyse anything of consequence on their own.
For such cranks everything comes down to straw men, faulty comprehension skills and their own petty personal battles.
Silly really.
I don’t understand why Jimmy Glesga is going on about Galloway’s professed belief that non-humans do not have souls? That is a perfectly standard belief among religious people, and makes Galloway neither better nor worse. I am sure there are plenty of other beliefs that he holds that one could criticise him for more aptly.
SueR. Hardly going on SueR. The standard belief you go on about is about brainwashing. Why are the pervs getting away with abuse of children for instance because of the standard belief. But I suppose some socialists are envious about religious standard beliefs!
Cranks.
Lots of them.
Not me guv.
Muzzle.
Sorry, Jimmy G, yes it’s a load of bollocks but unfortunately, as a socialist, I believe in freedom of conscience. As for child abuse, I don’t think you will find that religious people positively encourage it. Although, Jesus did say, ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me.’. (My eleven year old is researching into the Easter Story for school and had to write an essay. Last night she said to me, ‘Was Jesus’ surname Christ? Was Mary called Mrs Christ? What was the name of Jesus’ father?’. I explained that Christ is a title like King.).
Must tell you my other religious joke. A very distant cousin of mine works at the Windsor registry office and she officiated at the wedding of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. Afterwards she gave my mother a copy of the wedding certificate. I was telling a friend of mine about this and she said,’Is that the one where she gave her occupation as ‘none’?’. I thought she meant ‘nun’ and replied ‘I know she’s a Catholic, but I don’t think she was a nun.’. How we roared!!
How did we get on to non-humans having souls?
“If dogs have a heaven, there’s one thing I know; Old Shep has a Wonderful Home.” [sung by Elvis Presley]
Gerald Durrell was occasionally asked the same question about the chimps in his zoo in Jersey’ usually by people at the end of their lives.
When I was very very young, a C. of E. bishop was visiting an oldies’ day-care centre and one old bat asked him “Bishop, will be have our pets in heaven?” and – speaking on no theological foundation whatsoever – he gave the kindest answer possible by replying in the affirmative and – predictably – was gently teased for this …
“If that bloody barkin Alsatian down the road is going to Heaven, I want a ticket to Limbo!” and “Do public life have souls, too?”
I also remember a C. of E. Bishop of Oxford predicting that “in the near future” a baby a minute “in England” would be sacrificed to Lord Satan. My cheapie Shezhen pocket calcular makes that 1,440 babies a day or 525,600 a year.
Somehow or other that never actually happened. Unless it’s a very well-kept secret, of course.
The reference was to PUBLIC LICE – papillons d’amour – possessing souls, not to public lice.
If headlice have souls [there's bound to be at least one nutty religion which believes this] are we committing Mortal Sins in trying to keep out children nit-free and louse-free.
Are we all doing what we can to Save the Threadworm?
Back to the political theme of Hamas’s anti-Jewish racism.
About 3 years ago, there was another open admission by a Hamas spokesperson:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/863278.html
Bill Corr: It is the Hindus who believe that lice have souls. Remember their belief in ‘reincarnation’ or ‘transmigration of the soul’. That is why Jains (a type of Hinduism) will not eat any vegetable that has been dug up, such as potatoes, in case an insect was squashed while the spadeworl was going on. One of my daughter’s schoolfriends is a Jain and whenever she is invited to birthday parties, she cannot partake of the delectable vegetable nuggets and chips that is standard fare in kiddy amusement places. (Not to mention the hamburger or chicken nuggets). And as for satanic sacrifices, if we are to believe the more lurid newspapers, it was jolly widespread back in teh 70s and 80s.
I realised a couple of years ago, after years of nitcombing my children, that this is precisely why women in tropical countries dress their hair with oil, to stop the little bleeders getting a grip. The men shave their heads for the same reason. As far as ‘crabs’ or pubic lice go, all you can do is practice sexual hygiene.
message board for cranks here.
let me join in and leave my mark.
dog pissing on a tree. Video here.
wibble wubble bark bark.
There is the moon — shout at it.
OMG, a debate about whether pubic life have souls ??
Can I just strike a note of schadenfreude here?
Okay, a moment of nasty, twisted, glee that I know I should be ashamed of. I do, I really do know I should have feelings of shame for my own reaction, but, somehow, you know, it’s it’s it’s… too powerful to fight.
So just let me gloat for a quite second that what goes around has finally come around to David T.
That is all.
As it happens, I really didn’t know anything about it, although I have spoken to Kevin since about it.
It would have wrked the other way, if I had known people were lawyering up, I would have stayed well away from the topic.
Although of course there was nothing libelous about the article that included the You-tube of Toube’s rant, neither was it diplomatic.
Andy – I’ve asked you this somewhere else, but maybe you didn’t see my question. I’ve had a listen to that video clip of David Toube that you call “islamophobic”. I can’t hear anything “islamophobic” in it. Would you please quote the relevant words?
Moon here.
shout at it.
mark left.
As it happens, I really didn’t know anything about it, although I have spoken to Kevin since about it.
So this means:
1. That Kevin & George didn’t ask for the offending comment to be taken down before they worte letters to David T.
2. That they avidly read the site run by one of their few supporters, yet fail to contact him when they find something they think is libellous on it.
I don’t think I’m alone in finding this stretching the bounds of credulity.
Thanks for a a great and ingeniously written piece – silver tongued Dave! I too will cough up to support Toube whose intervention at Freshfields caught on YouTube, I actually consider very brave and admirable indeed.
Hmmmmmm…. It could be paraphrased as: “I ain’t going down alone, commie, your little comments box tempted me one time too many so I’m gonna take you with me!”
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=5536