Stephen Pollard/Spectator: yes, it is libellous to brand Muslims fascists
Posted on Thursday 2 September, 2010
Filed Under International, Politics
WHAT if a future British National Party leader sued a publication that described his organisation as fascist, and won the action? Don’t laugh. After all, we live in a country where even the most oddball of plaintiffs can issue particulars of claim that lead to years of litigation, even where the case is plainly an abuse of process.
Remember, too, that the BNP routinely insists that suggestions that it nurses affinity to fascism – perish the thought! – are ‘utter nonsense’ and designed to gag freedom of speech. Nick Griffin himself maintains: ‘I am not a fascist – that is a smear that comes from the far left.’ Why, he even avers that he ‘detests’ fascism. So that’s alright, then.
I suspect that his personal track record on this score is sufficiently, ahem, compromised to mean that he would have little chance of success. But say he is succeeded by a squeaky clean member of the BNP’s so-called civic nationalist wing, with no personal history of hanging out with boot boy bands and holocaust denial.
Say the new guy was savvy enough to recruit a few token blacks and Asians, in line with Equality and Human Rights Commission requirements, and to insert a clause in the BNP constitution explicitly disavowing fascist aspirations.
Then say somebody used the F-word. Maybe a small far left paper, maybe a moderate Labour or Lib Dem politician speaking on the Today programme, perhaps a blogger. All of a sudden, the writ hits the fan.
There can be little doubt that to call someone a fascist tends to lower them in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, as the legal definition of defamation goes.
If the BNP took on an aggressively sharp QC, victory could not be ruled out. The damages awarded might well prove minimal, but that would be beside the point. The BNP’s aim would have been fully achieved.
I write, of course, after Stephen Pollard and the Spectator have published an apology to Islam Expo Limited, after describing that company as ‘a fascist party dedicated to genocide’ which organised a conference with ‘a racist and genocidal programme’.
I am at a loss to imagine what can have been going through the mind of an experienced journalist and editor when writing such words. Islam Expo, as I understand it, is an exhibition held from time to time at London’s Ally Pally, complete with talks from Ken Livingstone and the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens.
Whatever one’s view of the political or musical merits of such luminaries, the degree of hyperbole involved in painting such a shindig as a Nuremburg rally in favour of rampant genocidaires is truly astonishing. Coming to an out of court settlement was assuredly a prudent course for Pollard and the magazine in question.
My assumption is that the entry of term ‘Islamofascism’ into common usage in recent years left them with a false sense of security that the charge can freely be directed against anybody and everybody of Muslim faith of whom they happen to disapprove.
The very designation is incoherent. While there demonstrably are political Islamist movements with programmes expressly advocating totalitarian theocracy – including the destruction of leftist parties and independent trade unionism – the class dynamics involved to not fit the template of European fascism.
If Pollard wishes effectively to oppose such movements, he should stop frothing at the mouth like the deranged neocon he has sadly become, and develop a more sober analysis of these currents rather than excoriate the moderates behind Islam Expo, who are simply acting to further dialogue between their version of Islamism and the British body politic.
Regular readers will appreciate that I am no fan of the libel laws, which are in urgent need of radical reform. But Islam Expo was in this instance right to utilise them.
The inherent danger is that Pollard’s stupidity in shouting ‘Islamofascist! Islamofascist!’ at those who are patently nothing of the kind could pave the way for those who very clearly are fascists to enhance their duplicitous denials before the courts.
<<Go back
Comments
17 Responses to “Stephen Pollard/Spectator: yes, it is libellous to brand Muslims fascists”
Leave a Reply
Dave. The word fascist originates from the Italian 20th century regime. According to the Oxford dictionary it includes being authoritarian. It does not mention so called left or right. Maybe any authoritarian regime could then be described as fascist. There are Islamic groups that preach Islamic authoritarianism. It is silly to call an organisation fascist unless you can produce specific evidence. The BNP may well start taking people to court in the future. I have noted that when Harry’s Place makes comment about individual Islamists they tend to back it up with evidence.
I’m no lawyer, but I thought you could only libel individuals, not organisations. Although I suppose someone could pursue an action on the basis that they are being libelled by virtue of having been described as a member of a fascist organisation.
In any case, the law courts are no place to fight the fash. Expect no justice there. We must take our fight with them out onto the streets.
@ Cary Grants Wedding. Is that the white fash we’re to fight on the streets or the islamic fash?
@ Michael Osler. Oh what a ruse!
Currently, I can only endorse a street confrontation with the “white fash” because – unlike the so-called “Islamic fash” – they threaten to occupy the discursive space which should rightly be occupied by socialists (see the whole “British jobs for British workers” farce and so on.)
The confrontation between socialists and fascists has a critical function in the class struggle that, in truth, really doesn’t compare with any quibbles we might have with religious fundamentalists, “femi-nazis”, animal rights terrorists or whatever.
Hope that satisfies.
The judgement is here.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2011.html
“The very designation is incoherent. While there demonstrably are political Islamist movements with programmes expressly advocating totalitarian theocracy – including the destruction of leftist parties and independent trade unionism – the class dynamics involved to not fit the template of European fascism”:
…eh, Dave: what about “Clerical fascism”, that Trotsky discussed in the context of Ireland, and Cliff in thed context of the Muslim Brotherhood?
Without getting to the ins and outs of calling someone a ‘fascist’ the retraction from the Spectator says:
We are not talking about a loose and fanciful use of the term ‘fascist’. The original article talked about “a fascist party dedicated to genocide”. How that can be ‘unintended’ is a mystery. The problem is that mud sticks, and Pollard will carry on with his lies, after all, that’s job.
after all, that’s job.
Should have said: ‘that’s his job’.
“If Pollard wishes effectively to oppose such movements, he should stop frothing at the mouth like the deranged neocon he has sadly become, and develop a more sober analysis of these currents rather than excoriate the moderates behind Islam Expo, who are simply acting to further dialogue between their version of Islamism and the British body politic.”
The evidence for Islamic Expo Limited being a clerical fascist party with a racist and genocidal programme is certainly rather questionable.
I also think you are right that whatever passes for a legal team at the BNP will indeed be looking at this judgement very carefully to exploit the political immunity it bestows upon any organisation with the nous to establish a limited company to hide behind.
But seriously what is your evidence for Islamic Expo being moderates or for Islamic Expo being an event which is primarily about dialogue with the British body politic (whatever the fuck that is?)?
And if it is what are the likes of Stockholm Syndrome poster-girl Yvonne Ridley doing there?
Roger, shut up, keep your problems to yourself.
Lobby Ludd,
Given that Islamic Expo is a relatively large event it is inevitable that at least some of the participants are ‘moderate’.
Also given that at least some of its activities are labelled as ‘seminars’ or ‘debates’ there must be some actual dialogue going on – at least between the likes of on the one hand Salma Yaqoob and on the other Ken Livingstone – although that doesn’t really seem to represent more than a tiny fraction of the ‘body politic’.
But equally it does year-on-year give the stage to the likes of Ms Ridley – who last time I checked was still a paid employee of the Iranian propaganda machine (AKA ‘Press TV’).
And if the Iranian dictatorship isn’t the very definition of modern clerical fascism and demonstrably one of those ‘political Islamist movements with programmes expressly advocating totalitarian theocracy – including the destruction of leftist parties and independent trade unionism’ – and moreover one that has passed far far beyond mere advocacy and killed literally thousands of leftists and trade unionists (not to mention feminists and liberals and democrats and racial and religious minorities) – then who the fuck is?
FWIW I actually agree with Comrade Osler that we should indeed be far more discriminating about the different classes and levels of clerical-reactionary politics represented at something like Islamic Expo – and as far as their are real moderates represented at such an event and are arguing with the would be stoners and head choppers and suicide bombers we obviously should be ‘supporting’ them.
But given that they neither know or care what a few ageing lefties viciously arguing with each other in blog comment boxes think, this proposition seems so abstract to be meaningless.
My ‘problem’ as you call it is that to me the claim that such a gathering is ipso facto ‘moderate’ because some ‘moderates’ attend it is as obviously erroneous as HP’s, Pollard and the Spectator’s claim that it represents a single unified clerical fascist party with a racist and genocidal programme because people who are well-known to be clerical fascist supporters of racist genocide are also given a platform there.
But clearly you speak from personal experience and have attended many past Islamic Expos yourself and can tell us all about the fascinating eirenic dialogues you participated in there?
This is the second time Stephen Pollard – or his publications – has had to pay out for libelling Muslim organisations, the first concerned Interpal I believe. Though not perhaps as wild as his accusations in this case seem to have been, it did lead to the Jewish Chronicle, of which Pollard is editor, having to pay out a large sum to aforesaid charity.
Indeed at this rate his name will soon be inscribed in the book of generous benefactors to the Islamic cause and welfare.
Meanwhile, the chances of making a sensible and credible criticism of Islamic institutions gets set back, not to mention the achievement of trust and good relations between communities. The bigots and really reactionary elements, within as well as against Muslim communities, are laughing.
Mind you, if one wonders about Stephen Pollard’s standing as a user of historical allusions, one must bear in mind that earlier in his career he was co-author of a pamphlet suggesting the National Health Service had affinities with Nazism – a theme that was taken up in the United States by opponents of public healthcare.
I don’t give a toss about the Spectator, it has a record of purveying prejudice of one kind or another, whatever its upper class gentlemanly language. But I do hope the Jewish Chronicle, which used to call itself “the organ of British Jewry” and aspire to be a quality paper, will encourage Mr.Pollard to move on.
Yes the likes of Ms Ridley, that evil stain on the face of humanity!! Burn the witch!!!
I attended an Islamic Expo about three years ago. I had taken my daughter to an anime fest at the Docklands and it was held in the same conference centre. Si, I sneaked into the Islam Expo. Mostly timeshares in Dubai, prayer mats and financial services. I attended one of the lectures, a rather thin and sad man was droning on on the stage, turned out he was Jermaine Jackson (or whatever he is called these days(. All in all it struck me as ratehr pathetic. Most of the Muslim there were non-assimilated in dress, and also in politics I imagine. Isn’t it teh case though that it is organzed by the Islamic Channel? And, isn’t one of the directors wanted for terrorism in Syria or someplace? I agree, it’s hyperbole to argue that it is a ‘fascist party’, but we should always exose their vicious anti-working class politics. Better to deal with specifics anyway, rather than windy abstractions.
Pollard was on Radio 4 a couple of nights ago presenting a case for all public arts funding to be ended, in particular singling out the training of fire-eaters as an objectionable waste. Perhaps some training on how not to burn your face off might be useful after all.
I just wanted to add, that my impression at the Islamexpo was that it was really for international consuption and not domestic. The rally in the main conference hall was being beamed to other Islamic countries (Morooco was mentioned) and they kept stressing this, so I take it that it was part of a propaganda drive to impress supporters in far flung corners of the world.
Apologies over a mistake in my previous comment. It was not Pollard and the Jewish Chronicle which had to pay libel damages to Interpal, but the Sunday Express.
http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/7042/interpal_wins_high_court_case_against_sunday_express_claims_of_terror_links