Martin 'The Great Koran Con Trick' Bright criticises MCB libel win

Monday, 20 July 2009 16:08

Martin Bright (pictured) comments in the Spectator blogs on the MCB’s libel win against the BBC last week.

He quotes from Nick Cohen's column in The Observer: ‘The exorbitant costs of libel actions are far beyond the means of all academics and, increasingly, most newspapers...’

Bright argues, 'With large organisations consistently folding to the merest whiff of a threat from Carter Ruck, free speech (and the scientific principle) is seriously under threat. The latest to pay up is the BBC, which has just settled with the MCB's "Secretary General" Muhammad Abdul Bari. It is now the case that local newspapers almost never fight libel actions and it won't be long before the same is the case for our struggling nationals.'

It’s worth pointing out that libel action is a very costly enterprise for individuals as well as for local or national newspapers. The MCB was only able to successfully defend itself because their lawyers operate a ‘no win, no fee’ policy so that justice is accessible for those with limited financial means, a policy that is conditioned by the merits of the case in question.

It’s not difficult to see why Bright should take objection to the MCB defending itself against the slanderous comments made by Charles Moore. Bright himself is no stranger to making controversial allegations about the Qur'an, Muslims and the MCB.

Bright cites a parliamentary debate initiated by Denis MacShane MP on ‘libel tourism’ and reform of the UK’s libel laws.

MacShane proposes that libel law be reformed such that ‘damages should not be greater than £10,000 and costs should have to be met by the plaintiff with conditional fees available only to those who would qualify for legal aid.’

If Bright’s contention, and that of Cohen, is that the poor are at the mercy of the powerful in bringing defamation cases to court, it’s difficult to see how limiting availability of ‘no win, no fee’ arrangements, and capping damages at £10,000, would work to their advantage.

MacShane also goes on to criticise the Guardian’s Comment is Free website where he says, ‘the editors allow anonymous hate mailers to defame and insult people in a frightening manner. A simple rule might be to demand the publication of names and addresses, except where for good reason, as in a newspaper letters column, a name and address is withheld. Internet anonymity is now used too much to protect hate speech and defamatory insults.’

Contrast that to his mention of ‘the political website, Harry’s Place’, which, presumably, is innocent of the criticisms levelled at the Guardian’s CiF. ENGAGE readers will be familiar with the anti-Muslim vitriol that is par for the course at Harry's Place.

Bright cites Cohen, who states that, ‘We should have free debate on matters of public importance, as long as writers are not malicious and do not display a wild disregard for the truth.’

Given that ‘display a wild disregard for the truth’, was just what Moore did on Question Time, something the BBC acknowledged in its statement in open court, why does Bright find the BBC settlement with the MCB distasteful? Surely not because the MCB stood firm and challenged those that seem to delight in trying to unfairly malign Islamic organisations?

Comments

Add New

Haroon - Islamophobia Watch on Bright

|2009-07-27 03:23:41

There is a good post on Islamophobia Watch about Martin Bright here:-

http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/2009/7/24/martin-bright-threatens-legal-action-against-engage.html

Write comment

Name:

Email:

Website:

Title:

UBBCode: