The BBC have given £45,000 to the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, Muhammad Abdul Bari, to settle a legal case brought by him against the BBC for comments made by Charles Moore on Question Time in March. Charles Moore accused the MCB “leadership” of failing to condemn attacks on British soldiers, thereby implicitly condoning them, and this was deemed libellous of Mr Bari.
I read Cranmer’s response to it, and it simply reinforced my sense that a wrong had been done. The big question seems to be why the BBC so tamely ponied up telly-taxpayer’s money and imply that even mild indirect criticism of Islam is not within the law in the UK. I understand from Cranmer’s comments that Mr Moore is seeking legal advice of his own. The BBC don’t mention him in their own report, possibly mindful of such escalation, but it seems to me this is an attack on the mildest kind of free speech, and the BBC are binding themselves to being wary of who they allow to speak on the BBC. We often express dismay at the liberal-leftist consensus which the BBC supports by stacking their panels with centre-leftists; here the BBC are accepting legal reinforcement of their natural instincts; perhaps it’s no wonder they surrender so meekly to the heap big chief of the MCB.
Needless to say, the libel lawyers in this case were Carter-Ruck, tyrants of the UK libel laws renowned for squeezing money out of the flimsiest cases of offence and reputational damage. What a bunch of evil shysters they are.
Op, Have you looked at Harry’s Place?
Just come out of sarky mode for a second, and stop this ridiculous indignation that anyone should doubt the peaceful nature of the Muslim leaders of the MCB.
The MCB had the flimsiest case, if it had one at all. It wouldn’t stand a chance before a ‘normal’ judge.
MCB members had often expressed ‘unpatriotic’ views and even if Bari himself hadn’t personally advocated attacking British soldiers, he had turned a blind eye when his MCB colleagues had done so. Also, many things he has said previously indicate where his sympathies lie.
“We appear to have learnt very little from our history of interfering in other countries, and I believe, history in turn, will not look very kindly at our recent actions.”
But in any case, Charles Moore spoke about MCB leaders. Bari himself admits Moore didn’t name him personally. When, for example, MCB member Daud Abdullah expressed objectionable views and got into a spat with Hazel Blears, he refused to resign from the MCB, and threatened to sue her.
Despite the Guardian’s:
……”Blears's statement has sparked outrage across the religious and political divide, while a letter in the Guardian last week, signed by figures including Ken Livingstone and Tony Benn, urged the government to "end its attack on Dr Abdullah and reinstate its relations with the MCB".Abdullah's lawyers have told Blears that unless she issues a retraction and apology by 15 April they will issue proceedings for libel.”
Hazel Blears stood her ground! “See you in court!” said her solicitors, whereupon the MCB went quiet.
The oddest thing was that Moore’s fellow QT panellist Baroness Warsi was adamant that the MCB doesn’t represent the “Muslim community” at all, and that no-one speaks for Muslims. You agree.
All these wretched leaders are wasting their wrath preaching hatred, anger and incitement to self-explode. Apparently no-one listens to them because individual Muslims are such independent thinkers, and perfectly capable of deciding to be ‘nutters’ all by themselves.
If anyone committed a libel against the MCB or damaged their reputation, she did, in no uncertain terms. If Bari had a legitimate complaint, it was surely against her. Or the BBC for letting her broadcast her ridiculous opinions. But that would have been even more absurd.
The reason the BBC was advised to make the pre-emptive payout was probably because of the past record of the presiding judge. With him in charge, a bad outcome was more or less a foregone conclusion. So for that reason you were correct in your original comment about saving money. But what a farcical situation.
The solicitors at Carter Ruck who have managed to blag awards of hundreds and thousands of pounds compensation to “wrongly accused” terrorist suspects are taking tremendous advantage of the politically correct, nay, phobic, horror of being found guilty of the shame that dare not speak its name. Islamophobia.
Horror! Anything but that! Far more of a defamation than being accused of being a terrorist. Hands up who’d rather be accused of being a terrorist than an Islamophobe. The former might even be regarded as a badge of honour, like an asbo.
I wonder if anyone could pursuade these legal wizards to extract some compensation for being “wrongly accused” of that heinous crime. Your honour, how dare anyone call me an Islamophobe! terrible damage to the reputation m’lord. I can’t be that!. And, to prove it, there’s no such thing. Gimme £700,000. For my charity.
@Sue
You're voting for Option 2 – the "he's a Muslim ferchrissake" amendment, then. Uncanny that I predicted that.
Don't you think?
Opinionated, you never answer any of the substantive points your critics make! You just pick on a tiny, usually irrelevant detail and focus on that. How about trying to rebut some of Sue's main points in her last post.
Op,
What a cop-out.
It’s entirely predictable that you would squeeze this complex problem into two petulant and suit-yourself options.
Why not address any of the points in any of my posts or comments for a change?
I’ll make another uncanny prediction. You won’t.
Hatethebias,
Quite.
Didn't see your comment. technical problems.
Opiniated has as usual replaced substantive argument with pointless meaningless sarcasm.
I suggest he will be a welcome addition to our blog as a verbal punching post.
@Sue
Seeing as you ask so nicely:
UK libel law is restrictive on freedom of speech in the absolute sense. Its priority, though, is allowing people to get redress when their reputations are unfairly damaged.
The costs of fighting a writ are horrendous but they get even worse once you commit to court. A couple of years back, two big UK media companies were determined to duke out a libel case. Yet they abandoned the whole thing, reaching a messy settlement once they accepted that whoever lost would likely pay over £8 million, the vast majority of it in costs, not damages. (Neither of them was the BBC)
The BBC has long experience of libel and will defend cases where it has a decent chance of winning. But it is foolish to go to court if your chances aren't good.
You, Harry's Place and most of the dimmer commentators on here, assume that the MCB's equivocal views on matters like Iraq mean that none of its leaders deserve any kind of reputation and that the BBC could defend a case hands down.
Alas, there's a world of difference between a general unhappiness at the MCB and a specific allegation that the leadership "say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing to kill or kidnap British soldiers", as Moore did.
Despite all Harry's harrumphing, he comes up with nothing to suggest that Abdul Bari, the most identifiable MCB leader, has ever supported killing and kidnapping UK troops. This is a problem, because Group Libel comes into play. This long-established concept says that an individual can sue for libel if something damaging is said about a small group of people when he is identifiably one of them. This might seem weird, but imagine that you are on a charitable committee and someone publicly claims that one of you has been stealing donations. There may well be a rotten apple on your committee, but until they are caught, suspicion will also fall on you and unfairly wreck your good name…
The Blears case illustrates how someone can have their say by behaving within legal advice. She said what was provably true – that Abdullah had signed the Istanbul declaration – and based her criticism of the MCB on that. Unlike Moore.
The grand conspiracy theory that the Beeb rolled over to give Bari £45k fails to stand up on any number of grounds. Not least that in media-land a reputation for settling too easily inevitably attracts more libel chancers willing to push for their bit of cash.
In any event, if the BBC wanted to give Bari or the MCB some dosh, why wouldn't they just hire them to front a documentary, make a series of speeches or give them some politically-correct consultancy on equal rights?