Lord Lester publishes his private member’s defamation bill on Thursday. In The Times this morning he argues libel must be rebalanced in the scales of justice; our present laws have a chilling impact on free speech — the lifeblood of democracy.
Lester acknowledges there will be resistance from the legal profession.
Until now, libel law has remained the preserve of a small group of lawyers skilled in its complex rules and procedures. It has been left to judges to fashion the law, in concert with some piecemeal reforms in the 1950s and 1990s that never addressed free speech and could not have anticipated a culture of online publication and debate.
In an interview with BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Lester outlines the changes he wants to see made to current laws.
I’ve just got back from the courts, where Mr Justice Eady has put a permenant stay on the case of Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj v Hardeep Singh.
British Sikh journalist Hardeep Singh had written an article for the UK-based Sikh Times in August 2007, in which he was highly critical of India-based Jeet Singh, who he described as – among other things –being “one of several high-profile accused Cultists who are causing difficulties for the [Sikh] community worldwide.”
Now, I can entirely understand someone taking offence to being called a cultist. But Mr Justice Eady in blocking the case made the entirely right decision, pointing out that whether Jeet Singh was or was not within the mainstream of Sikhism was a matter that should not, and could not, be decided by the courts. Had the case continued, we would have found ourselves in the bizarre position of a secular court making a judgment on a religious dispute. Religions are ideologies that evolve through debate. They will split, schism and reform as members argue about meanings. The state and the judiciary have no part in any of this. To paraphrase the First Amendment, the judiciary should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Mr Justice Eady today put a permanent stay on a libel case brought by an Indian holy man against British journalist Hardeep Singh.
Mr Eady ruled that a 2007 article in the UK-based Sikh Times, in which Singh implied Sikh holy man Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj was a “cultist”, could not be judged in a libel court, as it was an argument of religious doctrine rather than establishment of fact.
England has become the leading destination for libel suits. Though in some cases libel law is a safeguard from dishonest and irresponsible information being published, English libel law is increasingly being used as a tool for censorship.
There can be many dilemmas when attempting to strike a balance with a responsible, professional and free press; however, there should never come a point when large corporations and organisations stifle the opinions and research of an individual writer simply because of a disagreement. So does the UK need a first amendment-style protection of free expression?
The US constitution is one of the first documents to state fundamental human rights. The very first amendment covers freedom of speech, press, religion and petition. Such a guarantee of rights is often portrayed as uniquely American, but its roots stretch beyond the shores of Massachusetts and Plymouth Rock.
Magna Carta Liberatum (The Great Charter of Freedoms) was the very first document to limited the powers of an English king. The document that held the English king under law was the first to state the protection of existing fundamental human rights: habeas corpus, protection of private property, reasonable limit on taxes and some promise to freedom of religion. These first documented human rights have influenced, and are the cornerstone of, other English language constitutions: such as the US constitution. The American legacy of free speech is steeped in the great British tradition.
An awareness of this tradition of freedom and the innate sense of democratic right that was exercised with great fervour during the general election, demonstrates that the people of this country truly have a right to responsibly choose and express their own opinions and beliefs. Reformation on UK libel laws should follow the great British tradition, that we so inherently understand; freedom and fairness.
