23 Apr 10 | Index Index, minipost
The Belarusian Prosecutors Office has said that violent interrogation of journalists is legitimate, report Charter 97, Index on Censorship Freedom of Expression Award nominees.
The Belarusian Association of Journalists wrote an open letter to the Prosecutor in March condemning the use of violent interrogation and beatings of journalists as part of the investigation into an alleged case of slander against the former head of the KGB in the Gomel region, Ivan Korzh. Internet reports alleged that KGB officers had fabricated a case against a police officer, and abused him. In early March, the offices of Charter 97 and European Belarus were raided by the police who confiscated equipment and assaulted staff.
15 Apr 10 | Uncategorized
This article first appeared on liberty central
Simon Singh’s bogus journey has finally come to an end. Almost two years to the day since Singh first wrote an article in the Guardian questioning the claims made for spinal manipulation by the British Chiropractic Association, the organisation has dropped its libel case.
There is no way the BCA could have anticipated what would follow from bringing their claim against Singh. In the last year, Singh’s case has become a rallying point for free expression organisations such as Index on Censorship (who formed the libel reform coalition last December with Sense About Science and English PEN), scientists, bloggers, comics, and what Ian Sample described in the Guardian this week as a “rising army of sceptics“.
One in four British chiropractors is now under investigation by the General Chiropractic Council following a campaign by Singh’s sceptical supporters. Singh was brave in standing up to the BCA. But he was exemplary in insisting from day one that the case was not just about him. The absurdity of this case highlighted to many the injustices of English libel law, from the grossly inflated costs, to the utter inadequacy of our concepts of fair comment and public interest. In the court of appeal ruling handed down on 1 April, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge emphasised that Singh had written an honest opinion, based on reasons, and suggested that this should be the future template for “fair comment” defences.
This is a day to celebrate for anyone interested in free expression in England and beyond. In fact, it has been an amazing week for libel reform campaigners: as the main political parties rolled out their manifestos, all three made commitments to libel reform. Meanwhile, the petition for reform passed 50,000 signatures.
What we should not imagine for one moment is that the BCA climbdown suggests that our libel laws work. The case has taken up masses of time and energy for all concerned. Meanwhile, NMT’s case against Peter Wilmshurt, another clear demonstration of the law meddling with medical science, rumbles on. And the solicitors’ letters keep turning up in the mailboxes of writers, bloggers and activists without the nerve or resources of Simon Singh.
Free expression in the UK remains threatened. Next week, the Libel Reform Coalition hosts a hustings at the Free Word Centre in London, where all three parties will be grilled on their commitment to free speech. Manifesto pledges are one thing; but we must continue to push for a genuine rethinking of UK citizens’ ability under the law to debate, argue and learn.
15 Apr 10 | Uncategorized
Busy times for Carter-Ruck of late. While the thoughts of the nation turn wearily to the general election campaign, the UK’s two top political magazines have been crossing swords with the UK’s top libel lawyers.
In today’s Spectator, editor Fraser Nelson reveals his ongoing battles with Charlie Whelan, former spin doctor for Gordon Brown and current political director of the powerful Unite union. Whelan, through Carter-Ruck, threatened legal action against the right-leaning magazine after it, er, claimed he had acted like a bully.
Nelson writes on the Spectator’s Coffee House blog
Last summer, The Spectator received a letter from Charlie Whelan’s solicitors complaining about this post – where we mention their client’s spot of bother with his colleagues at Unite. Carter-Ruck were instructed on one of the no-win-no-fee deals: it cost Whelan nothing to sue, but could cost us thousands to defend. So the lawyer’s letter is, by itself, an effective form of intimidation.
Meanwhile, over at Carter-Ruck’s own website, we have this little snippet about the Spectator’s left-wing rival, the New Statesman:
Daniel Hannan MEP – An Apology
The New Statesman has apologised to Daniel Hannan, the Conservative MEP for Southeast England, in respect of defamatory allegations published on its website on 18 September 2009. The New Statesman has also paid Mr Hannan damages together with his legal costs.
The payout comes after a suggestion in a web article by James MacIntyre, suggesting the maverick Tory MEP may have made a racist comment about President Obama.
As mentioned yesterday, Traditional Ulster Voice’s Jim Allister, a QC, is threatening defamation action against North Antrim rival Ian Paisley Jr over information on an election leaflet.
Suggestion: shouldn’t our politicos stick to battling at the ballot box rather than the high court?
15 Apr 10 | News and features, Uncategorized
All the major political parties now back libel reform — and the Libel Reform campaign celebrates 50,000 signatures in support of change
The Libel Reform Campaign welcomes manifesto commitments to reform England’s libel laws from all three of Britain’s main political parties. On Monday, the Labour party pledged to reform libel laws in their manifesto, followed by the Conservative party on Tuesday and the Liberal Democrats today. The focus now shifts to ensuring the politicians act on their commitments and to the substance of the reforms.
The Libel Reform Campaign has highlighted the chilling effect that our libel laws have on freedom of expression in the UK and overseas. This morning the campaigns petition received its 50,000th signature calling for libel reform, to sign up visit www.libelreform.org .
The Manifesto Pledges
The Labour party manifesto released on 12 April said:
To encourage freedom of speech and access to information, we will bring forward new legislation on libel to protect the right of defendants to speak freely.
The Conservative party manifesto released on 13 April said:
We will review and reform libel laws to protect freedom of speech, reduce costs and discourage libel tourism.
The Liberal Democrat party manifesto released on 14 April said:
[We will] Protect free speech, investigative journalism and academic peer-reviewed publishing through reform of the English and Welsh libel laws — including by requiring corporations to show damage and prove malice or recklessness, and by providing a robust responsible journalism defence.
The Libel Reform campaign says
Jo Glanville, the Editor of Index on Censorship said:
Now we have a commitment to reform through the Parliamentary process, we need to ensure that we get the type of robust reform that will entrench the fundamental right to freedom of expression for writers, human rights activists, scientists and academics and not watered-down reforms that well-paid lawyers will slowly dilute further.
Jonathan Heawood, the Director of English PEN said:
Through strength of argument and strength of numbers we have persuaded all three major political parties that it’s time to reform our libel laws. These cross-party manifesto commitments will ensure that even in the event of a hung parliament, there is one thing the next government will agree on: libel reform.
Tracey Brown, the Managing Director of Sense About Science said:
The political parties have agreed with our campaign and said enough is enough, we simply can’t continue with our unfair and ridiculed libel laws. We need freedom of speech that we can exercise confidently, to discuss science and medicine or any other subject of public interest. Not semi-feudal laws that tie people up in court for two years and chill public discussion.
