Trying to put an end to the courtroom jihad against free speech. "Denmark wants Brussels to stop UK Mohammed cartoon lawsuit," by Leigh Phillips for the EUObserver, March 16 (thanks to John):
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - The Danish minister of justice has called on the European Commission to put a stop to a lawsuit by a Saudi lawyer who is using the UK's famously libel-happy courts to go after Danish newspapers for their publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed."It's fundamentally reasonable that judgments in the EU can often be exercised across borders," the minister, Lars Barfoed, said according to the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.
"But it would be taking it to the extreme if a UK court could rule against the Danish media and then require compensation and court costs to be paid." [...]
And there is that small matter of free speech:
The British government for its part recognises there is a problem.A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The government is concerned about any potential chilling effect that our libel laws are having on freedom of speech. In response to the concerns that have been expressed, the justice secretary has set up a working group to examine a range of issues around the substantive law on libel."
In addition, three weeks ago the country's Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee published the report of its inquiry into libel, which criticised the current situation.
"The government is considering this report and the recommendations that it makes very carefully," the spokesperson said.
Good for Denmark, but, I am curious as to whether this lawsuit has any chance of proceeding beyond the initial stages even in England. Even if the cartoons are defamatory of Mohammed, that in itself would be no cause of action since he is deceased. The suit rests on the claim that defamation of Mohammed constitutes defamation of his living descendants, which is extremely doubtful. In a US court, I doubt that this suit would survive the defense's motion for summary judgment. Is there any chance of an English court accepting this argument?
That "Saudi lawyer" is none other than Ahmed Zaki Yamani, former Saudi oil minister. Remember how the political and business leaders in Europe and the United States fell over themselves trying to win his favor, when he made what J. B. Kelly identified as a "royal progression" through Europe accepting the tribute of the natives? It was in the 1970s, and Yamani was everywhere, smiling, dodging, weaving, telling us that if only we behaved we might be allowed to buy Saudi oil at the market price. It was all nonsense -- see J. B. Kelly, "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West" -- but not understood as such, nor was there understanding of the blague that the Arabs routinely offer, and that so often is accepted as truth by credulous Westerners (see General Petraeus, who apparently believes what Arab leaders tell him with such deep sincerity).
Hmmm. What if I, a fat, balding, middle-aged Christian American nobody, started suing European and North American comedians, authors, and filmmakers because their anti-Christian blather offends and hurts me? How much could I get out of Margaret Attwood for her modern-day blood libel in _Handmaid's Tale_, I wonder? I'm sure that a lot of the EU, Canadian, and left-leaning US judges would suddenly "discover" deep and far-reaching free speech provisions in their various national constitutions.
If I had a few million to blow away, I might just do such a thing, if only because I value free speech and would expect to lose.
....the justice secretary has set up a working group to examine a range of issues around the substantive law on libel.
May want to start with how it pertains directly to works of fiction such as religious doctrine.
Have your deity show him or herself and we can have a basis for discussion on how hurt his or her feelings are.
defamation of mohammed
[rolls_eyes]
His supposed legacy is defamation enough for anyone with a modicum of intellect.
Why do I bother remembering anything in detail? There's always wikipedia.But then, I first had to know about this particular fellow to know to look him up. Who could forget?
"He is best known for his role during the 1973 oil embargo, when he spurred OPEC to quadruple the price of crude oil. During that time, Yamani gained a colourful international reputation, known in the West for both diplomatic skills and characteristic goatee.
In December 1975, Yamani and several other OPEC ministers were taken hostage by notorious terrorist Carlos (the Jackal) in Vienna, Austria. He was later released after Carlos spent two days riding an airplane across the Middle East even though Carlos was ordered by his superiors to execute Yamani."
Hugh, you mix up father and son. The lawyer in question is the oldest son of the former Saudi oil minister, Faisal, born in 1976.
The father, Ahmed Zaki Yamani, is born 1930, and probably too old for more oil jihad. ;-)
"And there is that small matter of free speech"
Americans need to understand that there is only ONE country in the world that has constitutionally protected "free speech", the USA. In the rest of the West, and particularly EU countries, "free speech" is like "free trade" meaning "mostly free". Even where a country has passed an Act protecting free speech, the caveats and exceptions are lengthy.
In Australia we generally rely on the common law recognition of free speech, but such speech is heavily impacted by defamation laws. Previously our defamation laws were state based, but now have been incorporated into federal laws. So much for the notion of a weak federal system and strong state systems.
The main weapon we have to protect our free speech common law rights is our repudiation of political correctness. Without this we would decline as quickly as Europe.
Is there not a way to finish with this stupid monstruosity ruled by the same old masonry and called the EU?
And btw, no vipers allowed in Eire, take your jihad tools somewhere else, please:
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh21/plotino_photos/STPATRICK.jpg
The fact that something so important is totally ignored by the lame stream media and our dead beat politicians is very worrisome indeed.
Here's one reason why that "lawyer", filing charges on behalf of the "descendants" of that mahound-thing, an A-rabian legend as real as Sasquatch, Bigfoot and the Easter Bunny, didn't try to pull this nonsense off through the Danish legal system:
Danish Peoples’ Party: Muslims must apologize!
Berlingske Tidende, September 8th 2009
By Troels Mylenberg
The Danish Member of Parliament Martin Henriksen suggests that Denmark demand of Islamic countries that they issue an apology for oppression of women, stoning and assaults on civil liberties.
As response to the frequent Islamic demands for apologies and withdrawals, the latest being from the Saudi lawyer Faisal A.Z. Yamani towards Danish newspapers reprinting the Muhammad cartoons, the Danish Peoples’ Party now takes aim in the opposite direction.
“I demand an apology for oppression of women, stoning, intimidation of adherents of other beliefs, violation of civil liberties, and not least the extensive contempt for Danish culture and democracy, Danes and Westerners, says social issues spokesman Martin Henriksen, who is seriously weary of Islamic countries and organisations repeatedly demanding Denmark and the Danes to apologize.
I’m happy for Denmark to have politicians capable of not being bound by PC MC rules, so that they can come out and fearlessly tell people nothing but the truth.
Re: Payingattention's claim that: "Americans need to understand that there is only ONE country in the world that has constitutionally protected "free speech", the USA."
Errr... NO.
AMERICANS HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AT ALL!
Pease see: Mall to Christians: God talk banned!
Rules challenged as violating 'principles of free expression'
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123535
Arguments have moved to the appellate court level in a California case in which a man who talked to two willing strangers in a shopping mall was arrested because the subject of the conversation was God.
Rumour has it that:
"...as the mall is private property, so its owners are entirely within their legal and moral rights to set whatever policies they wish on the matter. The mall cannot possibly violate the 1st amendment -- because the amendment is a limitation only on the power of the Federal government, not on free citizens (in this case the owner of the mall). A property owner's ban on speech is not
censorship. If you don't like it, you're free to leave his property and say your piece elsewhere unhindered. Censorship is the GOVERNMENT's prohibition of speech under threat of punishment by official force.
That last bit, that:
A" property owner's ban on speech is not censorship"
...is incredibly scary: how could the Americans, the alleged home of the Free and the Brave, limit themselves to corporate (or merely State-level) tyrannies that way?!
That they even have to debate this topic shows how far America has fallen!
ALL "real" Religions, AT WORST, only say:
"Obey our silly rules, or G*d (or 'the gods') will get you!"
ONLY islame says:
"Obey our sily rules, or WE will get you ("for our god")!
It's perfectly obvious that your so-sacred little "Constitution" is to blame for all this!
That simple administrative document IS what is "Protecting" islam: it protects it both as a 'Religion' because it has NO Definition of 'religion,' AND it also only limits your Federal Government ITSELF, from making ANY more laws limiting anyone's 'Free Speech' (and a religious corporation is an 'anyone' since Congress has made laws making companys into 'legally fictitious persons' after all LOL!) and since the muslims have enjoyed as 'free speech' for 1,400 years
what to everyone else is 'HATE-SPEECH,' your own Constitution is what limits your politicians from EVER criticizing islam!
THIS seems to be WHY none of your Federal politicians CAN comment on the dangers of islame in the media: they are simply not allowed to!
Talk about tying BOTH your own hands behind your back!
Imagine a million bored unemployed muslim youths suddenly deciding to join the USArmy! What could stop them?! Then imagine another - possibly NUCLEAR - Fort Hood scenario, using your own ordnance against you!
...
You Americans need to get your own house in order and do it pronto!!!
-AMEND your silly Constitution NOW!
;-)
I don't know about other countries, but in the Danish constitution is written in section 77;
"Anyone is entitled to, in printing, writing and speech, make his thoughts public, though under legal responsibility. Censorship and other preemptive measures can never again be reinstated"
This has been part of the Danish constitution since 1849, our first democratic constitution who came after the absolute monarchy that we had before. Under absolutism widespread censorship was common, but that can "never again be reinstated" as the constitution points out. I feel well protected by that.
I wouldn't feel protected AT ALL if I were you - just check out the so-called 'laws' they are persecuting Geert Wilders under; they read like sheerest insanity!
;-(
Son of Walker wrote:
In December 1975, Yamani and several other OPEC ministers were taken hostage by notorious terrorist Carlos (the Jackal) in Vienna, Austria. He was later released after Carlos spent two days riding an airplane across the Middle East even though Carlos was ordered by his superiors to execute Yamani."
.................
Dag, this put me in mind of this bit of insanity: Carlos the Jackal is currently suing a French production company for libel, on the grounds—I kid you not—that show they are doing violates his "biographical image".
The production company's lawyer responds:
"How could we tarnish the image of Carlos when he himself has claimed to be behind almost 2,000 deaths?" the company's lawyer, Richard Malka, asked."
Well—yeah.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/carlos-the-jackal-drama-sues